Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Montana

August 2011

Approved by

Stephen D. Guertin, Regional Director Date

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Prepared by

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

194 Bowdoin Auto Tour Road

Malta, Montana 59538

406 /654 2863

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 /236 8145

CITATION

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Comprehensive conservation plan: Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakewood, 

Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region. 276 p.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Montana

Submitted by

Carmen Luna Date

Refuge Manager

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Malta, Montana

Concurred with by

W. Dean Rundle Date

Refuge Supervisor, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, Colorado

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. 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 ....................................................... 3

Final Decision ................................................................................ 3

Plan Development ............................................................................. 4

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

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

1.3 North American Model of Wildlife Conservation ............................................... 4

1.4 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ...................................... 5

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

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

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

1.5 National and Regional Mandates ............................................................ 7

1.6 Contributions to National and Regional Plans ................................................. 8

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

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

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

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

Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan ...................................... 10

Montana Piping Plover Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage-Grouse in Montana .................................. 11

State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy ............................................. 12

1.7 Strategic Habitat Conservation .............................................................. 12

Climate Change .............................................................................. 14

1.8 Planning Process .......................................................................... 14

Coordination with the Public ..................................................................... 17

State Coordination ............................................................................ 18

Tribal Coordination ............................................................................ 18

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

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History .......................................... 19

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................. 20

Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................. 22

Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge .......................................................... 26

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................. 26

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................ 31

Bowdoin Wetland Management District ............................................................. 34

Summary of Land Acquisition History ............................................................... 39

2.2 Purposes .................................................................................. 40

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................. 40

Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................. 41

Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge .......................................................... 41
VI Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

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

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

 41

 41

 41

2.3 Vision ..................................................................................... 42

2.4 Goals ..................................................................................... 42

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

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

 42

 42

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

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

 42

 42

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

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

 42

 42

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

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

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

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

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

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

 43

 43

 43

 44

 45

 45

Conservation Easements ........................................................................ 45

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

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

 45

 45

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

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

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

Water Resources and Wetland Management at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge .............................

Salinity in Lake Bowdoin and Blowing Salts ..........................................................

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

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

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

 45

 45

 46

 47

 48

 49

 49

 49

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

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

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

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

 50

 50

 52

 53

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

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

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

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

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

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

 53

 53

 54

 54

 57

57

CHAPTER 3–Refuge Complex Resources and Description ....................................... 59

3.1 Physical Environment ....................................................................... 

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

59

 59

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

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

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

 62

 63

 63

Water Resources ............................................................................. 63

Air Quality .................................................................................. 73

3.2 Biological Resources .......................................................................

Uplands ....................................................................................

Wetlands ...................................................................................

 74

 74

 82

Riparian Areas ............................................................................... 93

3.3 Salinity Background ........................................................................

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

 94

 94

Principal Salts at Bowdoin Refuge ................................................................. 97
CONTENTS VII

Presettlement Salt Balance ...................................................................... 97

Postsettlement Salt Balance ..................................................................... 99

Current Salt Balance ........................................................................... 105

Water Supply ................................................................................ 108

3.4 State and Federal Listed Species ............................................................ 112

Piping Plover ................................................................................. 113

Plant Species ................................................................................ 113

Animal Species of Concern ...................................................................... 113

3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................... 114

Prehistoric Occupation .......................................................................... 114

Protohistoric and Historic Native Americans .......................................................... 115

Historic Euro-Americans ........................................................................ 115

History of Bowdoin Refuge Complex ................................................................ 116

3.6 Special Management Areas ................................................................. 117

Wilderness Review ............................................................................ 117

Important Bird Area ............................................................................ 118

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network ...................................................... 118

3.7 Visitor Services ............................................................................ 118

Hunting .................................................................................... 119

Fishing ..................................................................................... 121

Wildlife Observation and Photography .............................................................. 121

Environmental Education ........................................................................ 122

Interpretation ................................................................................ 122

3.8 Management Uses ......................................................................... 122

Cooperative Farming ........................................................................... 123

Prescribed Burning , Haying, and Grazing ............................................................ 123

3.9 Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................ 125

Population and Employment ...................................................................... 125

Public Use of the Refuge Complex ................................................................. 126

Baseline Economic Activity ...................................................................... 126

3.10 Partnerships ............................................................................... 127

3.11 Operations ................................................................................ 127

Staff ....................................................................................... 127

Facilities .................................................................................... 127

CHAPTER 4–Management Direction ............................................................ 129

4.1 Management Focus ........................................................................

Salinity and Blowing Salts .......................................................................

Divestiture of Lake Thibadeau Refuge ..............................................................

Refuge Complex Objectives and Strategies ...........................................................

 130

 130

 130

 131

4.2 Goal for Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife .............................................. 131

Native Grassland ............................................................................. 131

Disturbed Grassland ........................................................................... 135

4.3 Goal for Wetland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................. 136

Managed Wetlands ............................................................................ 137

Target Waterbird Species ....................................................................... 137

Wetland Habitat Objectives ...................................................................... 139

Avian Disease ................................................................................ 144

Piping Plover ................................................................................. 145

4.4 Objectives that Support the Goals for Upland and Wetland Habitats .............................. 147

Invasive and Nonnative Species ................................................................... 147

Wildfire Management .......................................................................... 153
VIII Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Habitat Protection and Acquisition ................................................................. 154

4.5 Goal for Salinity and Blowing Salts .......................................................... 161

Salt and Water Management ..................................................................... 161

Objectives for Salinity and Blowing Salts ............................................................ 165

4.6 Goal for Visitor Services and Cultural Resources .............................................. 170

Visitor Services ............................................................................... 170

Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 175

4.7 Goal for Partnerships ....................................................................... 176

Public, Government, and Industry Partners ........................................................... 176

4.8 Goal for Operations ......................................................................... 177

Staff ....................................................................................... 177

Facilities and Equipment ........................................................................ 179

4.9 Stepdown Management Plans ............................................................... 180

4.10 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation ........................................................ 181

4.11 Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Glossary ....................................................................................... 183

Appendixes

Appendix A–Environmental Compliance .............................................................. 191

Appendix B–Compatibility Determinations ............................................................ 195

Appendix C–Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ................................................ 209

Appendix D–Divestiture Model Results for Lake Thibadeau Refuge ........................................ 215

Appendix E–Public Involvement ..................................................................... 221

Appendix F–Key Legislation and Policy ............................................................... 235

Appendix G–Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination .................................................. 241

Appendix H–Species Lists ......................................................................... 245

Appendix I–Fire Management Program ............................................................... 259

Bibliography ................................................................................... 263

FIGURES

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis .............. 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Base map of Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ......................................... 30

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

13 Base map of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ....................................... 33

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

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

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

16 Map of waterfowl flyways in the United States ..................................................... 44

17 Map of critical habitat for piping plover at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ............. 51

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

19 Graph of total annual precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008) .............. 60

20 Graph of total February precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008) ............ 60

21 Graph of total June precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008) ............... 60

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

(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 61

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

(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 61

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

(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 61

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

(1969–2008) ................................................................................ 62

26 Map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex within the Milk River watershed ...................... 64

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

Creek watersheds ........................................................................... 65

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

Refuge, Montana ............................................................................ 69 

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

the landscape .............................................................................. 98

30 Map of the Milk River Project, Montana ........................................................... 103

31 Chart of sources of salts into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............................... 106

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

(1990–2007) ................................................................................ 107

33 Chart of sources of water into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .............................. 108

34 Map of water levels and salinity for Lake Bowdoin, Montana (1975–2007) ............................... 109

35 Graph of water deliveries to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1938–2008) ..................... 111

36 Map of current and planned public use sites and activities at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ..... 120

37 Graph of water depth and substrate preferences of shorebird foraging guilds ............................. 140

38 Map of Russian olive tree infestations in and around Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............ 149

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

Refuge, Montana ........................................................................... 150

40 Map of wetland density per square mile in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

41 Map of grassland density in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ........................ 159

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

protection priorities in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

43 Map of the extent of Lake Bowdoin at various water elevations ........................................ 163

44 Adaptive management process .................................................................. 181

45 Map of wetlands within 10 miles of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .................... 219

TABLES

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

2 Land acquisition history for refuges in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana (1937–1989) ...... 39

3 Land acquisition history for Bowdoin Wetland Management District, Montana (1977–2008) ................. 40

4 Water rights for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Phillips County, Montana ............................. 68

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

Complex, Montana .......................................................................... 71

6 Salinity categories and the corresponding ranges of specific conductance values .......................... 96
X Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

7 Base staff funded in fiscal year 2011 at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ............... 127

 8 Conservation status of target species of upland birds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana .... 132

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

Complex, Montana .......................................................................... 132

10 Conservation status of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ........... 138

11 Life history needs of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ..... 139

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

Refuge Complex, Montana .................................................................... 139

13 Partner agencies and expertise for the injection well project at Lake Bowdoin, Montana .................... 167

14 Current and additional staff for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana ...................... 178

15 Stepdown management plans for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana .................... 180
Summary

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a 

comprehensive conservation plan for the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex in Montana. The 

Regional Director of the Mountain–Prairie Region of 

the Service selected the following alternatives from 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment as the preferred alternatives, 

which have been combined to compose the final CCP:

■ Alternative B—overall refuge complex management 

■ Salinity Alternative 4—underground injection 

and flushing by Beaver Creek (addresses salinity) 

■ Lake Thibadeau Refuge Alternative 2—divest 

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge

The refuge complex covers 84,724 acres in north-central 

Montana, spread across Blaine, Hill, Phillips, and Valley 

Counties. With its headquarters near the town of Malta, 

the refuge complex comprises the following units:

■ Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge

■ Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, 

and Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges 

(unstaffed satellite refuges)

■ Bowdoin Wetland Management District—nine 

waterfowl production areas, refuge and flowage 

easements, wetland conservation easements, and 

grassland conservation easements

The Refuge Complex

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is 

within the Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains. 

While the five national wildlife refuges and the wetland management district were established under 

different authorities, they all have the overriding 

purpose of providing migration, nesting, resting, and 

feeding habitat for migratory birds.

The Bowdoin Refuge and waterfowl production 

areas in the Bowdoin District provide opportunities 

for the public to enjoy compatible wildlife-dependent 

public use activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation.

Chokecherry is a native shrub in the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex.

© Gary A. Monroe / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

!(

!( !( 

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

^_HELENA

CANADA

Malta Glasgow

£¤2

£¤2

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

Rb

Bozeman Billings

Gillette

Sheridan

Williston

Dickinson

Great Falls

Montana

Wyoming

North Dakota

South Dakota

Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex 

Headquarters

MONTANA
XII Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The Future of the Refuge 

Complex

The vision for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex is based on the establishing purposes of the 

refuge complex, resource conditions and potential, 

and the issues identified during the planning process. 

The goals were developed to meet the vision for the 

refuge complex.

Vision

Under seemingly limitless skies, Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

provides vast expanses of gently rolling 

native mixed-grass prairie, dotted with an 

array of diverse wetlands.

Recognized as one of the most 

important migratory bird refuges in 

the State of Montana, these habitats are 

managed to ensure that grassland- and 

wetland-dependent waterfowl, shorebirds, 

songbirds, and native wildlife 

species thrive.

Visitors recognize these unique and 

wondrous qualities and experience a sense 

of solitude and a connection to the land 

that fosters a desire to conserve 

this and other remnants of the 

northern Great Plains.

Goal for Upland Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife

Protect, enhance, and restore grassland habitat for 

breeding and migratory birds and other wildlife while 

maintaining the biological diversity and integrity of 

native prairie grasslands.

Goal for Wetland Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife

Provide, protect, and manage wetland habitat for 

breeding and migratory birds and other wildlife that 

maintains the biological diversity and integrity of 

prairie pothole wetlands.

Goal for Salinity and Blowing 

Salts

Develop a water management system on Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge that protects the environment and mitigates current and future blowing salt 

concerns for neighboring properties, while providing 

quality water and wildlife habitat for migratory birds 

and other wetland-dependent wildlife.

Goal for Visitor Services

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

education opportunities that foster an appreciation 

and understanding of the unique wildlife, plant communities, and cultural resources of the Montana Prairie Pothole Region.

Goal for Partnerships

Maintain and expand partnerships that preserve, 

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

Refuge and within Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District.

Goal for Operations

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

partnerships, and volunteer programs.

Marbled godwit and long-billed curlew are shorebirds 

that nest in native prairie at the refuge complex. 

© Michael Forsberg
SUMMARY XIII

Management of the Refuge 

Complex

The comprehensive conservation plan directs the 

management of the Bowdoin 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 wildlife, habitat, visitor services, and partnerships over the next 

15 years. As the plan is implemented, the Service will 

develop stepdown plans with details for carrying out 

the actions needed to achieve objectives.

Habitat and Wildlife

The Service will conserve natural resources within 

the Bowdoin Refuge Complex by restoring, protecting, and enhancing native mixed-grass prairie and by 

maintaining quality wetland habitat for target migratory birds, such as northern pintail, and resident 

birds. 

Uplands and Wetlands

Native prairie areas and wetlands are the most productive habitat types in Montana, particularly in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. Historically, the northern 

Great Plains was a grassland-dominated system. This 

large expanse of treeless prairie has been fragmented 

by cropland, shelterbelts, human settlement, and the 

uncontrolled spread of nonnative Russian olive. Native mixed-grass prairie will be protected, restored, 

and enhanced to provide quality nesting habitat for 

targeted grassland-dependent birds.

Enhanced wetlands will be managed to mimic 

natural conditions for target wetland-dependent migratory birds during migrations and breeding. 

In addition, the Service has committed to work 

with willing landowners in Montana to compensate 

them for protecting these habitats, primarily through 

perpetual wetland or grassland conservation easements.

Nonnative and Invasive Plants

Nonnative and invasive plants that are causing 

habitat losses and fragmentation will be controlled 

or eradicated. The refuge complex is constantly challenged to maintain its native grassland—critical to 

migratory birds—unfragmented by nonnative trees 

and shrubs. One of the most damaging species, Russian olive trees can take over and fragment native 

vegetation, interfere with nutrient cycling, damage 

water control structures 

and fences, and tax water reserves. These trees 

will be strategically removed and the treated 

sites will be monitored 

for reinvasion.

The Service will conduct research to control 

crested wheatgrass, an 

invasive grass, and restore treated areas. 

Leafy spurge, perennial 

pepperweed, and Canada 

thistle are the primary 

invasive forb species. 

Left unmanaged, these species can have a detrimental effect on the diversity of native plants, wildlife, 

and habitat quality.

© Cindie Brunner

Lake Bowdoin Salinity Levels

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

from Beaver Creek, ground water seepage, water 

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

add dissolved solids (salinity) to the refuge. As water 

evaporates from Lake Bowdoin’s closed system, salts 

become concentrated and water salinity increases. 

The progressively increasing salinity levels in Lake 

Bowdoin and the blowing salts out of Dry Lake 

threaten migratory birds and other wildlife, wetland 

habitats, and, potentially, neighboring landowners 

and downstream irrigators.

Management of salts at Bowdoin Refuge is tied to 

water management. To survive as a viable migratory 

bird refuge, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge needs 

more water and the means to reduce and dispose of 

saline water.

Long-term water management will be a flowthrough system where the refuge receives a sufficient 

quantity of water that could eventually spill into Beaver Creek, carrying (flushing) with it a quantity of 

salts equal to what has entered the refuge. This system will allow salts to pass through the refuge rather 

than accumulating in Lake Bowdoin, which will minimize blowing salt events and improve wildlife habitat. 

With the current salt concentrations, a flow-through 

system is not possible due to the potential environmental impacts to primarily downstream water users 

along Beaver Creek.

The short-term target for salt management is to 

use management action—an underground injection 

well to force saline water deep into the ground—to 

remove sufficient salts so the Service can release wa-
XIV Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

ter to Beaver Creek without significantly increasing 

the salinity of the creek water or negatively affecting 

downstream users. This will also prevent the salts 

in Lake Bowdoin from becoming extremely concentrated, which would negatively affect wetland habitat 

and wildlife.

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

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Visitor Services

An estimated 25,000 visitors come to explore the 

Bowdoin Refuge Complex annually. A major attraction for wildlife observers and hunters, the refuge 

complex is also popular with local school groups. 

Enhanced visitor services programs will provide 

more opportunity for visitors to learn about migratory shorebirds, waterfowl, and other wildlife species 

that rely on so many aspects of the native prairie. For 

self-guided visitors, the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge’s auto tour route offers excellent opportunities, including an upcoming new observation site, for 

viewing and photographing wildlife. These opportunities will lead to a greater understanding of the importance of conserving migratory birds and the unique 

mixed-grass prairie and wetlands.

A sanctuary area, closed to all foot traffic, will be 

created for waterfowl on the east half of the Bowdoin 

Refuge during the hunting season. The Service will 

work with the State to investigate the potential for 

offering a safe, compatible, and quality big-game hunt 

at Bowdoin Refuge.

Partnerships and Operations

The Bowdoin Refuge Complex manages or protects 

84,724 acres. The success of the plan’s increased efforts and programs depends of the Service’s ability to 

add staff and infrastructure, accomplish monitoring 

and research, and develop partnerships. The large size 

of the management area (four counties) requires long 

travel times for a limited staff. This makes it difficult 

to monitor units and conduct an effective habitat management program that can address challenging issues 

such as native grassland restoration.

Divestiture of Lake Thibadeau 

National Wildlife Refuge

The Service will divest the Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuge because of its lack of habitat. This 

limited-interest refuge offers little value to wildlife, 

and the purposes for which this area was first established in 1937 are no longer attainable. Native prairie 

areas are now farmed intensively. Due to upstream 

development, Lake Thibadeau, Grassy Lake, and 

Mud Lake are often dry and farmed in most years. 

The Service owns less than 1 percent of the lands 

within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary; 

the remaining private lands are encumbered by easements that do not prohibit development, grazing, or 

agricultural uses. 
Abbreviations

ac Acre

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

BAER Burned Area Emergency Response

BAR Burned Area Rehabilitation

CCP Comprehensive conservation plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs Cubic feet per second

cm Centimeter

CO2 Carbon dioxide

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

Compact Commission Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission

district Wetland management district

DEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

DNC Dense nesting cover

DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

EA Environmental assessment

EC Electrical conductivity

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESFO Ecological Services Field Office

°F Degrees Fahrenheit

FmHA Farmers Home Administration

ft Feet, foot

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GIS Geographic Information System

GLO General Land Office

gpm Gallons per minute

GPS Global Positioning System

GS General Schedule (pay)

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

MBOGC Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation

mg/L Milligrams per liter

mmhos/cm Millimhos per centimeter

MOA Memorandum of agreement

MOU Memorandum of understanding

mS MilliSiemens

MSGWG Montana Sage Grouse Working Group

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NWR National wildlife refuge

ppt Parts per thousand

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation
XVI Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

refuge Refuge within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

refuge complex Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

RLGIS Refuge Lands Geographic Information System

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

TDS Total dissolved solids

TSR Township, section, range

μmhos/cm Micromhos per centimeter

μS/cm MicroSiemens per centimeter

U.S. United States

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USRS U.S. Reclamation Service

WG Wage Grade (pay schedule)

WMD Wetland management district

WPA Waterfowl production area

Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, 

located after chapter 4.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this final comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) to provide a foundation for the management 

and use of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex (refuge complex) in Montana for at least the 

next 15 years.

This chapter provides an introduction to the CCP 

with descriptions of the steps in the CCP planning 

process; the involvement of the Service, the State of 

Montana, the tribes, the public, and others; and other 

plans that may be affected or supported by the future 

management of the refuge complex. 

The remainder of the document contains the information the Service used and the 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 remaining document contains a glossary of 

terms, several appendixes, and a bibliography that 

support the information provided in the plan.

The Service manages the 84,724-acre refuge complex that is located in the mixed-grass prairie region 

of north-central Montana (Kuchler 1964) within an 

area known as the Prairie Pothole Region (figure 1).

The refuge complex oversees management of 14 

units and numerous easements (refuge, flowage, wetland, and grassland) located in Blaine, Phillips, and 

Valley Counties and in the eastern half of Hill County. 

These counties are bordered by Canada to the north 

and the Missouri River to the south. The refuge complex’s units and easements are part of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System):

■■ Five national wildlife refuges: Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge and four unstaffed satellite 

refuges—Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt 

Lake, and Lake Thibadeau.

■■ Nine waterfowl production areas within the fourcounty Bowdoin Wetland Management District 

(district). These areas, along with conservation 

easements, protect approximately 67,712 acres of 

wetland and grassland (figure 2). The protection of 

habitat in the district continues to grow with the 

acquisition of additional easements annually.

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

USFWS
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

of North America.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 3

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

Refuge Complex, Montana.

1.1 The Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan

The CCP specifies the goals and objectives necessary 

to achieve the vision and purposes of the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Final Decision

The Regional Director of the Mountain–Prairie Region of the Service selected the following alternatives 

from the draft CCP and environmental assessment 

(EA) as the preferred alternatives for the final CCP 

for the Bowdoin Refuge Complex:

■ Alternative B—overall refuge complex management, including visitor services programs 

■ Salinity Alternative 4—underground injection 

and flushing by Beaver Creek (addresses the saline water and blowing salts issue) 

■ Lake Thibadeau Refuge Alternative 2—divest 

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge

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

finding of no significant action. The preferred alternatives have been combined to compose this final CCP, 

with specific objectives for all aspects of the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex contained in “Chapter 4–Management Direction.”
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Appendix B contains the final compatibility determinations for public uses in the refuge complex. 

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. Appendix D contains the Region 6 divestiture 

model, which the Service used to evaluate Lake 

Thibadeau Refuge.

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 plan 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. 

Table 15 in chapter 4 lists the stepdown plans needed 

for the refuge complex.

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 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

(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 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 portion is in appendix E.

Plan Amendment and Revision

The Service will annually review the final CCP to 

determine the need for amendment. An amendment 

would occur if significant 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 final CCP is to identify the role 

that the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

plays in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and to provide long-term guidance for managing programs and activities. The CCP 

is needed to help the Service achieve the following:

■ Communication with the public and other partners 

in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge 

System

■ A clear statement of direction for managing the 

refuge complex

■ Providing neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the refuge complex

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

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997)

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

appropriate.

■ A basis for development of budget requests for 

the refuge complex’s operation, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs

Sustaining the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources is a 

task that can be accomplished only through the combined efforts of governments, businesses, and private 

citizens.

1.3 North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation

Wildlife conservation in North America evolved to 

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

has come to be known as the North American Model 

of Wildlife Conservation (Geist et al. 2001). The wildlife conservation movement arose out of the conflict 

between market hunters and sport hunters in the 
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 5

mid- to late 19th century. Market hunting increased 

in response to the growth in urban population fueled 

by the Industrial Revolution. Between 1820 and 1860, 

the percentage of Americans who lived in cities increased from 5 percent to 20 percent; this four-fold 

increase is the greatest proportional increase in urban population that ever occurred in America (Reiss 

1995). The demand for meat and hides—along with 

feathers for the millinery trade—led to exploitation 

of game animals by market hunters. Along with the 

increase in the urban population came a new breed of 

hunter—one who hunted for the chase and the challenge it provided. These sport hunters valued game 

animals more when they were alive, as opposed to 

market hunters who placed value on dead animals 

they could bring to market. The growing legion of 

sport hunters started a national movement that resulted in Federal and State governments taking responsibility for regulating the take of wildlife.

The keystone concept of the North American 

Model of Wildlife Conservation and the bedrock that 

allowed the Government to exercise control is the 

Public Trust Doctrine (Geist and Organ 2004). Originating in an 1842 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the 

Martin v. Waddell case, its origins derive from Greek 

and Roman law and the Magna Carta. Simply stated, 

wildlife belongs to no one; it is held in trust for all by 

the Government.

The seven pillars of the North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation follow:

■ Wildlife as a public trust resource

■ Elimination of markets for game

■ Allocation of wildlife by law

■ Wildlife only killed for a legitimate purpose

■ Wildlife considered an international resource

■ Science as the proper tool to discharge wildlife 

policy

■ Democracy of hunting

These pillars have stood the test of time and have 

seen significant changes in approaches to wildlife 

conservation for more than 100 years. The original 

conservation movement championed by Theodore 

Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, and others placed 

emphasis on stemming the decline, and programs 

restricting take and protecting lands were put in 

place. During the 1920s, conservationists realized that 

more was needed, and a committee comprised of Aldo 

Leopold, A. Willis Robertson, and other leading 

conservationists of the time authored the 1930 

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

on scientific research with stable, equitable funding 

to achieve this. Within a decade, landmark legislation 

fulfilled many of the needs identified including the 

Duck Stamp Act to fund land acquisition for national 

wildlife refuges. In addition, the Pittman–Robertson 

Wildlife Restoration Act shifted excise taxes imposed 

on firearms and ammunition to fund wildlife restoration through cooperation between the Service and 

State fish and wildlife agencies. For States to use 

this money, they were required to pass laws that prevented diversion of hunting license revenues to any 

purpose other than administration of the State fish 

and wildlife agency.

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

management. All wildlife have benefited from the 

North American Model of Wildlife Conservation pillars, not just game animals. The National Wildlife 

Refuge System has evolved along with the North 

American Model of Wildlife Conservation—it today 

provides refuge for virtually all species found in 

America, recreation for all Americans, and sciencebased management of international wildlife resources 

held in trust for all. The importance of this system 

to American society can best be appreciated if we 

were to contemplate its loss. Wildlife connects us to 

the heritage of this country and our ancestors who 

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

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

become so disconnected. To lose this connection is to 

lose the basis of our humanity.

1.4 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Refuge System

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

Federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and 

plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the 

Service’s major programs.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, America’s 

fish and wildlife resources were declining at an 

alarming rate, largely due to unrestricted market 

hunting. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting 

and angling groups joined together and generated 

the political will for the first significant conservation 

measures taken by the Federal Government. These 

actions included the establishment of the Bureau of 

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

first Federal wildlife law—the Lacey Act—which prohibited interstate transportation of wildlife taken in 

violation of State laws. Beginning in 1903, President 

Theodore Roosevelt created more than 50 wildlife 

refuges across the Nation.
6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Over the next three decades, the United States 

ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Britain, 

and Congress passed laws to protect migratory birds, 

establish new refuges, and create a funding source for 

refuge land acquisition. In 1940, the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service was created within the Department 

of the Interior, and existing Federal wildlife functions 

including law enforcement, fish management, animal 

damage control, and wildlife refuge management 

were combined into a single organization for the first 

time.

Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores vital 

wildlife habitat, protects and recovers endangered 

species, and helps other governments with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service administers 

a Federal aid program that distributes hundreds of 

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

programs across the United States.

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.

Service Activities in Montana

Service activities in Montana (2009) contribute to 

the State’s economy, ecosystems, and education 

programs. The following list highlights the Service’s 

presence and activities:

■ Employed 220 people in Montana

■ 446 volunteers donated more than 21,780 hours to 

Service projects on refuge and district lands

■ Managed two national fish hatcheries, one fish and 

wildlife management assistance office, six coordination areas, one fish health center, four ecological 

services offices, and one fish technology center

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

■ Managed five wetland management districts

❏ Managed 48,026 acres of fee-title waterfowl production areas

❏ Managed 146,816 acres under leases or easements

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

❏ 96,866 hunting visits

❏ 80,370 fishing visits

❏ 506,632 wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation visits

❏ 6,305 students participated in environmental 

education programs

■ Provided $9.6 million to Montana Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks for sport fish restoration and $17.4 million 

for wildlife restoration and hunter education

■ Since 1988, the Service’s 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has helped 

private landowners (1) restore more than 31,759 wetland acres; 360,826 upland 

acres; and 1,263 miles of 

river habitat; and (2) install 

45 structures to open 502 

river miles for fish passage.

■ Paid Montana counties 

$394,799 under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act 

(money used for schools 

and roads)

Arrowhead

© Cindie Brunner

National Wildlife Refuge System

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

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

nesting birds. This was the first time the Federal 

Government set aside land for wildlife. This small 

but significant designation was the beginning of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more 

than 150 million acres within 556 refuges and more 

than 3,000 waterfowl production areas that provide 

breeding and nesting habitat for migratory birds and 

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

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

Islands.

The Improvement Act established a clear mission 

for the Refuge System.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 7

The mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife 

and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

The Improvement Act states that each national wildlife refuge (meaning every unit of the Refuge System, 

which includes wetland management districts) shall 

be managed to do the following:

■ Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System

■ Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge and 

district

■ Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first

■ Fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP for 

each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve 

the public in preparation of these plans

■ Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System

■ Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreational 

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

interpretation are legitimate and priority public 

uses

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

In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the 

wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge 

System maintains the following principles:

■ Wildlife comes first.

■ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are 

vital concepts in refuge and district management.

■ Habitats must be healthy.

■ Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic.

■ The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others.

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the Service immediately began to carry out the direction of 

the new legislation including preparation of CCPs for 

all national wildlife refuges and wetland management 

districts. Consistent with the Improvement Act, the 

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

to complete its CCP within the 15-year schedule (by 

2012).

People and the Refuge System

The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part of 

the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places have 

always given people special opportunities to have fun, 

relax, and appreciate the natural world.

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

recreation contributes millions of dollars to local 

economies. In particular, money generated from the 

taxing of sporting arms and ammunition and of fishing 

equipment that is authorized by the Pittman–Robertson and Dingell–Johnson Acts, respectively, has 

generated tens of millions of dollars. Distributed by 

the Service, this money has been used by States to 

increase wildlife and fish populations, expand habitat, 

and train hunters across the Nation. Approximately 

35 million people visited the Refuge System in 2006, 

mostly to observe wildlife in their natural habitats 

(Caudill and Henderson 2005). Visitors are most often accommodated through nature trails, auto tours, 

interpretive programs, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Significant economic benefits are being 

generated to the local communities that surround refuges and wetland management districts. Economists 

report that Refuge System visitors contribute more 

than $1.7 billion annually to local economies.

1.5 National and Regional 

Mandates

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

mission and goals of the Refuge System along with 

the designated purpose of the refuges and districts 

(as described in establishing legislation, Executive 

orders, or other establishing documents). The key 

concepts and guidance for the Refuge System are in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), The “Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” 

and the Improvement Act.

The Improvement Act amends the Refuge System Administration Act by providing (1) a unifying 
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

determining compatible public uses on refuges and 

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

district be managed under a CCP. The Improvement 

Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of 

Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of the 

Interior will ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands are 

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

specific purposes for which the unit was established. 

The Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants 

in each national wildlife refuge and wetland management district.

A detailed description of these and other laws 

and Executive orders that may affect the CCP or the 

Service’s implementation of the CCP is in “Appendix 

F–Key Legislation and Policy.” Service policies for 

planning and day-to-day management of refuges and 

districts are in the “Refuge System Manual” and the 

“Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”

1.6 Contributions to National 

and Regional Plans

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

Fulfilling the Promise

A 1999 report, Fulfilling the Promise, The National 

Wildlife Refuge System (USFWS 1999b), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. 

This report was the focus of the first national Refuge 

System conference (in 1998)—attended by refuge 

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

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements for wildlife and habitat, 

people, and leadership. This CCP deals with all three 

of these major topics. The planning team looked to 

the recommendations in the document for guidance 

during CCP planning.

Partners in Flight

The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with 

the recognition of declining population levels of many 

migratory bird species. The challenge is to manBlack Tern

age human population growth while maintaining 

functional natural ecosystems in the face of human 

population growth. To meet this challenge, Partners 

in Flight worked to identify priorities for land bird 

species and habitat types. Partners in Flight activity 

has resulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering 

the continental United States.

The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to 

provide for the long-term health of bird life of this 

continent. The first priority is to prevent the rarest 

species from going extinct. The second priority is 

to prevent uncommon species from descending into 

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

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

species in need of immediate conservation action 

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

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

local interest whose habitat needs may play a role in 

the design and selection of conservation strategies 

(priority 3). The highest priority species are common 

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

tern, flammulated owl, burrowing owl, black-backed 

woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, brown creeper, 

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

The highest priority habitats in Montana are 

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

forest, and prairie pothole wetlands. The primary objectives in each priority habitat are to restore ecological processes necessary to provide suitable habitat for 

priority (target) species, identify and protect those 

remaining blocks of habitats that have undergone 

drastic declines, and develop management prescriptions that can be applied at all geographic scales. The 

Partners in Flight plan identified 58 of these areas.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 9

Northern Shortgrass Prairie 

Physiographic Region

The conservation unit chosen by Partners in Flight 

for planning purposes has been the physiographic 

area. These areas, which are not limited by state borders, are based on the Breeding Bird Survey system, 

which was the first planning effort to reflect actual 

bird distributions.

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

partially contained within the contiguous United 

States, and several others are wholly or partially in 

Alaska. The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex lies within physiographic area unit 39, known as 

the northern shortgrass prairie. It is a huge physiographic area, extending from northeastern Wyoming over all of eastern Montana and into southern 

Alberta. The area within the refuge complex is more 

of a mixed-grass prairie, which does include native 

shortgrasses. This physiographic region includes all 

of the area in Montana officially designated as the 

Prairie Pothole Region, one of the highest priority 

habitats identified in the Montana’s bird conservation 

plan (Casey 2000). The region also contains some of 

the last remnants of native grasslands including those 

found on the refuge complex. Although a plan has not 

yet been completed for this physiographic region, 

the Partners in Flight plan for Montana identifies 

this area as critical habitat to some of the priority 

1 bird species, most of which reside on or visit the 

refuge complex, including piping plover, burrowing 

owl, Sprague’s pipit, Baird’s sparrow, and greater 

sage-grouse. There are also numerous priority 2 species that nest on and use the refuge complex including chestnut-collared longspur, long-billed curlew, 

marbled godwit, white-faced ibis, black tern, and 

Franklin’s gull. The actions in this plan focus on continuing and expanding efforts to support these and 

other imperiled bird species.

North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

provides a contiguous framework for conserving and 

managing colonial-nesting waterbirds including 209 

species of seabirds, coastal waterbirds (gulls, terns, 

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

marsh birds (certain grebes and bitterns). The overall 

goal of the plan is to ensure that the following are sustained or restored throughout the waterbirds’ ranges 

in North America: (1) the distribution, diversity, and 

abundance of waterbird populations; (2) waterbird 

habitats (breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding); and 

(3) important sites for waterbirds. The geographic 

scope of the plan covers 28 countries, from Canada 

to Panama, as well as islands and near-shore areas of 

the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, 

and the Caribbean Sea. This waterbird partnership includes Federal, State, and provincial wildlife 

agencies, individuals, and nonprofit conservation organizations. The plan also calls for establishment of 

“practical units for planning” for terrestrial habitats. 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is located 

within the Northern Prairie and Parklands Region.

International Border contrast in 1994—Blaine County, Montana, United States (left); Saskatchewan, Canada (right).

USFWS
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

human development activities that factor immensely 

in the region’s conservation issues. Wetland loss and 

deterioration tops the list, which is further influenced 

by the region’s natural cycles of drought and inundation. The widespread and uncertain ramifications of 

global warming will affect the regional plan’s strategies to combat wetland loss and properly manage associated upland habitats for the benefit of waterbirds 

and other bird species (Kushlan et al. 2002).

North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan

Written in 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve 

landscape conditions that could sustain waterfowl 

populations. Specific plan objectives are to increase 

and restore duck populations to the average levels of 

the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a fall flight 

of 100 million birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986).

The plan is innovative because of its international 

partnerships and implementation at the regional 

level. Its success depends on the strength of the joint 

ventures, which involve Federal, State, provincial, 

tribal, and local governments; businesses; conservation organizations; and individual citizens.

Joint ventures develop implementation plans that 

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

the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. It encompasses 

prairie wetlands from Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota into Minnesota and Iowa. These prairie 

wetlands support more than 300 species of migratory 

birds, many of which are found within the refuge 

complex and are the primary breeding areas for the 

continent’s waterfowl. The most important activity of 

this joint venture is the protection, restoration, and 

enhancement of prairie wetlands and grasslands on 

private and public lands (USFWS 2008b).

Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes 

Regional Shorebird Conservation 

Plan

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

Potholes and the Badlands and Prairies—and all or 

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

Minnesota, north-central Iowa, and northeastern 

Nebraska). The landscape is characterized by rolling 

hills of prairie grasses, millions of depressional wetlands ranging in size from shallow temporary or seasonal wetlands to deeper semipermanent wetlands, 

and agricultural land.

Thirteen species of shorebirds breed within the 

Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region and require 

a landscape of grassland and wetland habitats for 

nesting and brood rearing. One of the major migration routes for Western Hemisphere shorebirds, especially that of long-distance migrants, traverses this 

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

and food resources at migration stopovers within this 

region is critical. Shorebirds use a wide range of habitat types within the region including dry grasslands, 

sand and gravel beaches, natural freshwater and alkaline wetlands, lake margins, and shallowly flooded 

agricultural fields. During migration, the unvegetated 

shallow waters and moist mudflats of freshwater or 

alkaline wetlands are especially important. Due to 

the dynamic nature of wetlands in this region, many 

shorebirds are opportunistic and dispersed across the 

changing landscape (Helmers 1992).

Three major shorebird issues have been identified 

for the Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region:

1. Conservation of threatened and endangered 

species, declining species, and species of special 

concern

2. Habitat loss including fragmentation and degradation

3. The need for additional information to evaluate 

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

and breeding shorebirds

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex has been 

identified as part of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Enrollment in this network 

requires that a site meet biological criteria and that 

site stakeholders agree to participate (Helmers 1992).

Montana Piping Plover 

Management Plan

Federal agencies are mandated by the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 to conserve federally listed 

threatened and endangered species under section 

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

the Great Plains population of the piping plover as a 
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 11

threatened species in 1985, the Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee was formed. Beginning in 

1986, members of several Federal and State agencies 

along with volunteers made an effort to monitor all 

historical and potential piping plover habitat within 

the State. The Montana Piping Plover Management 

Plan evolved from these efforts and was most recently updated in 2006.

The Service, along with the other agencies involved, consulted to determine the status of the population and habitat as well as the potential for increase. 

The committee set a goal within the management 

plan to “manage for and maintain approximately 60 

breeding pairs of piping plovers, on a running 10-year 

average, distributed in appropriate habitats in Montana” (Atkinson and Dood 2006).

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge is an integral 

part of this joint effort because of its historical use 

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

Piping Plover

Mike Morel / USFWS

Greater Sage-Grouse

Gary Kramer / USFWS

Management Plan and 

Conservation Strategies for 

Sage-Grouse in Montana

Loss of sagebrush grasslands in some western States 

has approached or exceeded 50 percent. Such habitat 

loss in Montana, in terms of quality or quantity, may 

not have been as high as in other States although 

significant enough (at least in part of the State) to 

influence greater sage-grouse numbers and population trends. Growing concern about the status of 

sagebrush on western rangelands and declines in 

sage-grouse numbers have led to petitioning the Service to protect populations in some western States 

under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. 

After a thorough analysis of the best available scientific information, the Service has concluded that the 

greater sage-grouse warrants protection under the 

Endangered Species Act. However, the Service has 

determined that proposing the species for protection 

is precluded by the need to take action on other species facing immediate and severe extinction threats. 

As a result, the greater sage-grouse has been placed 

on the list of species that are candidates for Endangered Species Act protection. The Service will review 

the status of the species annually, as it does with all 

candidate species, and will propose the species for 

protection when funding and workload priorities for 

other listing actions allow.

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

of the Montana Sage Grouse Working Group. Participants in the group include representatives of Federal and State agencies, tribal representatives, and 

private organizations, along with several individuals 

from the public, all of whom have a stake in the issue. The overall goal of the plan is to “provide for 

the long-term conservation and enhancement of the 

sagebrush steppe/mixed-grass prairie complex within 

Montana in a manner that supports sage grouse and 

a healthy diversity and abundance of wildlife species 

and human uses” (MSGWG 2005). The plan establishes a process to achieve sage-grouse management 
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

objectives and provides a framework to guide local 

management efforts.

The greater sage-grouse is a documented local 

breeder on the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex and is a target species for upland management.

State Comprehensive Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy

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

2005) is for all vertebrate species known to exist in 

Montana including both game and nongame species, 

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

Although game species are included in Montana’s conservation strategy, the priority is species 

and their related habitats “in greatest conservation 

need.” This means focus areas, community types, and 

species that are significantly degraded or declining, 

federally listed, or where important distribution and 

occurrence information used to assess the status of individuals and groups of species are lacking. The conservation strategy uses five ecotypes to describe the 

broad areas of Montana’s landscape that have similar 

characteristics. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex is in the plains grassland and plains forest 

ecotype. Montana’s high eastern plains, which are 

part of America’s Great Plains, are generally found 

on high, rolling land and on some scattered hills and 

in wide river valleys.

Within each of the ecotypes, tier 1 geographic focus 

areas (greatest need of conservation) were identified for all terrestrial and aquatic areas of the State. 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is located 

within the Montana glaciated plains focus area, which 

is dominated by level to rolling till plains covered by 

sagebrush grasslands and short, mixed-grass prairie 

and croplands. This area consists of plains, terraces, 

fans, and floodplains that formed in glacial till, gravel 

deposits, and alluvium over clay shale, sandstone, and 

siltstone. Land use is predominantly livestock grazing 

and dryland farming. The tier 1 priority (target) species for this area are the northern leopard frog, snapping turtle, spiny softshell, western hog-nosed snake, 

milksnake, common loon, bald eagle, greater sagegrouse, yellow rail, whooping crane, piping plover, 

mountain plover, long-billed curlew, interior least tern, 

black tern, burrowing owl, spotted bat, Townsend’s 

big-eared bat, black-tailed prairie dog, black-footed 

ferret, and American bison.

The Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (Montana Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks 2005) outlines five conservation concerns and 

strategies for the Montana glaciated plains focus area. 

The key concerns are:

■ Conversion of native prairie to small grain production

■ Petroleum exploration and development impacts

■ Invasive or exotic plant species

■ Disruption of natural fire disturbance processes 

and hydrologic regimes

■ Range management or forest management practices

■ Loss of natural wetlands

1.7 Strategic Habitat 

Conservation

In the face of escalating challenges such as land use 

conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and 

refuge complex issues that have been amplified by 

accelerating climate change, the Service has evolved 

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

A cooperative effort by the Service and U.S. 

Geological Survey culminated in a report by the National Ecological Assessment Team (U.S. Geological 

Survey 2006). The report outlines a unifying adaptive 

resource management approach for conservation at a 

landscape scale, the entire range of a target species 

or suite, or guild, of species. This is strategic habitat 

conservation: a way of thinking and doing business—

by incorporating biological goals for target species 

populations—by making strategic decisions about the 

work needed—and by constantly reassessing.

Since 2006, the Service has taken significant 

steps to turn this vision into reality and has defined a 

framework of 21 geographic areas. Experts from the 

Service and U.S. Geological Survey developed this 

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

Complex lands and waters lie in Geographic Area 

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

in this geographic area are conservation of paddlefish, 

pallid sturgeon, waterfowl, shorebirds, grassland 

birds, and black-footed ferret.

The Service is using the framework as the basis to 

locate the first generation of landscape conservation 

cooperatives. These cooperatives are conservationscience partnerships between the Service and other 

Federal agencies, States, tribes, nongovernmental 
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 13

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

Complex within Geographic Area 13–Plains and Prairie Potholes.
14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

organizations, universities, and others. Designed 

as fundamental units for planning and science, the 

cooperatives have the capacity to help the Service 

carry out the elements of strategic habitat conservation—biological planning, conservation design and 

delivery, and monitoring and research. Coordinated 

planning and scientific information will strengthen 

the Service’s strategic response to accelerating climate change.

Climate Change

The Service expects that accelerating climate change 

will affect the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources in profound ways. While many species will 

continue to thrive, some may decline and in some 

instances go extinct. Others will survive in the wild 

only through direct and continuous intervention by 

managers. In 2010, the Service drafted a strategic 

plan to address climate change for the next 50 years 

titled, “Rising to the Challenge—Strategic Plan for 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change” (USFWS 2010). The strategic plan employs three key 

strategies: adaptation, mitigation, and engagement. 

In addition, the plan acknowledges that no single 

organization or agency can address climate change 

without allying itself with others in partnership 

across the Nation and around the world (USFWS 

2010). This plan is an integral part of the Department of the Interior’s strategy for addressing climate 

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

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

■ Priority Setting—Continually evaluate priorities 

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

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

others.

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

■ Landscape Conservation—Emphasize the conservation of habitats within sustainable landscapes, 

applying the Service’s strategic habitat conservation framework.

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

change challenge.

■ Global Approach—Be a leader in national and 

international efforts to meet the climate change 

challenge.

1.8 Planning Process

This final CCP was prepared in compliance with the 

Improvement Act, NEPA, and part 602 (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the “Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.” Additional requirements 

and guidance are in the Refuge System’s planning 

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

(including CCPs and stepdown management plans) to 

ensure that planning efforts follow the Improvement 

Act. The planning policy identified several steps of 

the CCP and environmental analysis process (figure 

4).

The Service began the pre-planning process in October 2006 with the establishment of a planning team 

comprised primarily of Service staff from Bowdoin 

Refuge and staff from Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and Montana Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks. Additional contributors included 

other Service divisions, U.S. Geological Survey, Montana State University, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and several other Federal and State 

agencies (refer to “Appendix G–Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination”).

The planning team coordinated several opportunities for public involvement throughout the planning 

process as summarized below under “Public Coordination” and detailed in appendix E. The planning 

team reviewed a wide range of public comments 

and management needs for the refuge complex. This 

guided the team’s development of a draft CCP and 

EA, which analyzed a set of alternatives for each of 

the following management aspects: (1) the management of the overall resources and uses at the refuge 

complex; (2) the salinity and blowing salts issue; and 

(3) the proposed divestiture of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge.

Following public review of the “Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment–Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex,” 

the Service analyzed the comments received. After 

the Regional Director’s decision on which alternative 

to implement for each management aspect (refer to 

previous section 1.1), the planning team prepared the 

final CCP. 

Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning process for the preparation of this final CCP.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 15

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

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

Date Event Outcome or purpose

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

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

started the mailing list, discussed the planning schedule, and discussed the biological data needs.

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

March 6, 2007

April 26, 2007

Biological review planning 

meeting

The planning team developed an agenda and objectives for the 

biological review workshops. 

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

the refuge complex.

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

the mailing list. The update described the planning process and 

announced the upcoming public scoping meeting.

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

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

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

propose options for managing the Bowdoin Refuge’s wetland 

resources and addressing the salinity issue. A salinity team was 

established.

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

provide comments.
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

Date Event Outcome or purpose

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

Services evaluated the refuge complex’s visitor services programs 

and facilities. 

June 14, 2007 End of public scoping period Public scoping comments that would be considered had to be received or postmarked by this date.

June 17, 2007 Chamber of Commerce

presentation

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

July 10, 2007 Salinity team meeting The salinity team reviewed water resources at the Bowdoin Refuge and evaluated nine modeling scenarios to address the salinity 

issue. 

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

narrowed the options down to four including no action.

October 3, 2007 Pre-planning for objectives 

and strategies workshop

The planning team met with Rick Schroeder (U.S. Geological Survey) and staff to discuss developing alternatives and the supporting objectives and strategies for the proposed action. 

October 16–17, 2007 Uplands biological 

workshop

A panel of biologists and researchers gathered to discuss and 

propose options for future management of upland habitats in the 

refuge complex.

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

refuge complex management, excluding the salinity and blowing 

salts issue. 

November 20, 2007 Followup to alternatives 

workshop

The planning team reviewed the alternatives table and discussed 

environmental consequences.

December 4, 2007 Followup to alternatives 

workshop

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

January 21–23, 2008 Objectives and strategies 

workshop

The planning team began writing objectives and strategies for the 

proposed action alternative. 

February 4, 2008 Salinity team meeting The salinity team discussed other options for addressing the salinity issue and prepared for a salinity workshop.

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

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

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

products of the salinity team and discussed alternatives. A proposal to hire a contractor to conduct further analysis was presented and accepted.

May 1, 2008 Start of draft plan 

preparation

The planning team began writing portions of the draft CCP and 

EA.

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

issue.

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

report and findings and found that additional data collection and 

analysis by State and Service staff was needed. 

July 16, 2009 URS final report and Milk 

River alternative review

State and Federal agencies discussed the final URS report and the 

alternative to pump water to the Milk River. A public meeting to 

present these findings was planned. 

October 22, 2009 Public meeting The Service invited the public to hear a presentation on the alternatives that have been developed and analyzed to address the 

salinity and blowing salts issue.

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

maps for the draft CCP and EA.
CHAPTER 1–Introduction 17

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

Date Event Outcome or purpose

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

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

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

for internal review, incorporating the results of the salinity and 

blowing salts analysis.

November–

December 2010

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

CCP and EA and provided comments to help clarify the analyses 

and provide consistency.

January–May 2011 Draft plan preparation The planning team finalized the draft CCP and EA for distribution 

to the public for review.

June 22, 2011 Notice of availability 

Draft plan public review

Planning update

The notice of availability of the draft CCP and EA was published 

in the Federal Register (volume 76, number 120, page 36571–73). 

The draft CCP and EA was made available on the project Web 

page, and hard copies were distributed per requests. The public 

was provided 34 days to review and comment on the draft CCP 

and EA. A planning update was sent to the mailing list; the update 

summarized the draft plan and announced upcoming public meetings.

June 29, 2011 Public meeting in Malta, 

Montana

The public had an opportunity to learn about and provide comments on the draft CCP and EA.

July 25, 2011 End of public review period Public comments that would be considered had to be received or 

postmarked by this date.

August 2–3, 2011 Public comments review The planning team reviews the public comments and determines 

needed changes for the final CCP.

August 30, 2011 Decision on preferred 

alternatives

The Regional Director selected preferred alternatives for the 

three management aspects and signed the finding of no significant 

impact.

September 2011–

April 2012

Final plan preparation The planning team finished revising and editing the final CCP for 

printing and distribution. 

Coordination with the Public

The Service prepared for public involvement by compiling a project mailing list of more than 170 names 

during pre-planning. The mailing list includes private 

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

and interested organizations.

The Service coordinated the following efforts to 

provide information and request ideas and comments 

from the public:

■ Web site: The CCP Web page displayed background information on the refuge complex, the 

CCP development schedule, public meeting information, planning contacts, and electronic versions 

of planning updates, the draft plan, and other planning documents. 

■ Three planning updates: These fact sheets were 

sent to everyone on the project mailing list. Information was provided on the history of the refuge complex, the CCP process, the salinity issue, 

and alternatives in the draft CCP and EA. The 

updates had invitations to public meetings and 

included comment forms.

■ Three public meetings: The Service presented 

information about the planning process; the resources and issues, in particular, the salinity and 

blowing salts issue; and the draft CCP and EA. 

Attendees were encouraged to offer comments 

and ask questions.

■ Public review of the draft CCP and EA: The public had 34 days to review and provide comments 

about the draft plan for the refuge complex.

The Service recorded all comments given at the public 

meetings. In addition to oral comments, the planning 

team received written comments via email, comment 

forms, and letters. Planning team members, individually and as a team, reviewed all comments. Some modi-
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

fications, including clarifications, were made to this 

final document based on the public review. Appendix 

E has more detail about the Service’s involvement of 

the public, including responses to substantive public 

comments on the draft CCP and EA.

State Coordination

At the start of the planning process, the Regional 

Director (of the Service’s Mountain–Prairie Region, 

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

Parks, inviting them to participate in the planning 

process. Numerous State biologists and hydrologists 

have since served on the planning team or been involved in the planning process including biological reviews of the refuge complex’s management program. 

At the start of the process, the offices of Montana’s 

United States congressional delegation (then-Senator 

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

them of the planning process and inviting them to 

comment on the plan. Seven other Montana State 

senators and representatives and Governor Brian 

Schweitzer were sent similar letters.

The State was particularly concerned about the saline water and blowing salts issue on Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge. A hydrologist from the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission, who asked 

the refuge to address this water quality issue, worked 

with Service staff to develop models for predicting the 

effectiveness of actions to resolve this issue. The salinity team also had representatives from the Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality and Department 

of Natural Resources and Conservation. The State participated in both the internal and public review of the 

draft plan. Numerous changes were made to the final 

CCP based on their comments. Overall the State has 

been supportive of the planning process to date.

Tribal Coordination

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

identified as possibly having a cultural and historical 

connection to the area in which the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex is located. Those contacted 

were the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux, the Fort 

Belknap Assiniboine and Gros Ventre, Crow, Chippewa Cree, and Blackfeet tribal councils. The tribal 

councils did not submit responses to the letter from 

the Regional Director. 

During the release of the draft CCP and EA for 

public review, the Service made additional contacts 

with the affected tribes. There was some interest in 

assisting with future efforts to identify cultural sites 

throughout the refuge complex.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex

This chapter explains the establishment, management 

history, purposes, and special values of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex in north-central Montana, along with the vision and goals and a discussion 

of the planning issues.

The refuge complex consists of 84,724 acres of 

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

and Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges—and 

Bowdoin Wetland Management District. The Service 

is responsible for the protection of 10,635 acres of 

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

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

and 17,012 acres of refuge lands.

The Bowdoin Refuge Complex spreads across a 

four-county area in north-central Montana, totaling 

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

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

County (5,140 square miles), and Valley County (4,921 

square miles) (National Association of Counties 2009). 

The refuge complex headquarters is near the town of 

Malta.

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, 

and Management History

The following section describes the establishment, 

acquisition, and management history of the national 

wildlife refuges and wetland management district 

within the Bowdoin Refuge Complex. Tables 2 and 3 

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

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

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Bowdoin Refuge’s first entry sign, 1938.

USFWS
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge

Before becoming a national wildlife refuge, the lands 

within Bowdoin were managed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Initially these 10,648.92 acres 

were reserved from public domain (public land placed 

into permanent reserved status, such as a national 

wildlife refuge, that is not held in private ownership).

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt established Bowdoin Migratory Waterfowl Refuge in 1936, 

the Bureau of Biological Survey (a precursor to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and Reclamation 

shared jurisdiction.

Refuge headquarters, 1938.

USFWS

On November 15, 1940, Executive Order 8592 

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

land to the area.

On March 22, 1971, a revocation of reclamation 

withdrawal was filed to give primary jurisdiction to 

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

under Reclamation jurisdiction, Lake Bowdoin was 

managed as a sump for irrigation return flows from 

the Milk River Project.

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

Valley of Phillips County and today encompasses 

15,551 acres (figure 5). The refuge consists of more 

than 6,000 acres of freshwater and saline wetlands. 

The remaining upland is 

typical mixed-grass prairie 

with a complex of western 

wheatgrass, needle and thread 

grass, sagebrush, and forbs. 

Greasewood and rabbitbrush 

are common on the heavier 

clay soils. The marsh areas 

are dominated by sedges, 

while excellent stands of 

emergent and aquatic vegetation are found in the 

shallow, open-water areas. 

Plateaus and grassland 

benches surround the refuge 

with elevations varying from 

Headquarters for the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 2007.

USFWS
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 21

Figure 5. Base map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 
22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

2,400 to 2,600 feet (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife 1973).

There are three major wetland types on the refuge: (1) permanent wetlands; (2) semipermanent wetlands; and (3) seasonal or temporary wetlands. These 

wetlands are either freshwater or saline. Upland 

habitats include more than 5,000 acres of native prairie, 200 acres of DNC, 269 acres of planted grasses 

(primarily crested wheatgrass), and 850 acres of 

shrubland or woodland. The remaining acreage is in 

roads, parking lots, and developed areas (figure 6). 

The refuge serves as an important staging and nesting area for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, sandhill cranes, and other migratory birds. A variety of 

refuge habitats are home for resident wildlife such 

as sharp-tailed grouse, pronghorn, and white-tailed 

deer.

Geologic history indicates that Lake Bowdoin was 

once an oxbow of the preglacial Missouri River channel. Today, the Missouri River lies nearly 70 miles 

south of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. Historically, Lake Bowdoin acted as a large catch basin for 

precipitation, early spring floods, and runoff events. 

The lands surrounding the lake were native prairie. 

Lake levels fluctuated from year to year, depending 

on runoff conditions and evaporation during the hot, 

dry summers.

In the 1800s, Lake Bowdoin was an important 

watering source for trailing cattle herds. Grasslands 

around the lake suffered extensive overgrazing from 

the watering herds, and it was not until the refuge 

was established in 1936 that the area received protection and development for wildlife purposes (Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1973).

After establishment in 1936, an extensive system 

of dikes, ditches, and water control structures were 

constructed to better manage the available water 

supply. In 1937, the Service negotiated a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with Reclamation to receive part of their water right, 3,500 acre-feet, from 

the Milk River Project. In return, the Service contributed $40,000 toward construction of the Fresno 

Reservoir storage facility near Havre, Montana. Water is the lifeline between management and waterfowl 

survival and is essential to wildlife management at 

Bowdoin Refuge. During years of normal runoff, Reclamation furnishes up to 3,500 acre-feet of water to 

the refuge. In years of below-normal runoff, Reclamation agrees to furnish the portion of 3,500 acre-feet 

that the natural conditions and Federal reclamation 

laws permit.

Water diverted to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge from the Milk River Project is used to manage 

ponds, lakes, and marshes ranging in size from 1 acre 

to 4,470 acres. The diverted water provides food and 

migrating and nesting habitat for migratory birds 

and wetland-related wildlife, as well as for resident 

wildlife. In addition, delivered water is used to attract 

piping plover (a threatened bird species that had used 

the refuge for nesting in the past) and to manage its 

habitat.

Black Coulee National Wildlife 

Refuge

Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge totals 1,309 

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

public domain and 840 acres of privately owned lands 

encumbered by three perpetual refuge and flowage 

easements. In 1982, 185 acres were purchased with 

Duck Stamp money as a waterfowl production area. 

The new addition included 170 acres of a previous 

240-acre flowage easement. This land acquisition reduced the easement area to 670 acres.

The Black Coulee Refuge is located about 10 miles 

south of the town of Turner in northeastern Blaine 

County, Montana. The general topography of the land 

is rolling mixed-grass prairie with major drainages 

running in a northeasterly direction.

Donna A. Dewhurst / USFWS

Sandhill cranes nest at Bowdoin Refuge.
CHAPTER 2 –The Refuge Complex 23

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

(4,055 ac (acres))

(4,021 ac) (158 ac)

(1,554 ac) (127 ac)

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

(64 ac) (555 ac)

(390 ac) (50 ac)

(383 ac) (26 ac)

(313 ac) (32 ac)

(269 ac)

CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 25

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

FWS (Fish and 

Wildlife Service)
26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

habitat (figure 8). The refuge has a dependable water 

source from the runoff in the west branch of Black 

Coulee drainage, which has a large watershed. The 

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

runoff is observed, the upper most areas influenced 

by the dam are temporarily inundated by water. 

When average runoff occurs, the reservoir provides 

about 173 acres of wetland habitat.

The wetland total for the Service-owned land is 

211 acres; wetland on the easement-controlled land 

is about 85 acres. Service-owned uplands protect 428 

acres of native prairie. The remaining uplands, which 

are under easement, consist of both cropland and land 

enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. Due 

to fluctuations in grain commodity prices, conversion 

of the Conservation Reserve Program land back to 

cropland has increased in the past several years.

Creedman Coulee National 

Wildlife Refuge

The original Executive order designated 3,040 acres, 

consisting of 80 acres reserved from public domain 

and 2,960 acres of privately owned land encumbered 

by eight refuge and flowage easements (figure 9). 

The 80 acres owned by the Service are located in the 

southwest corner of the Executive boundary and contain native prairie habitat. Historical records document two other names for this drainage, Greedman 

Coulee or Greenman Coulee.

Creedman Coulee is in Hill County, about 33 miles 

north of Havre, Montana. One of the primary features 

of this refuge is the 181-acre Creedman Reservoir. 

The uplands are a mix of 

native prairie and agricultural land. The Service 

easements over these uplands provide no authority over the surface use, 

except for hunting and 

trapping. Accurate acreage of the upland habitat 

on these private lands is 

difficult to estimate because the landowners convert the prairie to other 

uses more suitable to 

their farm and ranch operation needs (figure 10).

When full, Creedman Reservoir attracts 

migrating waterfowl and 

provides habitat for hundreds of nesting birds. Established trees near the reservoir serve as a rookery 

for great blue herons and double-crested cormorants.

Water rights to Creedman Reservoir are owned by 

one downstream landowner and the Service. Before 

enlargement of the dam in 1938, Creedman Reservoir 

was usually dry by late June or early July, providing 

little to no nesting and brood-rearing habitat for waterfowl. The downstream landowner and the Service 

reached an agreement that benefits both parties. The 

existing dam height was increased, thereby increasing 

the storage capacity of the reservoir. To ensure that 

water was available for nesting waterfowl and broods, 

a gravity-flow outlet structure was installed in the dam 

so that water could not be drawn below the elevation of 

90 feet. Under this arrangement, the downstream landowner could still use all the water above this elevation 

for irrigation purposes without the need for pumping.

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

and surrounding area. No drilling occurs on the 80-

acre parcel of Service-owned land, but the presence of 

this activity contributes to habitat fragmentation and 

bird disturbance and affecting the aesthetics of the 

prairie portion of the refuge. The mineral rights were 

reserved by the landowner when the easement was 

acquired, and all of this activity is occurring on the 

privately owned refuge and flowage easement lands. 

The Service easements do not prohibit such activities.

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge

The Executive order that established the Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge in 1938 described a 

1,200-acre approved acquisition boundary. The early 

refuge consisted of 400 acres of land reserved from 

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

in the Executive order boundary, was added to the 

refuge through another easement agreement (tract 2, 

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

refuge and flowage easements to three.

In 1959, Secretarial Order 2843 transferred 320 

acres of public land for inclusion into Hewitt Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, increasing the size to 1,680 

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

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

waterfowl production area (WPA) is described in the 

below section on Bowdoin Wetland Management District. The current acreage of this limited-interest refuge consists of 1,040 acres of refuge lands (including 

the 320-acre waterfowl production area) and 640 acres 

encumbered by easements on private lands (figure 11).

Double-crested cormorants

nest in groups in trees, 

referred to as rookeries.

Rodney Krey / USFWS
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 27

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

(389 ac (acres))

(629 ac)

(478 ac)
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

FWS (Fish and 

Wildlife Service)
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 29

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

(188 ac (acres))

(1,851 ac)

(679 ac)
30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

FWS (Fish and 

Wildlife Service)
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 31

The Hewitt Lake Refuge lies in Phillips County, 

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

2 and about 1.5 miles northwest of Nelson Reservoir 

(created by Reclamation). The general topography 

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

is located a short distance from the Milk River. The 

lake, enhanced by an earthen dam, creates a shallow 

492-acre seasonal wetland. There are about 234 acres 

of wetland habitat on the Service-owned lands and 

another 156 wetland acres on private lands that are 

protected by Service easements. When the lake is 

full, it attracts migratory birds in the spring.

The uplands on both Service and private lands 

are primarily native prairie habitat (figure 12). The 

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

to nest within the prairie dog town. The uplands are 

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

curlew, Sprague’s pipit, and waterfowl.

Natural gas exploration and extraction occurs 

within the refuge boundary and surrounding area, 

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

refuge. The refuge contains a large gas field in which 

the Federal Government owns much of the mineral 

rights. The Executive order establishing the refuge 

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

known geologic structure of a producing gas field and 

stated that, “nothing should affect the disposition of 

its oil and gas deposits under the Mineral Leasing Act 

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

Interior regulations did not prohibit oil and gas leasing on refuge lands (General Accounting Office 2001).

Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuge

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

reserved from public domain (originally by the Bureau of Land Management) and 3,849.06 acres encumbered by 13 refuge and flowage easements (figure 13).

Hewitt Lake attracts many waterbird species, particularly white-faced ibis (foreground).

James Graham / USFWS
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

(520 ac (acres))

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

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

FWS (Fish and 

Wildlife Service)
34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The Lake Thibadeau Refuge is located about 15 

miles north of the city Havre in central Hill County. 

The four main water units of this limited-interest refuge are Thibadeau Diversion Dam (16.4 acres), Lake 

Thibadeau (120.7 acres), Grassy Lake (152.4 acres), 

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

little native prairie. When established as a refuge in 

1937, there were only 480 acres of prairie left within 

the refuge boundary. Over the last 70 years, there 

has been additional conversion of the native prairie 

to cropland, resulting in a loss of about 140 acres of 

prairie. Current cropland totals about 3,139 acres 

(figure 14).

Of the four refuge wetlands, only Mud Lake and 

the diversion unit hold any significant amounts of water. The diversion dam diverts waters from Lehman 

Coulee. An unnamed drainage flows from the north 

and east into Mud Lake; when Mud Lake reaches 

capacity it overflows into Grassy Lake. Water development projects in these two drainages have significantly affected the watershed above these wetland 

units. Lake Thibadeau and Grassy Lake are farmed 

every season, and Mud Lake is farmed in most years. 

The refuge and flowage easement does not give the 

Service any rights to control the uses of these uplands, 

including farming activities, except for the control of 

hunting. Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge 

provides only marginal waterfowl habitat, except during the wettest years. Intensive agriculture in the area 

is probably contributing pesticides and fertilizers to 

the wetlands. There is no public access to this refuge.

Natural gas exploration and extraction occurs 

within the refuge boundary and surrounding area. 

All of this activity occurs on the private land portions 

within the refuge boundary. The refuge and flowage 

easements do not prohibit these activities on the 

uplands. The Service controls only hunting on the 

uplands.

Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District

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

north-central Montana (figure 15). There are several 

types of Refuge System lands within the wetland 

management district:

■ Waterfowl production areas, which are acquired in 

fee title

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

or leveled, while the landowner retains control of 

all public access

■ Perpetual grassland easements, which protect privately owned rangeland and hayland from conversion to cropland, and the landowner retains control 

of all public access

■ Perpetual conservation easements through the 

Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) to help 

farmers reduce their debt load on farmland and 

protect wetlands and grasslands

More than a million acres of potholes in the prairie 

States were drained between 1943 and 1961 (Briggs 

1964). The Prairie Pothole Region once produced up 

to 15 million ducks each year but now produces about 

one-third that amount. This loss of habitat is the main 

reason for the reduced production (Belrose 1976). 

Other causes include the destruction of upland nest 

cover by the cultivation of land adjacent to wetlands 

and sloughs (Belrose 1976). These two significant 

factors led to conservation movements by citizens 

and pressure from waterfowl-hunting interests to reverse the loss of wetland habitat. In response to this 

pressure, the Service issued Duck Stamps to fund a 

program of wetland acquisition and the purchase of 

conservation easements (van der Valk 1989).

Waterfowl production areas and easements are 

purchased from willing sellers through the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program authorized by Congress in 

1958—an amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934. This program is 

funded by the sale of Federal Duck Stamps and loans 

against future Duck Stamp sales. The purpose of this 

important program is to ensure the long-term protection of breeding habitat, primarily within the Prairie 

Pothole Region of the United States, for waterfowl 

and other migratory bird species.

The Service owns waterfowl production areas in 

fee title and manages them to provide breeding waterfowl with quality wetlands for courtship and brood 

rearing, as well as suitable grasslands for nesting. 

Habitats are managed using techniques such as prescribed grazing, haying, and fire; farming and reseeding of former cropland; and rest from crop production. 

These areas are open to hunting (with the exception 

of the Holm WPA), fishing, and trapping according to 

State seasons. Hunting opportunities attract hunters 

from across the United States and Canada.

Wetland easements are perpetual and prohibit 

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

interests that the Service buys from willing landowners and are permanent fixtures to land titles. The 

land remains in private ownership and the landowner 

controls public access. Since 1962 when the Small 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 35

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

(453 ac (acres))

(521 ac)

(3,083 ac)
36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Wetlands Acquisition Program began, the Service has 

acquired a perpetual, real-property interest in more 

than two million wetland acres for waterfowl production in the Great Plains States, which include Montana.

Conversion of grassland to cropland has generated 

a need for protection of upland habitat adjacent to wetlands. The loss of upland-nesting cover and plant foods 

has reduced the value and productivity of wetlands for 

nesting waterfowl and their broods, other migratory 

birds, and other wildlife. Grassland easements, like 

wetland easements, are perpetual and protect both 

existing and restored habitat. The purposes of the perpetual grassland easement program are (1) to improve 

and protect the water quality of wetlands, (2) maintain 

upland-nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds, (3) 

protect highly erodible soils, and (4) provide an alternative to the purchase of uplands in fee title, leaving 

land in private ownership. Grassland easements are 

real-property interests that the Service buys from 

willing landowners to prohibit a loss of grassland 

cover from cropland conversion, development, or other 

causes. This agreement also protects nesting birds 

by prohibiting haying or mowing until after July 15. 

The land remains in private ownership. Grazing is not 

prohibited or regulated under the grassland easement. 

Funding for grassland easements comes from a variety 

of sources including the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act (with Governor approval), 

North American Wetland Conservation Act grants, 

and the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

FmHA conservation easements were developed 

by Congress under the Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act of 1985 to establish easements for conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes on properties that were foreclosed on by the Federal Government 

(“inventories” properties). The Service was designated 

as the easement manager on those easements worthy of 

inclusion into the National Wildlife Refuge System.

As of December 1, 2009, the Bowdoin Wetland 

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

Black Coulee, Dyrdahl, Hewitt Lake, Holm, Korsbeck, McNeil Slough, Pearce, and Webb WPAs. Major 

habitat types on these areas follow: 1,390.8 acres of 

freshwater wetlands, 4,103.91 acres of native prairie, 

and 4,008.91 acres of prior cropland.

■ Beaver Creek WPA: Located next to the Bowdoin 

Refuge, the waterfowl production area was purchased in 1992 and added two new tracts in 2000 

and 2003. This 2,125.8-acre area consists of wetlands (325.3 acres), riparian areas (35.9 acres), DNC 

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

■ Black Coulee WPA: This 184.8-acre area, acquired 

in 1982, has 49.2 acres of wetland and 135.6 acres 

of native prairie. This waterfowl production area 

lies within the Executive boundary of the Black 

Coulee National Wildlife Refuge.

■ Dyrdahl WPA: Acquired in 1985, this waterfowl 

production area is 8 miles northwest of Loring in 

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

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

and native grassland (386.97 acres).

Dyrdahl WPA

USFWS

■ Hewitt Lake WPA: Of this waterfowl production 

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

wetland and 199.4 acres are native prairie. The 

area is within the Executive boundary of Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

■ Holm WPA: This waterfowl production area was 

the first to be acquired, in 1977, and is the only waterfowl production area in the district that is closed 

to hunting. The property was sold to the Service 

by the three Holm brothers who wished to have 

their farm (located north of Chinook) preserved as 

a sanctuary for Canada geese. Habitat types on this 

2,250.46-acre follow: 245.7 acres of wetlands (natural, constructed or enhanced, and prairie stream), 

DNC (332 acres), and native prairie (1,672.76 acres).

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

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

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

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

320 acres of native prairie, which is managed as 

part of the waterfowl production area.

■ McNeil Slough WPA: The most recent purchase 

in the wetland management district was in May 

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

added to the lands acquired in 1992, for a total 

size of 1,339.18 acres. The Milk River borders this 

waterfowl production area for 4 miles along its 

north boundary. It is also bordered by Big McNeil 

Slough to the south and Hewitt Lake Refuge to 

the west. The habitat types found on this area are 

wetland (118.6 acres), DNC (602.52 acres), and native grassland (618.06 acres).
CHAPTER 2 –The Refuge Complex 37

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

(Farmers Home Administration)

CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 39

■ Pearce WPA: Purchased in 1977, this waterfowl 

production area is adjacent to the northeastern 

boundary of Bowdoin Refuge. The 438.47-acre unit 

contains wetland (84.4 acres), DNC (132 acres) and 

native grasslands (222.07 acres).

■ Webb WPA: This waterfowl production area is 1 mile 

north of Dyrdahl WPA and was acquired in 1978. 

The 476.59-acre area contains wetlands (67.7 acres), 

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

The remaining wetland management district includes 

125 perpetual wetland easements, 33 perpetual grassland easements, a 6-acre perpetual flowage easement, 

4 perpetual FmHA conservation easements—totaling 

958 acres—and a State of Montana grazing lease. As 

of 2009, the district’s easement program has protected 10,635.4 acres of wetland and 39,766.6 acres of 

grassland. These easement acres change frequently 

depending on priorities in the Service’s Mountain–

Prairie Region and the availability of funding from 

the North American Wetland Conservation Act 

grants and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.

Summary of Land Acquisition 

History

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the above-detailed history 

of land acquisition for the five refuges and one district 

in the Bowdoin Refuge Complex.

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

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

Black Coulee 108.88

240

320

640

Blaine

Blaine

Blaine

Blaine

05/18/1937 

06/18/1937

06/18/1937

01/28/1938

5M

3M

4M

1

Easement

Easement

Easement

Primary withdrawal

Bowdoin 11,937.08

640

115.39

2,859.5

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

02/14/1936

06/23/1937

1937–59

09/20/1989

1

2

Various

1G

Primary withdrawal

Primary transfer

Donations

Primary withdrawal

Creedman Coulee 8

160

560

120

600

480

640

80

80

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

05/29/1937

05/25/1937

11/15/1937

11/16/1937

11/17/1937

08/15/1938

12/10/1938

03/08/1939

10/25/1941

5F

6F

8F

9F

7F

4F

3F

3F–1

1

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Primary withdrawal

Hewitt Lake 320

320.49

160.43

400

160

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

04/09/1937

07/03/1937

08/03/1937

03/07/1938

08/30/1938

3F–1

500BN

3F

1

2F

Easement

Primary transfer

Easement

Secondary withdrawal

Easement

Lake Thibadeau 240.14

160.15

320.68

320

546.86

153.54

318.4

309.06

19.42

160

320

640.23

40

320

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

Hill

04/03/1937

04/10/1937

04/12/1937

04/12/1937

04/12/1937

04/13/1937

04/14/1937

04/19/1937

09/23/1937

03/23/1938

03/29/1938

04/04/1938

04/06/1938

12/10/1938

4F

5F

6F

7F

10F

11F

12F

9F

1

13F

14F

15FA

8F

3F

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Primary withdrawal

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Easement

Total 24,817.28
40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

Waterfowl production area Acres County Date acquired Tract number

Holm 2,250.46 Blaine 04/19/1977 10

Pearce 438.47 Phillips 04/22/1977 10

Webb

Addition–1

316.59

160

Phillips

Phillips

08/01/1978

04/27/1979

48

20

Black Coulee1 184.8 Blaine 05/24/1982 35

Dyrdahl

Addition–1

765.35

561.82

Phillips

Phillips

07/12/1985

10/02/1989

27

76

Korsbeck 1041.15 Phillips 01/03/1990 75

McNeil

Burgess Addition

1,199.66

139.52

Phillips

Phillips

01/10/1992

05/02/2008

77

106

Hewitt Lake2 320 Phillips 01/10/1992 77

Beaver Creek

Masters Addition

Copple Addition3

560

965.8

600

Phillips

Phillips

Phillips

01/10/1992

08/18/2000

02/20/2003

77

86

90

Total 9,503.62

1 Part of Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge.

2 Part of Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

3 51 acres donated.

2.2 Purposes

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

build all refuge and district programs—from biology 

and public use, to maintenance and facilities. No action undertaken by the Service or public may conflict 

with this purpose. The refuge and district purposes 

are found in the legislative acts or Executive actions 

that provide the authorities to either transfer or acquire a piece of land for one of these units. Over time, 

an individual refuge or district may contain lands that 

have been acquired under various transfer and acquisition authorities, giving the unit more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, and strategies in chapter 

4 are intended to support the individual purposes for 

which each refuge or district was established.

Four of the refuges within this refuge complex 

are encumbered by refuge and flowage easements acquired on private lands in the late 1930s. All but one 

are perpetual. The Executive order or legislative purposes only apply when the Service buys the easement 

lands. Until that time, the only purpose for that area is 

the language found in the refuge or flowage easement.

Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge

The purposes of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge are:

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife [...] and that such part of 

said lands as the Secretary of Agriculture may 

deem proper be reserved for use as a shooting 

area to be operated under a cooperative agreement or lease with the Montana State Game Commission or such other operating agency as may 

be approved. The reservation of these lands as a 

migratory waterfowl refuge is subject to the use 

thereof by [the Department of the Interior] for 

irrigation and other incidental purposes.” (Executive Order 7295, February 14, 1936)

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife [...] subject to their use 

pursuant to the reclamation laws, and for the purpose of oil and gas development [...] and for purposes incidental thereto.” (Executive Order 8592, 

November 12, 1940)

■ For “any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 41

Black Coulee National Wildlife

Refuge

The purposes of the Black Coulee National Wildlife 

Refuge are:

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes, 

[...] wildlife conservation demonstration unit and 

closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” (Three refuge and flowage 

easement agreements, 1937–38)

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” (Executive Order 7801, 

January 28, 1938)

Creedman Coulee National 

Wildlife Refuge

The purposes of the Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge are:

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes, 

[...] wildlife conservation demonstration unit and 

closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” (Eight refuge and refuge and 

flowage easement agreements, 1937–39)

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” (Executive Order 8924, 

October 25, 1941)

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge

The purposes of the Hewitt Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge are:

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, flood control, stock water, migratory waterfowl and wildlife 

conservation purposes, [...] and operate and maintain a closed refuge for migratory birds and other 

wildlife.” (Revocable easement signed August 30, 

1938; section 16 land [State-owned lands set aside 

for schools])

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes, 

[...] wildlife conservation demonstration unit and 

closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” (Two refuge and refuge and 

flowage easement agreements, 1937–38)

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife [...] nothing herein shall 

affect the disposition of the oil and gas deposits 

therein.” (Executive Order 7833, March 7, 1938, 

applies to easements within the Executive boundary only when purchased)

■ For “purposes of a land conservation and land utilization program.” (Bankhead–Jones Farm Tenant 

Act)

■ For “use and administration under applicable laws 

as refuges for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

(Secretarial Order 2843, November 17, 1959)

Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuge

The purposes of the Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge are:

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes, 

[...] wildlife conservation demonstration unit and 

closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” (13 refuge and flowage easement agreements, 1937–38)

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” (Executive Order 7713, 

September 23, 1937)

Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District

The purposes of the Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District are:

■ As “Waterfowl Production Areas subject to [...] 

all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] [...] except the inviolate sanctuary provisions.” (Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp)

■ For “any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
42 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

2.3 Vision

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions 

for the future, that describes the essence of what the 

Service is trying to accomplish. The following vision 

for the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is 

a future-oriented statement designed to be achieved 

through refuge and district management throughout 

the life of this CCP and beyond.

Under seemingly limitless skies, Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

provides vast expanses of gently rolling 

native mixed-grass prairie, dotted with an 

array of diverse wetlands.

Recognized as one of the most 

important migratory bird refuges in 

the State of Montana, these habitats are 

managed to ensure that grassland- and 

wetland-dependent waterfowl, shorebirds, 

songbirds, and native wildlife 

species thrive.

Visitors recognize these unique and 

wondrous qualities and experience a sense 

of solitude and a connection to the land 

that fosters a desire to conserve 

this and other remnants of the 

northern Great Plains.

2.4 Goals

The Service developed six goals for the refuge complex based on the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act, the purposes of the refuge complex, and information developed during project 

planning. A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of 

desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but 

does not define measurable units. The goals direct efforts toward achieving the vision and purposes of the 

refuge and outline approaches for managing refuge 

resources.

Goal for Upland Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife

Protect, enhance, and restore grassland habitat for 

breeding and migratory birds and other wildlife while 

maintaining the biological diversity and integrity of 

native prairie grasslands.

Goal for Wetland Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife

Provide, protect, and manage wetland habitat for 

breeding and migratory birds and other wildlife that 

maintains the biological diversity and integrity of 

prairie pothole wetlands.

Goal for Salinity and Blowing 

Salts

Develop a water management system on Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge that protects the environment and mitigates current and future blowing salt 

concerns for neighboring properties, while providing 

quality water and wildlife habitat for migratory birds 

and other wetland-dependent wildlife.

Goal for Visitor Services

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

education opportunities that foster an appreciation 

and understanding of the unique wildlife, plant communities, and cultural resources of the Montana Prairie Pothole Region.

Goal for Partnerships

Maintain and expand partnerships that preserve, 

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

Refuge and within Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District.

Goal for Operations

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

partnerships, and volunteer programs.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 43

2.5 Special Values

Early in the planning process, the planning team and 

public identified the outstanding qualities or special 

values of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. These special values are characteristics and 

features of the refuge complex that make it special, 

valuable for wildlife, and worthy of refuge status. It 

was important to identify the special values of the refuge complex to recognize its worth and to ensure they 

are conserved, protected, and enhanced through the 

planning process. These special values can be unique 

biological resources, as well as something as simple as 

a quiet place to see a variety of birds and enjoy nature.

Part of a National System

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is 

part of a national system of lands. In the 1920s, public agencies and private organizations attempted to 

elevate the public’s awareness of wetland loss and 

to take positive steps to slow it. The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929 authorized the Federal Government to acquire wetlands and associated uplands 

to conserve them as waterfowl habitat and thus create a chain of stepping stones along major migration 

routes. The law also established a commission of Federal and State officials to evaluate lands for possible 

acquisition, and in so doing it established the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Adair 2003).

Migratory Birds

The lands of the refuge complex were established 

to protect and provide habitat for migratory birds, 

especially waterfowl, that cross State lines and international borders and are by law a Federal trust 

responsibility.

The refuge complex is located primarily in the central flyway (figure 16). This makes Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex an acutely important and 

strategic stopover point for migratory birds during 

spring and fall migrations and as resting, feeding, and 

nesting habitat.

In eastern Montana, there are very few natural 

wetlands the size of Lake Bowdoin (including the surrounding array of wetland complexes) with the necessary food and habitat resources for ducks, shorebirds, 

and other waterbirds. Most importantly, the refuge 

complex—located in the Prairie Pothole Region in 

north-central and northeastern Montana—has very 

high duck-nesting success.

The Bowdoin Refuge Complex is of such great 

value to waterfowl and shorebirds, as well as other 

migrating waterbird species, because of its diversity 

of wetland and upland habitats that provide for the 

diverse life cycle requirements of these species. In 

addition, the refuge complex serves as a valuable 

research site for the study of migratory birds, plant 

communities, and grassland and wetland management.

Blue-winged Teal Hen and Drake

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS
44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Prairie Pothole Region

The refuge complex is within the Prairie Pothole 

Region, which the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986) identifies as the number 

one priority geographical conservation area in North 

America.

Furthermore, the refuge complex is within the 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, which is a collaboration between agriculture groups, conservationists, 

and other partners to protect wetlands, waterfowl, 

and other wildlife. In Montana, the Prairie Pothole 

Joint Venture works in 21 counties (including the 4 

counties in the refuge complex) that cover more than 

60,500 square miles. Within this region, 27 percent of 

the wetlands and 50 percent of the grasslands have 

already been lost to drainage and conversion (Ducks 

Unlimited 2003).

Figure 16. Map of waterfowl flyways in North America.

Wetlands of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex provide habitat for a large variety of plants 

and animals including the threatened piping plover. 

The primary attractant is the availability of suitable 

habitat for food and reproduction. These wetlands 

are very important as areas of great biodiversity and 

biological productivity.

Early accounts of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge note its significance to waterfowl and hunters: 

“Lake Bowdoin, Montana’s most important collective 

breeding-ground for waterfowl. Famed throughout 

eastern and central Montana since pioneer days as a 

hunting-ground [...] Lake Bowdoin under Federal supervision should be even more important as a breeding and feeding area for waterbirds than it has been 

in the past” (Weydemeyer and Marsh 1936).

At least 300 of the more than 800 migratory bird 

species in North America rely on the Prairie Pothole 

Region for breeding and nesting habitat during the 

spring and summer and feeding and resting habitat 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 45

during spring and fall migrations (Ducks Unlimited 

2003). More than 260 species of birds depend on the 

refuge complex for their life cycle requirements.

Special Designations

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge has been designated as part of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network, an organization that monitors and 

protects key shorebird areas throughout the hemisphere. To be selected, an area must host a minimum 

of 20,000 shorebirds during migration.

In March 2001, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

was designated as a Globally Important Bird Area 

by the American Bird Conservancy (now managed 

by the National Audubon Society). The refuge was 

noted for its high value for the conservation of birds 

and bird habitats.

Native Prairie

Large, intact native prairie communities can still be 

found throughout the refuge complex. This is important, because 50 percent of native grasslands have 

been lost in the Prairie Pothole Region of Montana 

(Ducks Unlimited 2003). Visitors to the area can 

experience the vastness and big sky of relatively 

undisturbed prairie landscapes. Native prairie areas 

are important to grassland-dependent species such as 

black-tailed prairie dog and mountain plover, as well 

as other species of concern such as northern pintail, 

burrowing owl, and swift fox. These wildlife species 

favor large expanses of native prairie and are sensitive 

to its development and conversion to agricultural uses.

Conservation Easements

The refuge complex’s conservation easement program 

protects existing native prairie areas and wetlands in 

perpetuity through the acquisition of grassland and 

wetland conservation easement on private lands as 

well as through fee-title areas called waterfowl production areas. Since April 14, 1977, the Service and 

surrounding landowners have protected more than 

60,000 grassland and wetland acres.

Cultural History

The Bowdoin Refuge Complex has a rich cultural 

history of Native American inhabitants, explorers, 

frontiersmen, outlaws, and early settlers. Evidence 

of early human occupation in the State of Montana 

dates back 11,000 years (Brumley 2006).

The Lewis and Clark expedition traveled the Missouri River, approximately 70 miles south of Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge, and parts of the Milk River.

Public Use

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

opportunities to view and photograph wildlife and 

their habitats.

The refuge complex attracts many visitors and 

tourist dollars to the communities surrounding the 

refuges and waterfowl production areas. Employment 

and nonsalary refuge expenditures (maintenance 

and operations) greatly benefit the local community, 

county, and State in the form of income, jobs, taxes, 

and personal spending. In Phillips County, Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge’s annual budget in 2004 generated $806,700 in economic output, 8.6 jobs, $411,600 

in job income, and $163,500 in taxes (Caudill and Henderson 2005).

2.6 Planning Issues

Several key issues were identified following the analysis of comments collected from refuge complex staff 

and the public and a review of the requirements of 

the Improvement Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. A public meeting, news releases in the 

local and regional press, a presentation to the Malta 

Chamber of Commerce, an announcement in the 

Federal Register, and planning updates were used to 

solicit public input on which issues the CCP should 

address. Substantive comments (those that could be 

addressed within the authority and management capabilities of the Service) were considered during formulation of the alternatives for future management. 

These key issues are summarized below.

Upland Habitat and Associated 

Wildlife

The refuge complex has outstanding ecological features and vegetation communities (previous figures 6, 

8, 10, 12, 14, and 15) that should be conserved, particularly unique landforms such as the prairie potholes 

and the large expanses of native prairie. The prairie 

is considered native where the sod is unbroken and 

the soil composition is generally intact. Nonnative 

and invasive plant species may become established in 

these areas, but some native plants and a native seed 

source may still persist.
46 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The refuge complex’s primary purpose is to provide optimal habitat conditions for migratory birds 

and, to a lesser extent, the native resident wildlife. To 

achieve goals and objectives, aggressive management 

of upland habitat, including use of prescribed fire and 

treatment of invasive species, has been conducted. In 

addition to native prairie areas, the refuge complex 

also includes previously farmed uplands that have 

since been converted to various mixes of tame and 

native grasses.

Historically, the northern Great Plains was a 

grassland-dominated system where fire and native 

grazers restricted natural tree growth to riparian 

floodplains, wooded draws, islands within lakes, and 

small patches downwind of wetland edges (Higgins 

1986). These large expanses of treeless prairies have 

been fragmented by cropland, shelterbelts, and human settlement. Grassland bird populations are declining faster and more consistently than any other 

group of North American birds (Samson and Knopf 

1994) due to habitat fragmentation and loss of native 

grasslands. A growing body of literature indicates 

that trees in prairie landscapes, such as the nonnative 

Russian olive trees found throughout Bowdoin Refuge, are often associated with negative consequences 

to numerous bird groups including ducks (Rumble 

and Flake 1983, Gazda et al. 2002), wetland-dependent 

birds (Naugle et al. 1999), prairie grouse (Hanowski 

et al. 2000, Niemuth 2000, Grant et al. 2004), and even 

ring-necked pheasants (Snyder 1984, Schmitz and 

Clark 1999). These fragmented grasslands make it 

easier for predators to successfully locate and capture 

vulnerable birds, including their nests and young. The 

nonnative trees also serve as perches for these predators to successfully survey these fragmented grasslands while hunting, increasing their success. Habitat 

loss and fragmentation has been one of the greatest 

threats to declining grassland-dependent birds.

Loss of Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks

A “lek” or “dancing ground” is an area used by the 

males of species like sharp-tailed grouse and greater 

sage-grouse to attract females for mating. A lek consists of bare, grassy, or sparse shrubland. Males select 

hilltops, ridges, or any place with a good field of view 

for leks, so they can see the surrounding displaying 

males, approaching females, and predators (Johnsgard 2002, Manske and Barker 1987, Sisson 1969). 

The same leks may be used year after year and may 

be active for decades if not destroyed by cultivation, 

invasion of dense woody vegetation, or tree planting. 

Males commonly roost overnight near the lek and, before sunrise, will move to the lek and display (strut). 

This will continue for a couple of hours following sunrise from March through May.

There have been nine documented sharp-tailed 

grouse leks on Bowdoin Refuge; however, the most 

leks used by sharp-tailed grouse in any one year was 

seven. Use of leks on consecutive years ranged from 

as many as 18 years to as few as 2 years. Since 1984, 

USFWS

A male sharp-tailed grouse performs a courtship display at a lek.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 47

the number of leks on the refuge has continued to 

steadily decline from nine known sites to one lek, and 

in more recent years none.

Research supports the current theory that the loss 

of these leks on Bowdoin Refuge is a direct result of 

the encroachment of trees and woody plants near 

sharp-tailed grouse leks.

■ Gregg (1987) and Prose (1987) showed preferred 

lek sites by sharp-tailed grouse are characterized 

by low, sparse vegetation and that an excess of 

woody cover within 2,625 feet of the lek site (well 

over half a mile), has a negative effect on the number of dancing males.

■ Berger and Baydack (1992) examined 21 years 

(1965–86) of aerial photographs of habitat around 

prairie sharp-tailed grouse leks; they found that 

leks were abandoned when aspen forest increased 

beyond 56 percent and prairie fell below 15 percent of the total area within 0.6 mile of the lek. 

In 1976, at least 12 leks existed within their study 

area, but by 1986 only 5 remained.

■ Moyles (1981) and Swenson (1985) both concluded 

that the invasion of woody vegetation and trees 

into leks also caused displaying males to abandon the leks. Moyles (1981) observed an inverse 

relationship of lek attendance by males with an 

increase in quaking aspen within 0.5 mile of leks in 

the parklands of Alberta, Canada.

■ A study by Hanowski et al. (2000) showed that 

active sharp-tailed grouse leks had significantly 

lower proportions of upland forest and brush cover 

types and higher percentages of native grasses 

than inactive leks in Minnesota. They also noted 

sharp-tailed grouse were sensitive to even small 

increases in the amount of woody vegetation and 

that the reduction in the population on their study 

area appeared to be associated with the loss of 

prairie habitat.

Despite the decline of the number of leks on Bowdoin 

Refuge, sharp-tailed grouse are observed on lands 

surrounding the refuge during the mating season 

and throughout the year. Sharp-tailed grouse use the 

refuge in the fall and winter months for feeding and 

roosting.

Water Resources and Wetland 

Management at Bowdoin Refuge

The principle sources of water for Bowdoin Refuge 

are precipitation, floodwater from Beaver Creek, 

ground water seepage, delivered water from the Milk 

River, and irrigation return flows. The refuge relies 

on these sources to supply the water needed to manage refuge wetlands. The quantity of water received 

is dependent on both weather and the availability of 

water from the Milk River and, at times, irrigation 

water from the Milk River Project. The semiarid 

climate of this region provides just over 12 inches of 

precipitation annually and an annual evaporation rate 

of more than 2 feet. Subsequently, the refuge is more 

reliant most years on delivered water from the Malta 

Irrigation District.

Through an MOA, Reclamation allows the refuge 

to use its allotted water supply of 3,500 acre-feet from 

the Milk River, which is delivered to the refuge by the 

Dodson South Canal. The Service pays an operations 

and maintenance fee to the Malta Irrigation District 

for every acre-foot of water delivered to the refuge. 

During drought years or low-water years when there 

is insufficient water to meet the needs of all users, the 

refuge water supply is reduced along with that of all 

other irrigators. Nevertheless, the original purpose of 

the Milk River Project was for irrigation, and many 

people consider any irrigation water used for wildlife 

purposes as secondary to irrigation purposes.

In some years, the refuge receives only the 3,500 

acre-feet and only if sufficient water is available to all 

irrigators. This minimal water supply is insufficient to 

properly manage all wetlands as well as manage the 

refuge’s salinity problem. For example, Piping Plover 

Pond, a wetland developed specifically for the threatened piping plover, is unable to be flooded in most 

years. With the current water transfer system, the 

wetlands in line before Piping Plover Pond must be 

sufficiently flooded before transferring water to this 

wetland. This pond remains dry and unavailable as 

nesting habitat for the plover in many years because 

of the refuge’s limited water supply.

The preferred period to deliver water to provide 

wetland habitat is in the early spring and before the 

arrival of waterbirds. In some years, it is necessary 

to deliver water to wetland units during late summer (at the end of the irrigation season and when the 

chance for a botulism outbreak is minimal) to provide 

migration habitat for the following spring and also 

to provide waterfowl-hunting opportunities on Lake 

Bowdoin and Drumbo Pond during the fall. Although 

this is not the preferred method to manage refuge 

wetlands, the Service bases its decision on climate 

conditions at the time, weather forecasts for the following season, and the possibility that there may be 

very little or no water available to provide wetland 

habitat the following spring.

Water is moved through the refuge using a series 

of canals and water control structures. The refuge 

attempts to mimic natural wetland cycles—flooding during the spring and drying throughout the 
48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

summer—to provide quality habitat for nesting and 

migratory waterbirds and other wetland-dependent 

wildlife. However, on average, the refuge is unable to 

flood and properly manage all its wetlands using its 

annual water supply alone.

In wetter years, additional water may be available for purchase from the Malta Irrigation District 

over the 3,500 acre-feet. The refuge does pay for this 

added water supply, but money targeted for purchasing water has been static, making it difficult to get 

the added water needed to properly manage wetland 

habitat.

Salinity in Lake Bowdoin 

and Blowing Salts

The most significant issue addressed through the 

planning process was the salinity and blowing salts 

at Bowdoin Refuge—a direct result of the “salt balance,” which is the relationship between the salt 

entering the refuge compared to the salt leaving the 

refuge. For many years, the amount of salt entering 

the refuge has been, and continues to be, far more 

than the amount of salt leaving the refuge. Thus, the 

overall concentration of salts in Lake Bowdoin and 

surrounding areas such as Dry Lake continues to rise.

Salt residue covers Dry Lake’s northern bay, which supports salt-tolerant plants like bulrush and the low-growing 

saltgrass.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Increasing salinity has the potential to shift Lake 

Bowdoin from one that supports a diverse plant and 

animal community that thrives in a brackish-type 

system to one that thrives in a saline-type system. 

Such a shift could negatively affect the ability of the 

lake and surrounding wetlands to fully support and 

meet the life cycle needs of migratory birds, including waterfowl. Additionally, if no action were taken 

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

the blowing salts out of Dry Lake would continue to 

threaten not only migratory birds but other wildlife, 

refuge wetlands, and, potentially, neighboring landowners and downstream irrigators.

Understanding the relationship of the salt balance 

is fundamental to devising a solution that not only 

protects and sustains refuge habitats and resources 

for wildlife, but also protects the interests of local 

farmers, ranchers, and refuge visitors. Water quantity has a direct relationship to the effect of salts 

carried in the water—quantity, evaporation, inflow, 

and outflow all contribute to the salt balance. Even 

with the current MOA with Reclamation for 3,500 

acre-feet and with natural sources of water, the water 

quantity has been insufficient for supplying necessary 

water for improving water quality.

The out-of-balance salt situation is due to a variety 

of factors—many from modifications to the landscape, 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 49

but others are natural. These factors contribute to 

increased salinity levels in Lake Bowdoin by preventing natural flooding and creating a closed basin 

(having no water outlets):

■ Climate—The high evaporation loss due to a 

harsh, semiarid climate concentrates salts in the 

water.

■ Geology—There are naturally occurring soluble 

salts in the soil.

■ Water—Water sources for the lake contain salts.

■ Development—The railroad, constructed in 1887, 

intercepts the natural flow of floodwater from Beaver Creek, keeping the water from entering the 

refuge. The Dodson South Canal prevents natural runoff from entering the refuge. Surrounding 

lands have been converted for irrigated or dryland 

farming.

■ Infrastructure—Roads, dikes, and water control 

structures along Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake 

were constructed by the Service to hold more 

water. Lake Bowdoin has been converted from a 

flow-through basin to a closed basin.

Water Resources and Wetland 

Management in Bowdoin District

In the wetland management district, the Korsbeck 

and Holm WPAs and all of the satellite refuges have 

reservoirs that rely on the runoff from precipitation events to fill and maintain the wetlands. Since 

establishment of the satellite refuges in the 1930s, 

there has been extensive water development in the 

watersheds. Runoff is being captured or diverted up 

stream of these wetlands. This water once sustained 

the wetlands. This has resulted in a decrease in the 

amount of waterbird habitat on these refuges and 

waterfowl production areas, changing them from 

semipermanent to seasonal wetland habitat.

The Service uses irrigation water rights acquired 

with the land purchase for the Pearce, Beaver Creek, 

and McNeil Slough WPAs. The water is used to 

provide waterfowl habitat during spring and fall migration. Landowners surrounding these waterfowl 

production areas have expressed concern about the 

Service’s use of irrigation water for wildlife, but the 

State of Montana recognizes benefits to wildlife as a 

beneficial use of the water.

Beaver Creek WPA is the only unit that requires 

monitoring of the salinity levels of water that is used 

in filling wetland units. The preferred time to exercise the Service’s water rights is during spring runoff 

when water quality is at its best. Filling wetlands at 

any other time of the year requires monitoring, and 

the water is not used if elevated salt levels are recorded.

Riparian Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife

Riparian habitat is the green area next to streams, 

rivers, and lakes. Riparian areas are identified by the 

presence of vegetation that requires large amounts of 

water. Within the refuge complex, this habitat occurs 

along Beaver Creek, which borders the east boundary of Beaver Creek WPA, and the Milk River, which 

borders the north boundary of McNeil Slough WPA. 

Beaver Creek is dominated by grasses, shrubs, and 

willows. The Milk River is dominated by cottonwoods 

and willows. Cottonwood trees are dependent on 

stream and riverine processes for regeneration.

Riparian habitat serves many functions including 

filtering sediments and nutrients, building streambanks, storing water, recharging aquifers, providing 

fish and wildlife habitat, and dissipating stream energy. Riparian habitats are important to a diversity of 

species such as neotropical birds, fish, reptiles, invertebrates, and mammals for feeding, nesting, escape 

cover, and breeding. Riparian areas provide economic 

and recreational benefits as well.

Threats to riparian areas are invasive plants, 

streambank erosion, and lack of cottonwood regeneration.

Wildlife Disease

Several wildlife diseases are of concern within the 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex either 

due to a history of occurrence or a concern that the 

disease could spread to the immediate area in the 

near future. Most of these diseases have been well 

documented on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge but 

have been absent or only noted incidentally throughout the rest of the refuge complex. The diseases that 

have had the most impact on wildlife species in the 

refuge complex are avian botulism, West Nile virus, 

and epizootic hemorrhagic disease. Little or nothing 

can be done to control the spread of most wildlife diseases, but all employees are required to review the 

refuge complex’s Disease Contingency Plan so they 

are aware of the possible risks of handling sick or 

dead animals.

Avian botulism has been documented almost every 

year since Bowdoin Refuge was established in 1936, 

with losses of less than 100 birds and up to as many 
50 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

as 20,000 birds. The disease is left to run its course 

naturally, although water management is still used to 

help minimize attracting birds into an affected area.

West Nile virus was first documented in the surrounding area in 2003. Although a variety of migratory birds, especially young pelicans, are susceptible 

to this disease, the biggest concern is for the human 

population. Service staff is provided with training and 

materials to avoid mosquito bites as much as possible. 

Nevertheless, in 2008, a seasonal employee was diagnosed with spinal meningitis brought on by West 

Nile virus.

Epizootic hemorrhagic disease has killed both 

white-tailed deer and pronghorn throughout the 

refuge complex. The disease is not contagious from 

one animal to another, and it is not transferable to 

humans. The last significant outbreak was in the summer of 2001, when the disease swept through much of 

the Milk River watershed, killing at least 26 deer and 

5 pronghorn within the refuge complex. It occurs in 

the driest part of the year when conditions are just 

right for biting gnats, the carriers of the disease. The 

disease is fatal, because these animals become emaciated after they stop eating due to illness. At present, 

there is little that can be done to prevent or control 

this disease.

Piping Plover

Approximately 3,325 acres of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge has been designated as critical habitat for 

the Great Plains population of piping plover, federally listed as threatened (figure 17). However, since 

2000, there have been no known piping plover nests 

on Bowdoin Refuge, primarily due to insufficient 

water supplies necessary to create attractive nesting 

habitat. Through partnerships with Reclamation and 

Ducks Unlimited, the Service created Piping Plover 

Pond and enhanced the habitat by adding gravel to 

nesting beaches and removing Russian olive trees 

used by predators as perches to locate and kill these 

threatened birds. Since piping plovers establish territories and begin breeding activities almost as soon 

as they arrive in May, habitat must be made available 

before the spring migration or the birds will simply 

bypass the refuge, choosing less protected areas to 

breed and nest. The pond has to be filled either in late 

fall, before the Dodson South Canal is “dewatered,” or 

in early spring through the Malta Irrigation District 

or runoff. Since this water is transported through 

other wetlands, no water is delivered after May 15 

to prevent the flooding of over-water nesters in these 

other units. In most years, there is not enough water 

available to fill this entire system sufficient to deliver 

it all the way to the pond.

The piping plover nests on open shorelines.

Bill Byrne / USFWS

Invasive Plants, Nonnative 

Plants, and Noxious Weeds

According to the National Invasive Species Management Plan, an invasive species is defined as a species 

that is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to 

cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (National Invasive Species Council 2008). 

Management of invasive plants, nonnative plants, and 

noxious weeds has been an issue throughout the refuge complex for many years. A portion of the refuge 

complex’s resources are directed to control introduction and spread of these species through integrated 

pest management strategies such as herbicides, prescribed burning, grazing, mowing, and farming.

One of the most challenging and damaging nonnative plant species throughout the refuge complex is 

the Russian olive tree. This species was first planted 

by refuge managers in the 1950s as an ornamental for 

windbreaks and wildlife food and cover. Although this 

tree is currently not designated as a noxious species 

in Montana, its ability to outcompete native species 

and fragment habitat is well documented. As with 

most nonnative species, Russian olive trees have 
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 51

Figure 17. Map of critical habitat for piping plover at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.
52 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

spread rapidly across the refuge complex, taking over 

many prairie wetland zones, drainages, water conveyance systems, and some uplands and riparian areas. 

Russian olive trees can outcompete native vegetation, 

interfere with natural plant succession and nutrient 

cycling, and tax water reserves. The largest infestation is on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge.

The areas where most of these nonnative trees 

now dominate were historically unfragmented, native grassland. Although these trees do provide some 

benefit to wildlife, particularly for food and cover in 

the winter, these trees and the resulting fragmentation of grassland habitat create ideal conditions for 

predators such as fox, raccoon, and skunks to find and 

kill imperiled grassland-nesting birds and their young 

and to destroy their nests. These trees also serve as 

perches for predators such as great-horned owls and 

hawks and for nest parasites such as brown-headed 

cowbirds. Many grassland-nesting birds and uplandnesting waterfowl avoid areas adjacent to trees or 

have lower nest success due to predation.

Crested wheatgrass is the primary invasive grass 

species and leafy spurge, perennial pepperweed, and 

Canada thistle are the primary invasive forb species. 

Left unmanaged these invasive plant species can 

have a detrimental effect on the diversity of native 

plants, wildlife species, and habitat quality.

New invasive species such as saltcedar and spotted knapweed pose additional threats to refuge 

complex lands. The best control methods for small 

infestations of invasive plants are early detection and 

a quick management response. Due to the scattered 

nature of land holdings in the refuge complex, this is 

not easily monitored or achieved.

Russian olive trees in the upland east of Lakeside Extension at Bowdoin Refuge.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Habitat Protection and 

Acquisition

Native prairie and wetland are the most productive habitat types in Montana, particularly in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. Although there are some 

laws that protect these areas, particularly wetland, 

these vital habitats continue to be lost. Most of these 

habitat types occur on private lands. The Service 

has committed to work with willing landowners in 

Montana to compensate them for protecting these 

habitats, primarily through perpetual wetland or 

grassland conservation easements. With limited 

acquisition funding, easements are the most costeffective method rather than the traditional fee-title 

acquisition. Easements are less expensive and the 

landowner retains ownership, using their land much 

in the same way as before the easement purchase. 

Landowners also continue to maintain their fences, 

signs, and control of noxious weeds and other invasive plants. As of 2009, willing landowners have been 

compensated for protecting more than 50,000 acres of 

grassland and wetland habitat.

The easement program was developed by the 

Service to protect the natural resource on the landscape while minimally affecting normal farming and 

ranching practices. Habitat protection needs to be 

evaluated through a priority system so that critical 

areas are identified and the most effective means of 

protection, through either fee title or easement, can 

be determined.
CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 53

Visitor Services

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation are 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as the priority public uses 

that may be accommodated on a national wildlife refuge if they are found compatible with the establishing 

purposes. All six of these public uses are offered, to 

various degrees, on the lands administered by the 

refuge complex. Appendix B contains the required 

compatibility determinations for these six uses.

An estimated 25,000 visitors come to explore the 

refuge complex annually. This may be an underestimate given that the refuge complex is spread out 

across four counties, making it difficult to estimate 

visitor numbers. The refuge complex is located in 

north-central Montana, an area commonly known at 

the Hi-line and with one of the smallest population 

densities in the State. A major attraction for wildlife 

observers and hunters, the refuge complex is also popular with local school groups. There has never been 

any visitor services staff so these and other interested 

groups are accommodated as staff and time allows.

Bowdoin Refuge is well known by professional 

and amateur wildlife photographers and filmmakers; 

requests for expanded access to the refuge have increased over the last 10 years.

There is a general lack of understanding about 

the mission and purposes the National Wildlife Refuge System and the refuge complex. Many visitors 

do not know they are on a national wildlife refuge. 

There are boundary signs and some interpretive panels throughout the refuges and waterfowl production 

areas and several displays in the visitor contact area, 

but there are opportunities to do more.

The refuge complex is starting to see an increase 

in visitation as the public has become more interested 

and educated about locating and exploring natural 

areas. The Service will need to address if and how to 

offer expanded opportunities for compatible, wildlifedependent public use while better educating the public about the value and purposes of these lands and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Partnerships

The Service’s partners include Federal, State, and 

local government agencies; schools and universities; 

nongovernmental organizations; and individual landowners. The Service’s mission is to work with others to promote stewardship activities that restore, 

enhance, and protect fish and wildlife habitats. Effective communication and diverse partnerships are 

important for the refuge complex to be able to meet 

habitat and conservation goals and objectives. Furthermore, through partnerships the refuge complex 

has opportunities to garner support and awareness 

for the Refuge System and the refuge complex and 

to promote Service programs designed to increase 

habitat restoration and protection.

The activities on surrounding lands greatly affect 

and enhance the Service’s abilities to manage its own 

resources. Some of the most important partnerships 

are with surrounding landowners, who have vast 

areas of intact wetland and grassland habitat that 

provide the greatest opportunities for habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration for sustaining 

migratory birds and other wildlife.

Operations

The Service is responsible for protection and management of the refuge complex’s 84,724 acres spread 

across a four-county area. Due to the large size of the 

management area, limited staff and funding, and long 

travel times, some lands can only be inspected once a 

year for maintenance and management needs. Service 

lands closest to the refuge complex office receive the 

greatest attention because they are logistically easier 

to manage and maintain.

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

is responsible for maintaining a vast system of lands, 

roads, trails, fences, signs, buildings, and other equipment and infrastructure necessary to manage habitats and public use programs. The facilities found on 

the refuge complex follow:

■ 137 water control structures

■ 34 pullouts/parking areas

■ 10 bridges

■ 62 miles of roads including a self-guided auto tour 

(15 miles)

■ Three boat launches (one handicap accessible)

■ Accessible hiking trail (0.4 mile)

■ 90 miles of boundary fence

■ 32 miles of canals and dikes

■ Two low-lift water pumps

■ Five ground water wells

■ 10 buildings—refuge headquarters, two residences 

with unattached double-car garages, an apartment 
54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

for seasonal housing with three storage bays, a 

building for all-terrain vehicles and equipment 

storage, two cold storage buildings, one seed storage building, and one shop with seven parking bays

The storage facilities are insufficient to store existing vehicles; most vehicles remain outside and are 

exposed to the harsh weather of this area. The refuge 

headquarters is sufficient for existing staff, including 

seasonal employees. The office areas need to be expanded if more permanent staff are added. Although 

recently remodeled, the bunkhouse is still not adequate to provide housing for seasonal and volunteer 

staff. This housing is critical to recruiting seasonal 

staff, because rental housing is very limited in the 

surrounding rural communities.

Currently, the refuge complex staff consists of 

five permanent full-time employees: a refuge manager, one nonsupervisory wildlife refuge specialist 

who also serves as the collateral law enforcement 

officer, a wildlife biologist, a maintenance worker, 

and an administrative support assistant. Since 1998, 

the refuge complex has lost two positions including 

a permanent-seasonal biological technician and a 

permanent-seasonal maintenance worker. The current staffing level remains well below the minimum 

prescribed in the minimum staffing model developed 

by the Service for all refuges (USFWS 2008c). The 

model recommends adding an additional five and 

one-half full-time equivalents: (1) five full-time positions—maintenance worker, deputy refuge manager, 

visitor services specialist, law enforcement officer, 

and wildlife refuge specialist; and (2) one permanentseasonal biological science technician. Additional staff 

and funding is critical for implementing habitat management projects, facilities maintenance, and meeting 

the purposes of the refuge complex.

Natural Gas Development

Oil and gas leasing is at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior who has delegated the Bureau of 

Land Management authority to administer the laws, 

but has by regulation restricted oil and gas leasing on 

lands of the Refuge System to those involving drainage (43 CFR 3101.5–1, 3100.2).

In conformance with the policy set forth in 50 CFR 

27, the Service usually recommends against leasing 

when the Bureau of Land Management asks for comments. In the case of non-federally owned oil and gas 

rights, it is the policy of the Service to protect project 

resources to the maximum extent possible without 

infringing on the rights of subsurface owners.

Extraction of natural gas within the Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District has occurred since 

the 1940s (figure 18). In most cases, when the Service acquired lands through fee title or easement, 

the mineral rights were reserved or excepted by the 

landowner or the Bureau of Land Management. In 

the case of Hewitt Lake Refuge, the Executive order 

establishing the refuge notes that the refuge land was 

within a known geologic structure of a producing gas 

field. The refuge purpose states that, “nothing should 

affect the disposition of its oil and gas deposits under 

the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.”

There are 104 natural gas wells in production 

status on Service-interest lands. Annual activities on 

these lands include mineral exploration, well drilling 

and maintenance, pipeline construction and maintenance, road building and maintenance, and hauling 

offsite of produced water. Many of these activities can 

fragment habitats and disturb wildlife. For example, 

Ingelfinger (2001), found that roads associated with 

natural gas development in sagebrush-steppe reduced the guild of sagebrush-dependent species such 

as sage-grouse by 50 percent within 328 feet of roads.

Production companies operating within the 

Bowdoin natural gas dome estimate that drilling is 

expected to last for about 10–15 years, with a project life of 30–50 years (Bureau of Land Management 

2008). To minimize impacts to Service interests, the 

refuge complex staff works directly with the lessee or 

operator during exploration or extraction of private 

minerals. To develop stipulations and conditions of 

approval to minimize the impacts, the Service works 

closely with the Bureau of Land Management to 

manage leasing or leases of Federal minerals below 

Service-interest lands. The Service outlines stipulations for accessing extraction sites in a special use 

permit, which the lessee or operator signs.

Prioritization of Refuge 

Complex Lands

The refuge complex staff is charged with managing 

habitat and protecting trust resources (such as migratory birds and threatened and endangered species) on 

14 different tracts of fee-title land scattered throughout a four-county area. Limited staff, funding, and 

other resources require the Service to set priorities 

for lands, so those with the greatest management potential or most vulnerable resources are recognized, 

protected, and enhanced.
CHAPTER 2 –The Refuge Complex 55

Figure 18. Map of oil and gas activities in and around Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. Source: MBOGC (2010).

(Farmers Home Administration)

CHAPTER 2–The Refuge Complex 57

Research, Inventory, and 

Monitoring

In 2007, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge completed 

a 10-year study, in cooperation with the Division of 

Migratory Birds, to assess the productivity and 

habitat needs of grassland-nesting birds in the mixedgrass prairie. This research has been very beneficial 

to management of the Bowdoin Refuge and other 

grassland-nesting bird habitat.

Research throughout the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex has been minimal and sporadic, and some past projects have not adequately 

addressed management issues. As a result, some 

current management actions are based on outside 

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

management plan.

Recent inventories carried out within the refuge 

complex include fish surveys (2000–2003), a small 

mammal trapping study on Bowdoin Refuge (2000), 

and an inventory of aquatic plants in Lake Bowdoin. 

Other much-needed inventories for amphibians, reptiles, vegetation, invertebrates, and invasive plants 

have not taken place due to lack of staff and funding.

Some limited monitoring of migratory birds (waterfowl, raptors, and shorebirds) and other wildlife 

(pronghorn) take place as staff availability and time 

allows.

Further research and monitoring to better understand the hydrologic conditions that control the 

chemical characteristics of Lake Bowdoin, Drumbo 

Pond, and Dry Lake as well as the effect of water 

chemistry on plant and invertebrate communities and 

bird physiology, would provide valuable knowledge 

that could be used to preserve and better manage 

these wetlands for migratory birds.

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is 

responsible for controlling invasive plants on Serviceowned lands within the four counties in the districts. 

As visitors from across the Nation and Canada come 

to these lands, there is a greater opportunity for 

transporting and introducing various invasive species 

from other parts of the country and Canada. In addition to educating visitors, the Service needs to monitor these lands to detect and respond to any new or 

expanding invasive plant and noxious weed species. 

The Service needs to develop a more strategic inventorying and monitoring program to prevent introduction and spread of current and new harmful species. 

This could be challenging given the widespread area 

that needs to be monitored, combined with the limited time and staff available.

The refuge complex recently hired a wildlife biologist for the first time in many years. They will need 

to begin identifying the research, inventory, and 

monitoring needs for the refuge complex and to work 

with Service staff, universities, and other biologists 

to develop studies that benefit the refuge complex 

and address the wildlife and habitat goals.

Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuge

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1937 as what the Service now calls a limitedinterest refuge. During the era of water shortages, 

the Great Depression, and the call for conservation 

across the country, the United States began acquiring refuge and flowage easements from willing landowners across Montana, North Dakota, and South 

Dakota. In the past 70 years since these easements 

were first acquired, some lands have been further 

protected through additional easements or fee-title 

acquisition and have become productive, functioning 

national wildlife refuges or waterfowl production areas. This is not the case with Lake Thibadeau. Except 

for the 19.4 acres in the center of the refuge that are 

reserved from public domain, the remaining acres 

remain in private ownership.

The refuge and flowage easements give the Service the right to control hunting and trapping and the 

uses of the main bodies of water including impoundments, lakes, and streams, and the uses that occur on 

those waters. The Service was not given the right to 

control uses of the upland areas including farming, 

grazing, and development.

This refuge is in essence a working farm and ranch. 

Habitat loss has been significant over the decades; 

the refuge currently has little value to wildlife and 

the purpose for which this area was first established 

has been lost. Native prairie areas that may have existed when the refuge was first established are now 

farmed intensively. Due to upstream development 

that captures water for irrigation and stock watering, Lake Thibadeau, Grassy Lake, and Mud Lake are 

often dry and farmed in most years, offering limited 

value for migratory birds. Public use on this refuge 

is negligible, as permission to cross private land remains the right of the landowner. During this planning 

process, the Service evaluated whether to keep Lake 

Thibadeau in the National Wildlife Refuge System.

CHAPTER 3–Refuge Complex Resources 

and Description

The Bowdoin Refuge has one of only four nesting colonies 

of American white pelicans in Montana. 

USFWS

This chapter describes the characteristics and resources of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana, under these topic headings:

■ 3.1 Physical Environment

■ 3.2 Biological Resources

■ 3.3 Salinity Background

■ 3.4 State and Federal Listed Species

■ 3.5 Cultural Resources

■ 3.6 Special Management Areas

■ 3.7 Visitor Services

■ 3.8 Management Uses

■ 3.9 Socioeconomic Environment

■ 3.10 Partnerships

■ 3.11 Operations

3.1 Physical Environment

The following sections describe the physical characteristics of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. Physical characteristics include climate, 

climate change, physiography and geography, soils, 

water resources, and air quality.

Climate

The climate of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex is “semiarid continental,” which is characterized by cold, dry winters and warm, dry summers. 

Average annual precipitation between 1905 and 2009 

was 12.5 inches, most of which fell as rain from May to 

September, with June being the wettest month. The 

10-year average, high temperature for January is 26 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with a low of 2 °F. In July, 

the average high is 87 °F and the low is 56 °F. Temperature extremes range from 113 °F in the summer 

to −60 °F in the winter. The average growing season 

is 122 days.

Prevailing winds vary from southwest to northwest with periods of strong winds common throughout the year. Average annual pan evaporation 

(estimate of lake evaporation) is about 35–40 inches 

(Dunne and Leopold 1978). On refuge complex lakes, 

the average evaporation ranges from 26–30 inches 

(URS 2009). During the winter, warm Chinook winds 

can bring rapid temperature increases of 30–40 °F 

within a few hours.

Precipitation measurements from 1905 to 2008 

show a slight downward trend in annual precipitation 

totals (figure 19). There is also a downward trend in 

the long-term precipitation totals for February, which 

is historically the driest month for the refuge complex, and for June, which is historically the wettest 

month (figures 20 and 21).

Average daily maximum temperatures and average daily minimum temperatures taken from 1969 to 

2008 for February show a slight upward trend (figures 

22 and 23.). The average daily maximum temperature 

for June from 1969 to 2008 showed a slight decrease 

while the average daily minimum temperature for 

June has slightly increased (figures 24 and 25).
60 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

25.00 

20.00 

15.00 

10.00 

5.00 P

0.00

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

re

cipitation ( inches)

Year

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

2.00 

1.80 

1.60 

1.40 

1.20 

1.00 

0.80 

0.60 

0.40 P

0.20 

0.00 

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

re

cipitation ( inches)

Year

Figure 20. Graph of total February precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008).

10.00

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

P

1.00 

0.00 

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

re

cipitation ( inches)

Year

Figure 21. Graph of total June precipitation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1905–2008).
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 61

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

Montana (1969–2008).

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

A

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 v

erag

e M aximum D aily T e

mperature

Year

°F

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

Montana (1969–2008).

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

A

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

v

erag

e M inimum D aily T e

mperature

Year

°F

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

(1969–2008).

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

A

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

v

erag

e M aximum D aily T e

mperature

Year

°F
62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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

(1969–2008).

A

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

v

erag

e M inimum D aily T e

mperature

Year

°F

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Climate Change

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order 

in January 2001 requiring Federal agencies under its 

direction that have land management responsibilities 

to consider potential climate change effects as part of 

long-range planning endeavors. The U.S. Department 

of Energy’s report, Carbon Sequestration Research 

and Development (1999), concluded that ecosystem 

protection is important to carbon sequestration and 

may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored 

in the terrestrial biosphere. The report defines carbon 

sequestration as “the capture and secure storage of 

carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain 

in the atmosphere” (1999).

The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the 

earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual 

rise in surface temperature commonly referred to as 

global warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation planning for Refuge System units, carbon 

sequestration constitutes the primary, climate-related 

effect to be considered in planning.

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon sequestration. Large, naturally occurring communities 

of plants and animals that occupy major habitats—

grassland, forest, wetland, tundra, and desert—are 

effective both in preventing carbon emission and in 

acting as biological scrubbers of atmospheric CO2.

One Service activity in particular—prescribed 

fire—releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere from 

the biomass consumed during combustion. However, 

there is no net loss of carbon because new vegetation 

quickly germinates to replace the burned-up biomass. 

This vegetation sequesters an approximately equal 

amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Dai et al. 

2006).

Climate data for this area does demonstrate a 

slight reduction in annual precipitation and increases 

in temperatures over the last 100 years. Although 

slight, in such an arid climate, this can have a significant effect on water resources, including decreasing the supply of water while demand for water 

increases. This change in climate could also alter 

vegetation patterns and species, possibly allowing 

for additional invasive species to become established. 

Invasive plants could spread more rapidly and would 

likely be able to survive the milder climates, thereby 

outcompeting the native plants.

Stronger and more frequent droughts associated 

with climate change could cause ducks and other 

waterfowl to lose breeding and migration habitat. 

In addition, changes in the timing of migration and 

nesting could put some birds out of synchronization 

with the life cycles of their prey. Natural food sources 

for wildlife, as well as the grain fields on which some 

migratory birds feed during the fall months, could 

be reduced or eliminated. Avian botulism outbreaks 

could be more frequent, and other wildlife diseases 

may increase.

As surface water supplies might decrease with climate change, the refuge complex could become more 

dependent on subsurface water sources; this would 

increase management costs due to the challenges of 

pursuing ground water that has also been depleted 

by increased demand. Less ground water recharge, 

along with a greater demand for human consumption and irrigation, could limit water available for 

wildlife purposes. There is the potential for managed 

wetlands dependent on runoff and delivered water to 

not receive adequate amounts of water for waterbird 

habitat. Lake Bowdoin might go dry more often and 

for possibly longer periods of time; as the lake dried, 

accumulated salts would be blown away during the 

Average Minimum Daily Temperature for June
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 63

hot, dry summers. In addition, there could be the potential for more frequent heavy winds, creating dust 

storms and wind erosion.

Compatible public use activities may be affected 

on Service lands due to degraded habitats and less 

wildlife.

Physiography and Geology

Glaciation has been the predominant factor in the development of the soils and topography of the Prairie 

Pothole Region. The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex area was glaciated about 15,000 years 

ago, but does not have the abundance of semipermanent and permanent wetlands found in the glaciated 

prairie to the east. Bedrock underlying the glacial 

materials consists of the Claggett Formation, Judith River Formation, and Bearpaw Shale, all of the 

Cretaceous age. These sedimentary rock formations 

consist mostly of nearly impermeable marine shale, 

alternating in places with sandstone beds. Topography of the area is typical of the glaciated plains, with 

flat to gently rolling terrain and elevations ranging 

from 2,205 feet to 2,300 feet above sea level.

Soils

A comprehensive soil survey of Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge was completed in 1966; 11 soil types 

were identified, and 13 mapping units were delineated. The predominant soils on the refuge are clays 

and clay-loams. The most common clay-loam associations are Phillips–Elloam, Phillips–Kevin, Arvada–

Bone, Scobey–Phillips, and Kevin–Sunburst. Soils are 

of a fine to loamy texture and have a montmorillonite 

component that commonly contains a substantial 

amount of selenium. Soluble calcium and sodium salts 

are dispersed in much of the profile and also tend to 

accumulate in subsoil horizons. The soils range from 

mildly to strongly alkaline.

The Bowdoin Wetland Management District falls 

primarily within the northern glaciated plains ecoregion. This ecoregion has gently undulating to rolling, 

continental, glacial till plains formed in the last ice 

age during the Pleistocene epoch about 15,000–30,000 

years ago. The glacial till is largely underlain by Cretaceous shales of marine origin and Lower Tertiary 

nonmarine sedimentary rocks. Numerous wetlands 

characteristic of the Prairie Pothole Region of the 

north-central Great Plains are common throughout 

the district. Common soil series in the district are 

Elloam, Scobey, Phillips, and Kevin; these soils are 

largely deep and well-drained, consisting of glacial 

till parent material (Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 2008).

Water Resources

Water resources for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge consist of annual precipitation and runoff events, 

wells, established water rights, Milk River Project 

irrigation water, irrigation return flows, floodwater 

from Beaver Creek, and ground water seepage from 

off-refuge lands. Water resources for the other four 

refuges and the wetland management district consist 

of annual precipitation and runoff events, wells, established water rights, Milk River Project irrigation 

water, Beaver Creek and Milk River floodwaters, and 

ground water seepage from Nelson Reservoir.

Although spring and summer rains contribute to 

the water supply, most rain during this period is absorbed in the soil or lost through evapotranspiration. 

Significant runoff can occur if the soil is frozen or during an extremely heavy rainstorm.

Milk River Watershed

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex lies 

within the Milk River watershed (figure 26). The 

watershed originates in Glacier County, covers about 

23,800 square miles, and crosses the Canadian border 

twice. The Milk River flows from the United States 

through Canada for about 215 miles before reentering 

the United States about 20 miles upstream of Fresno 

Reservoir. The watershed is used primarily for the 

production of livestock, alfalfa, native hay, oats, 

wheat, and barley.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge lies between 

two natural tributaries: Milk River to the north and 

its Beaver Creek tributary to the south (figure 27). 

The Milk River is a 729-mile-long prairie stream with 

its headwaters in the Rocky Mountain Front, north 

of the town of Browning. It flows northward into 

Alberta, Canada, then curves eastward and south 

into Montana again, finally meandering its way to the 

Missouri River near the town of Fort Peck. The Milk 

River was given its name by Captain Meriwether 

Lewis of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, who described the river in his journal (DeVoto 1953):

“The water of this river possesses a peculiar 

whiteness, being about the colour of a cup of 

tea with the admixture of a tablespoonfull of 

milk. From the colour of its water we called it 

Milk river.”

The river’s milky appearance results from fine sediment or glacial till picked up in the lower part of the 

Milk River watershed.

Beaver Creek is a major right bank tributary of 

the Milk River. The Beaver Creek rises in the Little 

Rocky Mountains south of Malta, Montana, between 
64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

 Figure 26. Map of Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex within the Milk River watershed. 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 65

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

watersheds.
66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Zortman and Lodgepole. The watershed is 195 miles 

long and has a drainage area of 2,060 square miles. 

The area is used primarily for livestock production, 

and bottomlands are extensively irrigated for the 

production of hay (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1965).

Geologic history indicates that Lake Bowdoin was 

once an oxbow of the preglacial Missouri River channel. Today, the Missouri River is nearly 70 miles south 

of Bowdoin Refuge. Historically, Lake Bowdoin acted 

as a large catch basin for precipitation, Beaver Creek 

floods, and runoff events. Lake levels fluctuated a 

great deal from year to year, depending on runoff conditions and evaporation during the hot, dry summers.

Ducks abound at Pearce Waterfowl Production Area.

James Graham / USFWS

The Milk River Project and 

St. Mary River Facilities

When Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge was established, it was an overlay on Bureau of Reclamation 

lands. Before refuge establishment, Lake Bowdoin 

was managed as a sump for irrigation return flows 

from the Milk River Project. The Milk River Project, started in 1907, is one of the earliest Reclamation projects developed by the Federal Government 

(Cosens 2006). The project was designed to provide 

a reliable source of water for irrigating more than 

100,000 acres of lands along the Milk River. Early 

settlers coming to the arid Milk River watershed had 

realized that a supplemental source of water would be 

necessary if they were to produce agricultural products and survive.

The Milk River rises from the plateau region just 

east of the St. Mary River watershed (figure 27); however, the river is cut off from the mountain water supply by a low divide separating the Milk River and St. 

Mary River watersheds. The best alternative to provide additional water for the Milk River watershed 

users was to divert water from the St. Mary River 

watershed in Glacier National Park by constructing a 

29-mile canal and pipeline that emptied into the Milk 

River. From there, the water flows through Canada 

for 216 miles before returning to the United States. 

After reentering the United States, the water flows 

into two reservoirs where it is stored until needed by 

downstream irrigators: Fresno Reservoir (104 miles 

west of Bowdoin Refuge) and Nelson Reservoir (4.5 

miles northeast of the refuge). Fresno Reservoir is 

owned and operated by Reclamation, and Nelson Reservoir is owned by Reclamation but operated by the 

Malta Irrigation District. The distribution systems 

are operated by the Malta, Glasgow, and Dodson 

irrigation districts, in which the refuge complex is 

located.

Along with irrigation benefits, the Milk River 

Project provides many recreational and wildlife benefits. Lake Sherburne, in Glacier National Park, is a 

popular spot for fishing and windsurfing. Boating and 

water skiing are popular activities at Fresno Reservoir, and fishing and camping are popular activities 

offered at Nelson Reservoir. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge provides protected habitat for migrating, 

breeding, and feeding migratory birds and other wildlife. In addition, the refuge provides public use activities such as waterfowl and upland game hunting, 

wildlife viewing and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation facilities and programs.

Facilities on the St. Mary River have been in operation for more than 90 years. Most of the structures 

have exceeded their designed life and are in need of 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 67

major repairs or replacement. The economy of the HiLine Region (the northern tier of Montana counties) 

has been built around the stable water supply provided by these facilities. Without the needed rehabilitation, this aging system may soon suffer significant 

failure. Failure of these facilities would have a devastating effect to communities, agriculture, wildlife, and 

recreational opportunities throughout the Milk River 

watershed as well as for water-dependent migratory 

birds and other wildlife on the Bowdoin Refuge.

Wells

Only one well supplies domestic water to all the buildings at the Bowdoin Refuge headquarters. Another 

operating well supplies water to Display Pond, a 

wildlife observation area close to the headquarters. In 

addition, two wind-generated wells on the east end of 

the refuge have not been used since livestock grazing 

ended in the 1970s.

Water Quality

A significant amount of water provided to the Bowdoin Refuge and the Pearce WPA originates in the 

Milk River. The Milk River has good water quality 

upstream of Havre, Montana. Below Havre, it becomes progressively poorer downstream because of 

agricultural returns and municipal discharges over 

the summer (Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 1977). Because the Milk 

River watershed is underlain by glacial till and shale 

containing high concentrations of soluble salts, the irrigation return flows and ground water seepage in the 

watershed are major sources of saline water.

The State water quality classification for the Milk 

River drainage from the International Boundary with 

Canada to the Missouri River ranges from B to D: (1) 

B means water supply for drinking, culinary, and food 

processing purposes; and (2) waters with a D classification are to be maintained suitable for agricultural 

purposes and secondary contact recreation (Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality 2006).

Lake Bowdoin, the primary water feature on Bowdoin Refuge, was first used as a sump by Reclamation after the completion of the Dodson South Canal 

in 1915 (before refuge establishment). The lake was 

used to capture irrigation return flows from the Milk 

River Project and seepage from adjacent irrigation 

activities. The Dodson South Canal was constructed 

along the north boundary of what is now Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. The canal conveys water from 

the Milk River at Dodson Dam for irrigated lands 

upstream of the refuge and transfers water to Nelson 

Reservoir for storage. This canal also conveys Milk 

River water to Bowdoin Refuge, but this water use 

is secondary to irrigation needs. The canal intercepts 

much of the local runoff, which limits the amount of 

water that would otherwise naturally flow into the 

refuge’s lakes and wetlands. This canal water is normally higher in dissolved solids (salts) than seepage, 

which flows downhill through the naturally saline 

soils toward Lake Bowdoin. Over the years, large 

saline seeps have developed between the lake and 

the canal due to increased water infiltration rates and 

ground water seepage from agricultural lands north 

of the refuge. Rain and runoff events wash these deposits into the lake.

Saline lakes occur naturally throughout the western half of North America (Langbein 1961); however, 

geothermal energy development, irrigation return 

flows, and alterations in the hydrology of natural lake 

systems can unnaturally increase salts even in lakes 

that are not naturally saline. Hydrologic barriers such 

as roadbed construction can disrupt the natural flow 

and mixing, causing a lake to function as a hydrologic 

sump and concentrating salts at abnormal levels 

(Swanson et al. 1984).

The influx of saline water into Lake Bowdoin, combined with evapoconcentration (the concentration of 

chemical constituents in a liquid due to evaporative 

processes), has caused salt concentrations in the lake 

to increase exponentially (Kendy 1999). The total dissolved solids (salts) for Lake Bowdoin in September 

2009 were about 10,500 milligrams of salt per liter 

(mg/L), which places the lake in the subsaline category (Gleason et al. 2009). In most years, surface 

water does not flow out of Lake Bowdoin because of a 

limited water supply.

Water quality in and near Bowdoin Refuge is 

monitored annually at 19 surface sites and 14 shallow, 

ground water wells. Sixteen additional surface sites 

off the refuge and 18 wells along the Dodson South 

Canal are also monitored (refer to figure 28). Waterquality monitoring begins in the spring when the ice 

thaws and ends in the fall when the water freezes. 

All sites are tested every 2 weeks for temperature, 

specific conductance, pH, and depth. Specific conductance is a measure of how well water can conduct an 

electrical current. This can be used to determine the 

presence of dissolved solids such as phosphate, magnesium, calcium, and sodium.

Past water management at Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge was aimed at maintaining high water 

levels in all refuge wetlands. Due to an inadequate 

water supply, this philosophy did not provide for 

periodic drawdowns and flushing, except during the 

infrequent flooding by Beaver Creek. The long-term 

effect has been increased salinity, as measured by 

specific conductance, in not only Lake Bowdoin but in 

Dry Lake and Drumbo Pond.

Historically, the only means to remove these 

excessive concentrations of salts from lakes and 

wetlands was after a runoff and or flood event. The 
68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

excess water would drain away, and much of the 

remaining water would be lost to evaporation over 

the summer months and leave behind dissolved salts. 

These salts were naturally blown away by strong 

winds or partially flushed out of the lakes during the 

next heavy runoff or flood event.

Construction of water facilities during the 1980s 

significantly improved water management capabilities on Bowdoin Refuge. Present Service management emphasizes maintenance of freshwater 

conditions in smaller wetland units such as Lakeside, 

Lakeside Extension, Bootleg Marsh, Teal Ponds, and 

Farm Ponds. These wetlands and ponds are managed to mimic natural wetlands, allowing periodic 

drawdowns or dry periods. Current management 

also focuses on how to reduce salinity levels in Lake 

Bowdoin, Dry Lake Pond, Dry Lake, and Drumbo 

Pond to address the effects on wildlife and neighboring landowners.

The Service is trying to better understand how 

to use additional water supplies, when available, for 

effective dilution and flushing. Subsequently, the 

Service and the Montana Reserved Water Rights 

Compact Commission have spent more than 2 years 

evaluating methods to improve the water quality on 

Bowdoin Refuge. This salinity team developed five 

proposals, or alternatives, for addressing the increasing salinity levels (chapter 6 of the draft CCP and 

EA).

Water Supply and Rights

Water supply and rights are described in this section 

for the units of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex.

Table 4. Water rights for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Phillips County, Montana.

Owner Water right 

number

Source name / 

type

Priority 

date Water right type Purpose

Bureau of Reclamation 40J–40937–00 Milk River / 

Surface water

11/02/1903 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

Fish and Wildlife Service 40J–189872–00 Milk River / 

Surface water

03/09/1937 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–187361–00 Beaver Creek / 

Surface water

11/12/1940 Compact1 Fish and 

wildlife

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–187362–00 Black Coulee / 

Surface water

11/12/1940 Reserved claim Fish and 

wildlife

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–187363–00 Spring, 

Unnamed tributary 

of Beaver Creek / 

Ground water

11/12/1940 Compact Fish and 

wildlife

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–187364–00 Ground water 11/12/1940 Compact Wildlife

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–187365–00 Ground water 11/12/1940 Compact Wildlife

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–189874–00 Ground water 11/12/1940 Compact Institutional

Fish and Wildlife Service 40M–25539–00 Ground water 11/12/1940 Compact Domestic

1 Compact (memorandum of agreement) with Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission.

2 Maximum flow measured in cfs=cubic feet per second; gpm=gallons per minute.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. Bowdoin Refuge 

has a complex system of dikes, canals, and water control structures for moving water between water units 

and for handling floodwaters entering from Beaver 

Creek (figure 28 shows the location of this infrastructure and the refuge wetlands). The Montana Water 

Court has identified the Beaver Creek watershed as 

basin 40M. Water right filings for Bowdoin Refuge 

(table 4) have a complicated history, involving agreements and coordination with Reclamation during 

construction of the Milk River Project. In the 1930s, 

the Service was able to negotiate an agreement with 

Reclamation for a perpetual delivery of its water 

right in return for the Service contributing $40,000 

toward the construction of the Fresno Reservoir near 

Havre, Montana. During years the Milk River has 

normal runoff, Reclamation will furnish a maximum 

of 3,500 acre-feet of water to the refuge each calendar 

year for improvement and maintenance of the refuge. 

If runoff is below normal, the refuge is to receive that 

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

Federal Reclamation Law permits.

In the past, the refuge has been able to obtain 

water in excess of 3,500 acre-feet through deliveries 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 69 

Figure 28. Map of wetlands, water management infrastructure, and monitoring sites on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 71

of water using the Malta Irrigation District facilities. 

This has averaged 4,877 acre-feet, when considering 

all recorded deliveries. The Service has had to pay 

a delivery fee to the irrigation district for this extra 

water. Based on the maximum delivery of water from 

the Milk River on record—11,540 acre-feet—the Service filed a historical use claim of 8,000 acre-feet at a 

delivery rate of 280 cubic feet per second.

Receiving this additional water was has been 

critical to the management of the refuge’s wetland 

habitats. Nevertheless, in many years there is insufficient delivered water and runoff necessary to fill and 

manage all wetlands within the refuge.

Table 5. Water rights for the waterfowl production areas and satellite refuges of Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, Montana.

Refuge Water right Priority County Source name Water right type Purpose complex unit1 number date

Beaver Creek 

WPA

Phillips 40M–5987–00 Beaver Creek 09/08/1900 Statement of claim Irrigation

Phillips 40M–22930–00 Unnamed tributary 

of Beaver Creek

09/08/1900 Statement of claim Irrigation

Phillips 40M–169663–00 Beaver Creek 09/08/1900 Statement of claim Irrigation

Phillips 40M–22928–00 Unnamed tributary 

of Beaver Creek

07/11/1903 Statement of claim Irrigation

Phillips 40M–19581–00 Spring, 

Unnamed tributary 

of Beaver Creek

12/31/1930 Statement of claim Stock

Dyrdahl WPA Phillips 40J–167498–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1911 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40K–167499–00 Surface water 12/31/1911 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167505–00 Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

01/30/1923 Statement of claim Irrigation

Phillips 40J–167516–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1923 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167517–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1923 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167518–00 Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1923 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167519–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1923 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167521–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1923 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167506–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock

1 WPA=waterfowl production area; NWR=national wildlife refuge. 2 Maximum flow measured in cfs=cubic feet per second; gpm=gallons per minute. 

3 Compact (memorandum of agreement) with Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission.

Bowdoin Wetland Management District. All waterfowl production areas except Webb WPA have 

recorded water rights (table 5). Sources for these 
72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 5. Water rights for the waterfowl production areas and satellite refuges of Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, Montana.

Refuge 

complex unit1 County Water right number Source name Priority date Water right type Purpose

Dyrdahl WPA 

(continued)

Phillips 40J–167507–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167508–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167509–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167510–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167511–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167512–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167513–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

07/12/1928 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40K–167497–00 Unnamed tributary 

of closed basin

05/10/1940 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167504–00 Natural pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1945 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–167522–00 Ground water 06/05/1964 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–34882–00 Ground water 08/23/1981 Ground water 

certificate

Stock

Phillips 40J–47460–00 Ground water 12/07/1981 Ground water 

certificate

Domestic 

and Stock

Holm WPA Blaine 40J 183201 00 Unnamed tributary 

of Hay Coulee

03/06/1942 Statement of claim Stock

Korsbeck WPA Phillips 40J–43760–00 Unnamed tributary 

of interior drainage

12/31/1905 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–43936–00 Constructed pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of West Alkali Creek

12/31/1945 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–43940–00 Constructed pit, 

Unnamed tributary 

of West Alkali Creek

12/31/1954 Statement of claim Stock

Phillips 40J–102275–00 Ground water 10/06/1958 Statement of claim Stock

1 WPA=waterfowl production area; NWR=national wildlife refuge. 2 Maximum flow measured in cfs=cubic feet per second; gpm=gallons per minute.

3 Compact (memorandum of agreement) with Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission.
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 73

Table 5. Water rights for the waterfowl production areas and satellite refuges of Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, Montana.

Refuge 

complex unit1 County Water right number Source name Priority date Water right type Purpose

McNeil Slough 

WPA

Phillips 40J–163022–00 Unnamed tributary 

of Milk River

06/21/1930 Statement of claim Wetlands

Pearce WPA Phillips 14–06–600–59081 — 10/17/1961 Statement of claim —

Black Coulee 

NWR

Blaine Compact3 Black Coulee — Compact3 —

Creedman 

Coulee NWR

Hill 40J–183197–00 Creedman Coulee 05/25/1937 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

Hewitt Lake 

NWR

Phillips 40J–183198–00 Unnamed Tributary 

to Spring Coulee

07/16/1902 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

Lake Thibadeau 

NWR

Hill 40J–187366–00 Unnamed Tributary 

to Redrock Coulee

10/25/1937 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

Hill 40J–187367–00 Lohman Coulee 10/25/1937 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

Hill 40J–188170–00 Martin Coulee 10/25/1937 Statement of claim Fish and 

wildlife

1 WPA=waterfowl production area; NWR=national wildlife refuge. 2 Maximum flow measured in cfs=cubic feet per second; gpm=gallons per minute.

3 Compact (memorandum of agreement) with Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission.

rights include ground water wells, overland runoff, 

pumping from named watercourses, and created diversions. The Service uses these water rights to flood 

several wetland units on the waterfowl production 

areas to provide migration and brood habitat for migratory birds. Pearce WPA, located just downstream 

of Bowdoin Refuge on the Dodson South Canal, has a 

water right through Reclamation. When the Pearce 

WPA was purchased in 1976, the Service assumed 

responsibility of the contract for water that was previously held between the landowner and Reclamation; 

the contract was established in 1961 when the landowner requested water from the Milk River Project. 

The contract was for the irrigation of 50 acres of land 

and 100 acre-feet of water per full irrigation season. 

Reclamation granted the permanent contract with 

the requirement that the landowner pay a share of 

the construction cost of the irrigation project; semiannual payments were to be made against the $2,500 

construction liability. The contract was amended in 

1969, which reduced the construction repayment cost 

to $1,941 and set the semiannual payment amount at 

$23.03. When the Service acquired the property and 

assumed responsibility of the contract, there were 27 

years left on the payment schedule; the construction 

payment was paid in full in 2003.

The Service still pays an annual operation and 

maintenance charge for the water and will continue to 

do so in perpetuity or until the contract is amended.

Satellite Refuges. The four satellite refuges in the 

refuge complex all have recorded water rights (see 

table 5). Each refuge has a dam built by the Government in the 1930s that impounds water, primarily on 

private land, for the purposes of water conservation, 

drought relief, and migratory bird and wildlife conservation. The Government obtained perpetual flowage easements from the original landowners; these 

easements grant the Service the right to manage 

the uses of structures and associated impoundments, 

lakes, streams, and rivers within easement boundaries. The flowage easements did not grant any rights 

for management or protection of other natural, shallow depressions except for control of hunting.

Air Quality

Air quality is a global concern. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lead responsibility 

for the quality of air in the United States; through 

the 1990 Clean Air Act, the agency sets limits on the 

amount of pollutants that can be discharged into the 

air. More than 170 million tons of pollution is emitted annually into the air within the United States, 

through either stationary sources (such as industrial 

and power plants) or mobile sources (such as automobiles, airplanes, trucks, buses, and trains). There are 

also natural sources of air pollution such as fires, dust 
74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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 related to more urban areas and mountains or river 

valleys that are sensitive to temperature inversions. 

Carbon monoxide and particulate matter are the 

air pollutants that have the greatest adverse effect 

on Montana’s air quality. Particulate matter is tiny 

liquid or solid particles in the air that are able to be 

breathed in through the lungs.

In the area of the refuge complex, air quality is 

considered to be exceptionally good; there are no 

nearby manufacturing sites or major sources of air 

pollution. At Bowdoin Refuge, however, salts on the 

east end of the refuge are sometimes blown into the 

air during high wind events. As water evaporates 

from Lake Bowdoin throughout the summer, the 

shoreline is left with the solids or salts that can be 

carried away by high winds. Most of the blowing salts 

historically came from Dry Lake after water transferred from Lake Bowdoin to create shallow wetlands 

for ducks and shorebirds eventually evaporated and 

left large concentrations of dried salts. In the past 

10 years, no water has been transferred from Lake 

Bowdoin, and Dry Lake has remained dry except for 

some occasional, natural runoff. Any remaining salts 

in Dry Lake from past management activities are 

gone. Furthermore, much of Dry Lake has become 

vegetated, which has reduced the ability of salts to 

become airborne.

The refuge complex periodically uses prescribed 

fire to manage habitat and control invasive and nonnative species. Both prescribed fires and wildfires 

produce numerous gasses and particulate matter 

that affect air quality. Prescribed fires are conducted 

under strict smoke and air regulations as established 

by the Montana and Idaho Airshed Group—all prescribed fires conducted on the refuge complex have 

met permitted requirements. The Service is assessed 

an annual fee based on the previous year’s tons of particulate matter produced from prescribed burning on 

a statewide basis. Each year, the refuge complex’s fire 

management officer applies for and submits payment 

to Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ).

3.2 Biological Resources

The following sections describe the biological resources that may be affected by the implementation 

of the CCP. The biological features detailed below are 

vegetative habitat types and the associated birds, 

mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, and insects. 

The quality of these habitats varies throughout the 

refuge complex particularly due to water quality 

and quantity, the presence of invasive and nonnative 

species, impacts from surrounding land uses, and the 

Service’s ability to properly manage and protect a 

particular area.

The major habitat types that occur on the refuge 

complex follow:

■ Uplands—vast expanses comprised primarily 

of mixed-grass prairie and disturbed grasslands, 

including dense nesting cover

■ Wetlands—natural and enhanced freshwater and 

saline wetlands and associated riparian areas, 

lakes, rivers, and ponds

Unless otherwise noted, most of the following information is from unpublished Service data located in 

files at the refuge complex headquarters.

Uplands

At least 50 percent of native grassland habitat has 

been converted to other uses in Montana’s Prairie 

Pothole Region (Ducks Unlimited 2003). However, 

large, intact, native prairie communities can still be 

found throughout the Bowdoin Refuge Complex, with 

more than 10,400 acres of fee-title lands in the refuge 

complex in native prairie. In addition, grassland conservation easements on private lands are protecting 

almost 40,000 acres of native prairie and tamegrasses.

Native prairie is defined as areas of previously unbroken, unfarmed (virgin) sod where the soil composition is generally intact. Grasses in the prairie found 

in this area are a mixture of western wheatgrass, 

needlegrasses, blue grama, and upland sedges. Interspersed within the grasses are numerous species of 

forbs such as fringed sagewort, scarlet globemallow, 

coneflowers, and yarrow. Shrubs include winterfat, 

silver sage, and greasewood. In addition, clubmoss 

and prickly pear cactus are common.

While clubmoss is a natural component of native 

uplands, overgrazing, drought, and lack of fire have 

allowed it to increase as herbaceous cover decreased. 

It has been theorized that clubmoss outcompetes 

other vegetation by forming dense mats that intercept water and prevent seed germination (Majorowicz 1963, Heady 1952). Other studies have rejected 

these hypotheses and suggest that clubmoss does not 

affect water use by other plants (Colberg and Romo 

2003) and that seed germination is more affected by 

the species of seeds in the seed banks (Romo and Bai 

2004). Clubmoss may also reduce runoff, increase 

water infiltration, and prevent invasive plants from 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 75

becoming established in native grasslands that have 

been stressed by past overgrazing or drought.

In presettlement times, the frequency of wildfire 

across the northern Great Plains was highly variable 

depending on climate and soil type (Higgins 1986, 

Umbanhowar 1996). Other factors such as moisture, 

plant species composition, topography, and grazing 

by native animals also played a role in fire frequency, 

intensity, and duration (Askins et al. 2007, Madden et al. 2000). Fire-return intervals of 5–10 years 

have been estimated for the northern Great Plains 

(Frost 1998), and intervals averaging 6 years have 

been reported for studies in North Dakota (Madden et al. 1999). However, very little research has 

been conducted regarding fire in the drier prairies 

of north-central Montana. Askins et al. (2007) suggest that grazing and a lack of moisture maintained 

grass as the dominant vegetation with fire playing 

a lesser role and estimated a fire-return interval of 

10–26 years for Montana. Historically, wildfires on 

the refuge complex were suppressed and prescribed 

fire was used sporadically. Since 2001, the Service has 

made a concerted effort to restore wildland fire to 

this prairie system, burning more than 13,000 acres 

throughout the refuge complex. Burning stimulates 

plant growth, returns nutrients to the soil, reduces 

residual cover, scarifies native seed, can reduce or increase competition from invasive plants, and restores 

upright structure. Following a prescribed fire, a more 

diverse native plant community returns, providing 

nesting and feeding habitat for migratory birds and 

other wildlife. To create a mosaic of habitat across 

the landscape, the Service staggers these prescribed 

fires, burning only 5–10 percent of the burnable acres 

in a single year.

Vast herds of bison once roamed throughout this 

area of north-central Montana. When the bison were 

eliminated, domestic cattle were brought to graze this 

expansive grassland habitat. The uplands may have 

been grazed even more heavily by livestock than 

other parts of the refuge complex because of the reliable water source in Lake Bowdoin. When Bowdoin 

Refuge was established in 1936, domestic cattle grazing went through several periods of use and nonuse 

until it was phased out between 1973 and 1977. In 

2001, the Service began a prescriptive cattle grazing 

program to meet specific objectives for enhancing native grasslands and treating invasive plants.

Since the refuge complex was established, the 

Service has planted 4,477 acres of uplands to various 

grass species to create dense nesting cover. All of the 

4,008 acres on the waterfowl production areas were 

prior cropland and 469 acres of native prairie on the 

Bowdoin Refuge were broken (tilled) to plant DNC. 

These areas are referred to as disturbed grasslands. 

All of the disturbed grasslands on the waterfowl 

production areas were once farmed; shortly after 

Fringed sagewort is one of the many forbs on the 

Bowdoin Refuge Complex. 

Larry Allain / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Blue grama is a common prairie grass.

Al Schneider / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database
76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Service acquisition, these acres were seeded to herbaceous cover consisting of a cool-season vegetation 

mix of wheatgrasses and legumes. The predominant 

grass species used were intermediate wheatgrass, tall 

wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass, and western wheatgrass; the legumes were 

alfalfa and sweetclover. These species, commonly referred to as dense nesting cover, were chosen based 

on research that showed they are highly attractive 

and beneficial to waterfowl (Duebbert 1969). The 

remaining 469 acres of disturbed grasslands, located 

on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, were planted 

into broken native prairie in the 1970s specifically to 

provide ducks a denser nesting cover than the surrounding upland. Rationale for this type of management action was likely based on research conducted in 

the late 1960s and 1970s, which indicated ducks were 

experiencing higher nesting success in DNC than in 

surrounding upland habitats (Duebbert 1969, Duebbert and Lokemoen 1976, Kaiser et al. 1979). Many 

of the DNC fields are in poor condition with respect 

to plant diversity. The lifespan of a DNC seeding is 

about 15 years (Higgins and Barker 1982, Lokemoen 

1984), and most of the DNC fields on the refuge complex are well past this lifespan.

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

in Uplands

North-central Montana does not have many new invasive plant species when compared to other parts 

of the State; however, refuge complex lands will be 

constantly monitored for new nonnative species that 

can occur in this area including Russian knapweed, 

hoary alyssum, and baby’s breath. Although most of 

the native prairie is free from invasive and nonnative 

plants, there is encroachment of crested wheatgrass, 

Russian olive, and Japanese brome. Leafy spurge, 

spotted knapweed, and Canada thistle can be found 

in disturbed uplands including along roadsides and 

railroad tracks.

Crested Wheatgrass. Crested wheatgrass has been 

the most commonly planted exotic grass in western 

North America since the early 1900s. Invasion of 

this species into native rangeland can have a negative effect on plant and wildlife diversity (Reynolds 

and Trost 1981, Christian and Wilson 1999, Davis and 

Duncan 1999). When it invades native prairie, crested 

wheatgrass often eliminates its native competitors 

and can form vast monocultures that create ecological traps for nesting grassland birds (Lloyd 2005). According to Lloyd (2005), nests in native prairie were 

depredated 17 percent less often than nests in a field 

of crested wheatgrass. Survey data for grassland 

birds nesting on Bowdoin Refuge indicates fewer 

nests in the crested wheatgrass areas adjacent to the 

native grassland fields. Crested wheatgrass was used 

to landscape areas around the refuge headquarters 

area in the 1930s and to replace the small plots of 

wildlife food crops on the west end of the Bowdoin 

Refuge as they were phased out. Throughout the 

refuge complex, scattered monocultures of crested 

wheatgrass are slowly spreading and are overtaking 

native grasslands. It is difficult to effectively treat 

and eradicate this invasive grass.

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 to semiarid 

and saline environments and has been promoted as 

a source of food and cover for some wildlife species 

(Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002), 

particularly ring-necked pheasant. With this in mind, 

refuge staff planted Russian olive trees on Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge in the 1950s until the 1970s. 

Over the years, the trees have encroached into native 

prairie, fragmenting grassland habitats throughout 

the refuge complex, but particularly on Bowdoin Refuge. Research has proven that fragmentation causes 

avoidance of these areas by some nesting grassland 

birds and increased predation of nests, adults, and 

juvenile grassland-dependent birds (Delisle and Savidge 1996, Gazda et al. 2002, Helzer 1996, Johnson and 

Temple 1990).

In Bowdoin Wetland Management District, Pearce 

WPA has the greatest infestation of Russian olive 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 77

trees; the McNeil Slough, Beaver Creek, and Korsbeck WPAs have a few Russian olive trees as well. 

The greatest infestation of Russian olive is on Bowdoin Refuge, which has more than 140 acres of this 

species scattered throughout the refuge. The eastern 

end of the refuge has relatively pristine, native prairie, and Russian olive trees were encroaching into 

this area. Control of Russian olive on the refuge began in 2000 with tree cutting and treating the stumps 

with an herbicide (Arsenal® or Garlon® 3A); in some 

treated areas, the remaining tree stumps sprouted 

and readily propagated, becoming difficult for the 

refuge staff to control. The Service began by removing these single, scattered trees, and then turned its 

attention to larger, older infestations. Labor-intensive 

control methods, combined with a lack of staff, has 

slowed progress in reducing the infestation.

In September 2010, the State reclassified Russian 

olive as a priority 3 regulated plant. Regulated plants 

are not listed as noxious weeds but have the potential 

to have significant impacts. This plant species may no 

longer be intentionally spread or sold.

Japanese Brome. This grass has been present in 

the refuge complex for many years with almost no attention given to estimating the size of the infestations 

or treating them. Japanese brome is an early invader 

and spreads quickly, particularly in disturbed sites. 

Not only does this plant compete for the resources 

needed by desirable native plants, it provides poor 

cover for grassland birds and decreases in nutritive 

content and digestibility as it matures.

Leafy Spurge. Leafy spurge is an aggressive 

perennial species that is known to displace desirable grasses and forbs. The plant’s ability to spread 

rapidly by seed and vegetative reproduction and its 

extensive deep-root system are factors that can make 

eradication of this species extremely difficult.

Leafy spurge was first discovered growing on 

Bowdoin Refuge during the summer of 1989. There 

is a 0.7-acre patch on both sides of the railroad tracks 

on Big Island that has been treated with mowing 

and spraying since it was discovered. McNeil Slough 

WPA (Bowdoin District) was infested with leafy 

spurge when it was purchased in 1991; the infestation 

is extensive but sparse and has been treated sporadically with spraying. In 1996, about 2,000 Aphthona 

lacertosa flea beetles were released in this infestation 

at McNeil Slough WPA, with no apparent effect. The 

Service’s Montana Strike Team has been surveying, treating and monitoring this species on McNeil 

Slough for the last 3 years, and evidence suggests 

that infestations are decreasing. There was a small 

patch (25 feet square) discovered in 2004 at Korsbeck 

WPA, which has been treated annually with chemicals.

Spotted Knapweed. In 2004, a few spotted knapweed plants were discovered along the auto tour road 

to the main boat ramp near the Bowdoin Refuge office. The infestation has been treated by pulling and 

spraying.

Spotted Knapweed

Elaine Haug / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Canada Thistle. Canada thistle has been prevalent 

for many years on Bowdoin Refuge, Pearce WPA, and 

McNeil WPA; thistle patches are found near many 

roads and other disturbed areas. Some dense stands 

have been treated with success, but most areas go 

untreated.

Yellow Toadflax. On Bowdoin Refuge, a small stand 

of yellow toadflax was discovered growing along the 

railroad tracks on Big Island (near the leafy spurge 

patch) in 1993 and has been hand-pulled sporadically 

over the years.

Upland‐Associated Wildlife

There are 119 species of birds that have been documented breeding and nesting on the refuge complex. 

About 29 species use upland habitats, particularly 

native grassland, for nesting. From 1995 to 2008, 

the most abundant breeding and nesting passerines 

using the native grasslands were chestnut-collared 

longspur, Savannah sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, 

Baird’s sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, and western meadowlark. Also documented were clay-colored sparrow, 

lark bunting, and vesper sparrow.

The importance of this area to breeding and migrating waterfowl and shorebirds has long been 

recognized, serving as a catalyst for establishment of 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge and the remaining 

refuge complex. The most common upland-nesting 

ducks are mallard, gadwall, northern pintail, northern shoveler, and blue-winged teal. Several uplandnesting shorebirds are also found in native prairie 

habitats including marbled godwit, willet, upland 

sandpiper, long-billed curlew, and Wilson’s phalarope.
78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Sharp-tailed grouse are one of the few native prairie birds that are year-round residents. During the 

early 1980s, Bowdoin Refuge had up to seven leks 

that were used each spring by 50–100 sharp-tailed 

grouse. The number of leks and birds per lek have 

decreased dramatically since that time. By 1999, 

there was only one active lek on the refuge and it 

had less than 20 birds. Despite this decline on the 

refuge, sharp-tailed grouse are observed on lands 

around the refuge throughout the year; many of these 

grouse move onto Bowdoin Refuge in the fall and stay 

through the winter months.

Although not abundant, sage-grouse, a federal 

candidate species, has been documented on Beaver 

Creek, McNeil Slough, Hewitt Lake, and Korsbeck 

WPAs. Other bird species include raptors such as 

northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, 

and short-eared owl, which are commonly seen hunting or nesting in the uplands. The nonnative ringnecked pheasant is also common on most of the refuge 

complex. Introduced to the area in the 1930s primarily for hunting, pheasant have become a permanent 

part of the upland wildlife, nesting and feeding in 

grassland habitat.

Native grazers such as pronghorn, white-tailed 

deer, and mule deer browse and graze the uplands. 

Some of the other mammals found in native grasslands on the refuge complex are coyote, white-tailed 

jackrabbit, badger, and Richardson’s ground squirrel. 

In 2000, a small mammal-trapping study on Bowdoin 

Refuge found deer mouse, meadow vole, western 

harvest mouse, house mouse, and least weasel. Other 

species observed included masked shrew, northern 

pocket gopher, white-footed mouse, and western 

jumping mouse.

There have been no formal amphibian or reptile 

surveys on the refuge complex. Some of the documented reptiles are gopher snake, prairie rattlesnake, 

yellow-bellied racer, plains garter snake, and common 

garter snake.

The diversity of insects in the refuge complex has 

not been quantified, but prairie and tame grassland 

produce large numbers of grasshoppers, leafhoppers, 

butterflies, beetles, and spiders.

Target Upland Birds

The Service has identified a diverse group of target bird species for uplands in the refuge complex: 

Baird’s sparrow, chestnut-collared longspur, greater 

sage-grouse, long-billed curlew, Sprague’s pipit, and 

marbled godwit. The life history needs of these species are described below, excepting the godwit—an 

upland-nesting shorebird that is a target species for 

both uplands and wetlands and is described under 

“Target Waterbirds.”

Baird’s Sparrow. The Baird’s sparrow is a true 

grassland specialist, requiring grasslands on both its 

breeding and wintering grounds. This sparrow breeds 

exclusively in the northern mixed-grass prairie from 

southeastern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan 

(Canada) through North Dakota and eastern Montana. Populations of many grassland birds including 

Baird’s sparrows have declined due to habitat loss 

from conversion to cropland, overgrazing, and poor 

rangeland management (Dechant et al. 2003).

Baird’s sparrows nest in idle to lightly grazed native prairie that has some residual litter cover and 

few shrubs. In wetter, eastern portions of their range 

frequent fires may be required to prevent shrub invasion. Drier, western grasslands do not require the 

same frequency (Dechant et al. 2003). In Alberta, the 

highest densities of Baird’s sparrows were found in 

sites not burned for 5–15 years (Green et al. 2002), 

and a fire-return interval of up to 25 years has been 

recommended for dry mixed-grass prairie (Askins et 

al. 2007, Dechant et al. 2003). On Bowdoin Refuge, 

Baird’s sparrows were common in prairie that had not 

burned for at least 70 years. Although they prefer native prairie, the sparrows will use tamegrass pastures 

and some exotic grass species that are structurally 

similar to native prairie.

Baird’s sparrows arrive at Bowdoin Refuge 

around mid-May and begin nesting in late May (Jones 

et al. 2010). A long-term grassland bird study at the 

refuge compared vegetation measurements taken at 

nest sites to measurements taken at random sites 

throughout four study plots (445 acres total). The 

sparrows preferred nesting habitat with greater litter depth (averaging 8 inches) and taller vegetation 

(averaging 14 inches) than that found at random sites 

(Dieni and Jones 2003). In addition, they have been 

found to select sites devoid of clubmoss (Dieni and 

Jones 2003) and bare ground (Dieni and Jones 2003, 

Green et al. 2002). Dechant et al. (2003) made the 

following management recommendations for Baird’s 

sparrow:

■ Protect native grasslands that support breeding 

populations of Baird’s sparrow

■ Prevent encroachment of woody vegetation

■ Encourage vegetative diversity within grasslands

■ Provide large tracts of grassland

■ Use fire-return intervals appropriate for the area

■ Prevent overgrazing in pastures used by Baird’s 

sparrows
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 79

Chestnut-collared Longspur. Chestnut-collared longspurs breed only in short- and mixed-grass prairie 

of the western and northern Great Plains and are 

the most abundant grassland songbird species that 

breeds at Bowdoin Refuge (Jones et al. 2010). Their 

breeding range extends from southern Alberta to 

southern Manitoba in Canada, south through eastern 

Montana and Wyoming, and east through North Dakota and South Dakota to western Minnesota.

Longspurs nest in open prairie with minimal 

shrubs and litter. They prefer native grasslands that 

have been recently disturbed by fire, grazing, or 

mowing (Hill and Gould 1997). Optimal grazing intensity is dependent on soil productivity, geographic 

area, and climate. In dry, sparse, mixed-grass prairie, 

light to moderate grazing is more appropriate, and 

heavy grazing or overgrazing may be detrimental 

(Dechant et al. 2003). Longspurs will nest in tamegrass pastures but in lower abundance than in native 

prairie, and they do not nest in cropland (Hill and 

Gould 1997).

Chestnut-collared longspurs arrive at Bowdoin 

Refuge in mid-April and begin nesting in early to 

mid-May (Jones et al. 2010). A long-term study of 

grassland birds at the refuge found that longspurs 

nest in sparser areas than Sprague’s pipits or Baird’s 

sparrows, with less grass and litter cover and more 

clubmoss cover than the other two species (Dieni and 

Jones 2003).

Dechant et al. (2003) made the following management recommendations for chestnut-collared longspurs:

■ Protect native prairie from plowing and cultivation

■ Avoid managing for idle, dense vegetation, as 

longspur densities decrease with increased vertical density, diversity, and litter depth

■ Graze at light to moderate intensity in dry, mixedgrass prairie and avoid overgrazing

■ Use mowing to improve habitat by decreasing 

vegetation height and density

Baird’s Sparrow

© Bob Gress

The chestnut-collared longspur is a Montana species of 

concern that nests on Bowdoin Refuge.

© Michael Forsberg

Greater Sage-Grouse. The historical range for sagegrouse covered portions of 16 states and three Canadian provinces (MSGWG 2005). The species presently 

occurs in 11 western states and two provinces, having 

disappeared from scattered areas around the periphery of its original range due to alteration or elimination of sagebrush habitat. In March 2010, the greater 

sage-grouse was listed as a candidate species, meaning it warrants protection under the Endangered 

Species Act but is precluded by higher priority species.

Greater sage-grouse require different habitat 

conditions, often across broad landscapes, to meet 

yearlong needs for breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, 

and wintering habitat. Regardless of the season, they 

require large expanses of sagebrush habitats with 

healthy, diverse understories of grasses and forbs. 

In the spring, displaying males require relatively 
80 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

open areas as lek sites, or dancing grounds, where 

breeding takes place. Females nest in a variety of 

cover types, but the most suitable nesting habitat is 

a mosaic of sagebrush with horizontal and vertical 

structural diversity (Dechant 2003b). Shrub height 

of sagebrush most commonly used by nesting sagegrouse ranges from 11.5 to 31 inches, with a grasscanopy height greater than 7.2 inches and a diversity 

of forbs (MSGWG 2005).

Brood-rearing habitats for sage-grouse are typically mosaics of upland sagebrush and other habitats 

such as wet meadows and riparian areas that, together, provide abundant insects and forbs for hens 

and chicks (Dechant 2003). Succulent forbs, a preferred food source for sage-grouse broods, are a key 

component of summer habitat (MSGWG 2005). While 

sage-grouse are associated with sagebrush throughout the year, it is essential during winter when the 

birds mostly occupy sagebrush habitats with greater 

than 20-percent canopy cover (MSGWG 2005).

Conserving sagebrush habitats on private and 

public lands is by far the most effective approach 

to assuring long-term maintenance of sage-grouse 

abundance and distribution (MSGWG 2005). Other 

management recommendations (Dechant et al. 2003) 

follow:

■ Maintain, conserve, and restore large blocks of intact sagebrush with a healthy understory of native 

grasses and forbs

■ Protect from alteration lek sites and adjacent 

habitat (up to 11 miles from the lek)

■ Manage breeding habitats to maintain sagebrush 

canopy cover of 15–25 percent and perennial herbaceous cover of at least 15-percent grasses or at 

least 10-percent forbs, with grasses and forbs at 

least 7.1 inches tall

■ Eliminate or control invasive, nonnative plants in 

sagebrush-steppe

■ Use prescribed fire in sagebrush-steppe with caution, especially in the more arid portions of sagegrouse range, and attempt to maintain a mosaic of 

habitats following the burn

■ Manage livestock grazing through stocking rates 

and season of use on all seasonal ranges of sagegrouse to avoid habitat degradation

■ Minimize human disturbance in sage-grouse habitats, especially around leks and nesting habitat, 

for example: reduce or avoid development of mining and other resource extraction industries such 

as coal-bed methane, and avoid construction of 

power lines especially within 1.86 miles of seasonal 

habitats

A greater sage-grouse male on a lek, or dancing ground, 

in sagebrush-steppe habitat.

Dr. Thomas G. Barnes / USFWS

Long-billed Curlew. The long-billed curlew, or “sicklebill,” is the largest shorebird in North America. There 

is no accurate estimate of the current population size, 

but the species is considered vulnerable throughout 

its range. Continued loss of grassland breeding habitats is thought to be the greatest threat to population 

stability (Poole 2005).

Standing 16 inches tall, this curlew has an extremely long, down-curved bill (5–6 inches for males 

and 6.5–8 inches for females) and long legs. Their long 

bills and legs are feeding adaptations for walking and 

probing for food in deep mud and for probing in soft 

soil and animal burrows. They feed on insects, marine 

and freshwater invertebrates, mollusks, amphibians, 

and wild fruits. When foraging in uplands they feed 

on grasshoppers, beetles, and other invertebrates in 

low-growing grassy areas (Montana Bird Distribution 

Committee 1996).

Curlews breed in the shortgrass and mixed-grass 

prairie habitats of the Great Plains, the Great Basin, 

and the intermontane valleys of southwestern Canada 

and the United States including Montana, except the 

Rocky Mountain region (Montana Bird Distribution 

Committee 1996). Curlews rely on the cover and 

openness of native-prairie grasslands and pastures to 

nest and rear their young. Adequate, short-growth 

grassland for nesting habitat may be the single most 

important factor in sustaining long-billed curlew populations (Allen 1980, Cochrane and Anderson 1987, 

King 1978). In the northern Great Plains, the highest 

curlew densities were in lightly grazed grasslands 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 81

on dry soils and in heavily grazed areas on moister 

soils (Kantrud and Kologiski 1982). Grazing generally 

has a positive effect on breeding densities because 

grazing produces the short grass and open ground 

favored for predator detection and chick mobility 

(Jenni et al. 1981, King 1978, Pampush 1980). The 

best rotation system should include grazing through 

early spring, so vegetation height and density are low 

during courtship and egg laying (Jenni et al. 1981). 

Overgrazing in drier, shortgrass habitats may be a 

threat to long-billed curlews and should be avoided 

(Bock et al. 1993, Strong 1971). Timing and intensity 

of grazing treatments should be adjusted according to 

local climate and habitat characteristics (Bicak et al. 

1982, Bock et al. 1993). In addition, prescribed fire can 

improve habitat for curlews by removing shrubs and 

increasing habitat openness (Pampush and Anthony 

1993).

Accounts of spring arrival dates for long-billed 

curlews in Montana are from early to mid-April. 

Habitat requirements for breeding curlews are grassland vegetation less than 12 inches tall, which enables 

curlews to forage without restricting the maneuverability of their long bills. They also prefer a range of 

35–120 acres of suitable breeding and nesting habitat 

depending on the topographic and vegetative diversity of an area. Curlews nest in shortgrass prairie, 

grazed mixed-grass uplands and pastures, wet and 

dry meadows, grassy floodplains, alkali flats, and occasionally in hayfields, cropland, and fallow or stubble 

fields 3–9 inches high. Nests are usually formed in a 

shallow depression that is lined with grasses or weeds 

to protect the eggs. Curlew nests are often located 

close to standing water, within 100–450 yards, and 

near conspicuous objects including livestock dung 

piles, rocks, and dirt mounds (Allen 1980, Cochrane 

and Anderson 1987, King 1978). Individuals may intentionally place nests near these objects, possibly to 

provide shade, increase camouflage, or facilitate nest 

location by a breeding pair.

Nesting usually takes place in May and June (Gillihan and Hutchings 2000). The female lays four eggs, 

which are incubated by both birds for 27–29 days. The 

young are precocial (covered with down and capable 

of moving about) and, once hatched, are ready to 

leave the nest almost immediately; most young birds 

leave their nests during the months of June and July. 

After hatching, the adults move the chicks to areas 

of taller grasses and scattered forbs and shrubs, apparently for protection from predators and weather 

extremes. However, the adults avoid dense vegetation, possibly due to low visibility and difficulty of 

travel for chicks (Dechant et al. 1999). The female 

typically abandons the brood 2–3 weeks after hatching and leaves brood care to the male. The remaining 

groups of birds leave their breeding grounds by the 

end of August (Dechant et al. 1999). Curlews typically 

depart Montana in late August to early September.

Long-billed Curlew

Lee Karney / USFWS

Sprague’s Pipit. Sprague’s pipit breeds only in the 

northern mixed-grass prairie, and its range is similar 

to that of Baird’s sparrow. However, while Baird’s 

sparrow numbers have been stable since the 1980s, 

Sprague’s pipit numbers have continued to decline, 

causing it to be listed in 2010 as a candidate species in 

the United States.

Pipits nest in native prairie with high plant species diversity and few shrubs. They prefer lightly to 

moderately grazed pastures throughout much of their 

breeding range (Jones 2010); however, grazing can 

have a dramatic negative effect in drier, less densely 

vegetated, mixed-grass prairie (Robbins et al. 1999).

Burning can have short-term, adverse effects on 

the abundance of Sprague’s pipit; however, burning 

may have long-term benefits through improved habitat quality if it occurs at an appropriate frequency 

(Jones 2010). In drier portions of their range, pipits 

were common on native grassland that had not been 

burned for more than 15–32 years (Jones 2010, Robbins et al. 1999). Unlike Baird’s sparrows, Sprague’s 

pipits are uncommon in tame pasture and have not 

been documented to nest in cropland, Conservation 

Reserve Program land, or in dense nesting cover 

planted for waterfowl habitat (Jones 2010).

Sprague’s pipits arrive at Bowdoin Refuge in 

late April and begin nesting in mid-May (Jones et al. 

2010). A long-term study of grassland birds at the 

refuge found that pipits used nest sites with intermediately tall (averaging 12 inches), vertically dense, 

vegetation and nest patches (16-foot-radius plot 

around the nest) with greater litter cover and depth, 

while avoiding areas with prickly pear cactus (Dieni 
82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

and Jones 2003). This is similar to what has been 

reported in other published studies such as that by 

Sutter (1997). The pipits selected areas with less than 

20-percent clubmoss cover, few shrubs, and little bare 

ground (Dieni and Jones 2003).

According to the Sprague’s Pipit Conservation 

Plan (Jones 2010), management should consist of the 

following:

■ Keep large native prairie grasslands intact

■ Remove woody vegetation from the interior of 

grassland patches

■ Increase patch size and minimize the amount of 

edge habitat

■ Remove exotic plant species from native prairie

■ Apply prescribed fire (with frequency highly dependent on soil productivity, geographic area, and 

climate, particularly in the drier portions of their 

range)

■ Use low-intensity or no grazing in the semiarid 

mixed-grass prairie

Sprague’s Pipit

© Bob Gress

Wetlands

Wetlands are classified using several attributes—

vegetation, water regimes (the length of time water 

occupies a specific area), and water chemistry. Wetland vegetation refers to plants that grow in water 

or in soils that are saturated for most of the growing 

season. Emergent plants are those rooted in the substrate and having foliage that grows partially or entirely above the water surface. Some emergent plants 

found on the refuge complex are broadleaf cattail, alkali bulrush, hardstem bulrush, common three-square, 

and smartweed. Other notable species that occur 

along the shores of lakes and marshes include pickleweed and saltgrass. Submergent plants are those having roots in the substrate but do not emerge above the 

surface of the water, except some that have floating 

leaves. Submergent plants found in refuge complex 

wetlands include northern watermilfoil, widgeongrass, sago pondweed, and flatstem pondweed. Many 

wetland plants have broad salt tolerances and can be 

found in freshwater and saline wetlands; however, 

species richness for both emergents and submergents 

decreases as salinity increases (Johnson 1990). In a 

study conducted on Bowdoin Refuge in 1987 and 1988, 

five species of emergent plants and six species of submergent plants were found in freshwater wetlands, 

but only one emergent species and four submergent 

species were found in saline wetlands (Johnson 1990).

In 1971, Stewart and Kantrud developed a wetland classification system to differentiate and describe natural and modified wetland basins (or ponds) 

and lakes in the Prairie Pothole Region and also 

reflects seasonal, regional, and local variations in the 

environment. Stewart and Kantrud’s (1971) investigations indicated that the use of prairie ponds and 

lakes by waterfowl is strongly influenced by water 

permanence, depth, and chemistry and by land use. 

They also stated any marked variations in wetlands 

are usually reflected in differences in life form, cover 

interspersion, species composition, and species dominance. Differences in vegetation are easily discernible 

in the field and are the principle criteria for the Stewart and Kantrud (1971) classification system.

Seven major classes of wetlands of natural basins 

are recognized based on ecological differentiation. 

Each class is distinguished by the vegetation zone occurring in the central or deepest part and occupying 

5 percent or more of the total wetland area (Stewart 

and Kantrud 1971). Four wetland classes are found on 

the refuge complex: temporary, seasonal, semipermanent, and permanent.

■ The primary function of temporary wetland basins is to provide isolation for breeding pairs of 

waterfowl and supply invertebrate foods early in 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 83

the nesting period (Kantrud et al. 1989). The rapid 

warming of these shallow wetlands in the spring 

results in early development of invertebrate populations (Swanson et al. 1974).

■ Seasonal wetland basins are a major source of invertebrate protein for laying female ducks early 

in the breeding season, and these basins provide 

isolation for paired waterfowl and sites for overwater nests (Kantrud et al. 1989). During wet 

years, seasonal wetlands are also highly attractive 

as breeding habitat (Talent et al. 1982) and molting areas. They usually receive considerable use 

by spring-migrating waterfowl and shorebirds but 

normally are dry by fall.

■ Semipermanent wetland basins supply most of the 

needs of common prairie-nesting waterfowl and their 

broods. Use of semipermanent wetlands by breeding 

waterfowl seems to be greatest when amounts of 

emergent cover and open water are approximately 

equal (Weller and Spatcher 1965). They are the last 

to become ice-free in the spring and, therefore, are 

not an early source of invertebrate foods for waterfowl and shorebirds. In addition, semipermanent 

wetlands are the main habitat for staging and fallmigrating waterfowl (Kantrud et al. 1989).

■ Permanent wetlands remain flooded throughout 

the year. Due to year-round flooding, permanent 

wetlands support a diverse, but usually not abundant, population of invertebrates. Submerged 

aquatic vegetation may occur if adequate water 

clarity exists. These wetlands are important in 

mid- to late summer when other wetlands may 

dry up and when ducks are molting their flight 

feathers; the deep water and dense cover provide 

protection from predators.

Across the entire Bowdoin Refuge Complex, wetlands are diverse in size and type including the 

following: permanent wetlands (4,544 acres); semipermanent wetlands (1,016 acres); and seasonal or temporary wetlands (1,900 acres). Most of these wetlands 

are found on Bowdoin Refuge including the largest, 

Lake Bowdoin (refer to figure 28).

Many of the wetlands on Bowdoin Refuge have 

been sampled and fall into the following salinity 

classes defined by Stewart and Kantrud (1971):

■ Slightly brackish (320–1,280 mg/L salinity)—

Black Coulee Pond, Display Pond, Farm Ponds, 

and Lakeside

■ Moderately brackish (1,280–3,200 mg/L)—Goose 

Island Pond, Patrol Road Pond, and Strater Pond

■ Brackish (3,200–9,600 mg/L)—Dry Lake Pond, 

Piping Plover Pond, and Drumbo Pond

■ Subsaline (9,600–28,800 mg/L)—Lake Bowdoin

These wetlands have a diverse distribution of sizes, 

types, locations, and associations; according to Service data, there are more than 10,000 acres of wetlands in the refuge complex. The chemistry of surface 

waters in these wetlands tends to be dynamic because 

of interactions among numerous factors, such as the 

position of the wetland in relation to ground water 

flow systems, chemical composition of ground water, 

surrounding land uses, and climate (LaBalugh et al. 

2004, Swanson et al. 1988).

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

in Wetlands

The refuge complex has several invasive, wetlandloving, plant species such as Phragmites (reed), Russian olive, perennial pepperweed, saltcedar, and reed 

canarygrass. Although the Service has been working 

to control these invaders through an integrated pest 

management program, these species are very hardy, 

spread rapidly, and easily outcompete the more vulnerable, native, wetland plant species.

Phragmites. Samples of Phragmites plants were 

collected from Bowdoin Refuge and Beaver Creek 

WPA in 2005 and sent to Cornell University for identification. The refuge sample was identified as a native species. However, the sample from the waterfowl 

production area was identified as an introduced species; the Service is currently conducting control methods to stop the spread of this small, 1-acre infestation.

Russian Olive. Russian olive trees were planted 

on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge in the 1950s 

until the 1970s, under the belief that they were beneficial to the landscape and wildlife. Over the years, 

the trees have encroached into wetland edges and 

along canals and ditches, making it difficult for refuge staff to maintain these water delivery systems. 

Russian olive grows well in wet-saline environments 

and is shade tolerant; as a result, Russian olive trees 

have become established in the understory of the native cottonwood trees that surround several refuge 

wetlands and saline areas throughout the refuge 

complex. Russian olive trees were encroaching into 

the eastern end of Bowdoin Refuge, in drainages and 

around small wetlands. Control of Russian olive on 

the refuge began in 2000 with tree cutting and treating the stumps with an herbicide (Arsenal® or Garlon® 3A); in some treated areas, the remaining tree 

stumps sprouted and readily propagated, becoming 

difficult for the refuge staff to control. The Service 

began by removing these single, scattered trees, 

and then turned its attention to larger, older infesta-
84 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

tions. Labor-intensive, but effective, control methods 

combined with a lack of staff has slowed progress in 

reducing the infestation.

Perennial Pepperweed. In 2004, an infestation of 

perennial pepperweed was discovered on the Big Island dike road at Bowdoin Refuge. The pepperweed 

has spread into the surrounding wetlands, and the 

size of the infestation varies depending on water levels. The infestation has been mapped and chemically 

treated every year.

Saltcedar. One saltcedar tree was discovered growing on the east end of Bowdoin Refuge in 2007 and was 

cut down and treated with herbicide. In 2009, an infestation was discovered in the northern wetlands of Beaver 

Creek WPA; the area was surveyed and all saltcedar 

plants found were documented using Global Positioning 

System (GPS) and sprayed with herbicide. No saltcedar 

was found in 2010. Constant monitoring and repeated 

treatments will be needed to prevent further spread.

Reed Canarygrass. This grass has been present in 

the refuge complex for many years with almost no 

attention given to estimating the size of canarygrass 

infestations or treating them.

Wetlands within Bowdoin Refuge

Lake Bowdoin at full pool is a 4,470-acre natural, 

subsaline, permanent wetland that, during the early 

history of Bowdoin Refuge, was modified to create 

additional wetland habitat for migratory birds and to 

prevent outbreaks of avian botulism. With Montana’s 

hot, dry climate, the lake has an evaporation loss of 

more than 2 feet annually. Most of the water in Lake 

Bowdoin evaporates during the summer, leaving a 

small pool of water in the deepest portion of the lake 

or drying completely in some years. In years when 

only a small pool of water was left, there would be 

an outbreak of avian botulism, killing thousands of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds in one season. 

Modifications to the lake consisted of installing two 

water control structures and a dike system or auto 

tour road (which acts as a dike) around the southern 

portion of the lake, and two low water or “Texas 

crossings.” This infrastructure holds delivered water 

and captures runoff and Beaver Creek floodwaters.

Lake Bowdoin attracts thousands of ducks, swans, 

and geese during the spring and fall migrations. The 

lake provides breeding and nesting habitat for overwater nesters such as white-faced ibis, Franklin’s 

gull, black tern, eared grebe, lesser scaup, and redhead. The islands in the lake as well as its shoreline 

provide breeding and nesting habitat for American 

white pelican, great blue heron, northern pintail, mallard, Wilson’s phalarope, marbled godwit, and willet. 

In late summer and early fall, Lake Bowdoin affords 

quality roosting habitat for thousands of migrant 

Canada geese, ducks, and sandhill cranes.

This “Texas crossing” on the eastern end of Dry Lake is 

a water control structure that also serves as a road.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

All of the wetlands can be manipulated by water 

deliveries and or water control structures to produce 

valuable migration, breeding, feeding, and nesting 

habitat for migratory birds. The corresponding bird 

use is generally quite diverse.

Dry Lake is a large natural wetland; the 1,019-

acre lake is a brackish (somewhat salty), shallow, and 

seasonal wetland. Dry Lake was modified to create 

additional wetland habitat for migratory birds by 

installing one water control structure, a 4-mile dike 

along the lake’s entire length, and two low water or 

“Texas crossings.” Being a shallow seasonal wetland, 

Dry Lake goes dry most years. The infrastructure 

was constructed to hold as much delivered water as 

possible and to capture as much runoff and Beaver 

Creek floodwaters as possible. When at least 50-percent full, Dry Lake attracts a tremendous diversity of 

shorebirds and waterfowl, particularly during spring 

migration. It can also be significant wetland habitat 

for shorebirds and waterfowl during fall migration 

when delivered water is available from the Malta Irrigation District.

When Piping Plover Pond is at least half full, it 

attracts a diversity of shorebirds, particularly during May and from July through September. These 

shorebird species have included the threatened piping 

plover, which was last documented nesting along the 

shoreline in 1999.

Patrol Road Pond (4 acres) and Strater Pond (17 

acres) are permanent, moderately brackish wetlands, 

because they are difficult to manage for migratory 

birds due to ground-water seepage and irrigation return flows from neighboring private lands. These wetlands have been modified by levees and water control 

structures to capture water and provide habitat for 

migratory birds. These wetlands act as deepwater 

impoundments with emergent vegetation such as 

bulrush and cattails and are important nesting, brood-
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 85

rearing, and feeding sites for diving duck species such 

as canvasback, redhead, and lesser scaup. The emergent vegetation provides escape cover, shelter, and 

nesting sites for these species as well as marsh wren, 

blackbirds, coot, eared grebe, and sora rail.

Black Coulee Pond (8 acres), Lakeside Extension 

(46 acres), Lakeside Pond (296 acres), Lower Farm 

Pond (5 acres), and Upper Farm Pond (15 acres) are 

slightly brackish, semipermanent wetlands. Water 

levels in these wetlands can be manipulated with 

timely water deliveries and water control structures 

to mimic natural wetland conditions. These conditions provide important, diverse wetland habitat for 

breeding, feeding, roosting, and brood rearing by 

waterfowl species such as northern pintail, mallard, 

lesser scaup, and eared grebe. In addition, the ponds’ 

emergent vegetation is cover for nesting black terns, 

blackbirds, marsh wrens, and white-faced ibises. The 

shoreline can provide important foraging habitat for 

shorebirds during spring and fall migrations and during the breeding and nesting seasons.

Drumbo Pond is a 207-acre natural, brackish, 

semipermanent wetland. Water levels in this unit can 

be manipulated with timely water deliveries and by 

two water control structures to mimic natural wetland conditions and to provide diverse wetland habitat for migratory birds. This wetland is also affected 

by the uncontrolled entry of irrigation return flows 

from neighboring private lands. Although the Service 

cannot control this flow of water into the pond, the 

Service can manipulate the water control structures 

to accomplish its wetland habitat management goal. 

Aquatic vegetation such as sago pondweed and widgeongrass grows profusely and provides valuable 

food for tundra swans, coots, and waterfowl such as 

canvasbacks and wigeons. Drumbo Pond provides 

important spring and fall migration habitat for waterfowl such as northern pintail and tundra swan, 

as well as shorebirds such as Wilson’s phalarope and 

marbled godwit. Waterfowl species such as mallard 

and lesser scaup find important breeding, feeding, 

George F. Russell / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Broadleaf cattail is an emergent plant species in wetland 

habitat.

This bay structure allows water into Dry Lake from Lake Bowdoin via the conveyance channel.

Mike Artmann / USFWS
86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

roosting, and brood-rearing habitat at the pond. In 

addition, the pond’s emergent vegetation is cover for 

nesting black terns, blackbirds, marsh wrens, and 

white-faced ibises.

Clumps of Baltic rush (middleground) and bulrush (background) grow on the southern tip of Lakeside unit, an area 

that floods when the refuge pumps water in the spring.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Wetlands within Bowdoin District

Wetlands habitat in the Bowdoin Wetland Management District are predominantly seasonal wetland 

basins. The Service manages some of these basins by 

delivering water and manipulating the levels by using 

water control structures and dams. Riparian habitat 

and intermittent prairie streams are also found on the 

district. There are 1,391 acres of wetlands on Serviceowned land in the district including the following:

■ 45 acres of permanent wetlands

■ 449 acres of semipermanent wetlands

■ 881 acres of seasonal or temporary wetlands

■ 16 acres of riverine or intermittent wetlands

Some of these wetlands are created and others have 

been enhanced by the construction of an earthen dam. 

Wetlands that can receive delivered water—by either 

pumping or gravity flows or whose water levels are 

influenced by water control structures—are considered managed wetlands. There are currently 928 

acres of managed wetlands.

Temporary wetlands at the wetland management district are areas where the wet meadow zone 

dominates the deepest part of the wetland area. A 

peripheral low-prairie zone is usually present. Wet 

meadow vegetation occupies the central areas of 

many of the shallower pond basins and commonly occurs as a peripheral band in most of the deeper ponds 

and lakes. Most of the more numerous plant species in 

the normal emergent phase are fine-textured grasses, 

rushes, and sedges of relatively low stature. Wet 

meadow zones in the central areas of shallow pond 

basins are restricted to fresh or slightly brackish 

wetlands. Examples of temporary wetlands that the 

Service manages are Pearce WPA (basins P11 and 

P12), McNeil Slough WPA (Jack’s Pond and Pintail 

Pond), and Beaver Creek WPA (Bergum Ponds).

Seasonal ponds are the shallow-marsh zones that 

dominate the deepest part of the wetlands. Peripheral 

wet meadow and low-prairie zones are usually present. Shallow-marsh vegetation dominates the central 

areas of pond basins that normally maintain surface 

water for an extended period in spring and early summer but frequently are dry during late summer and 

fall. In shallow alkali ponds, it may occur as a band between wet meadow and intermittent alkali zones. Examples of seasonal managed wetlands in the wetland 

management district are Pearce WPA (P4), Beaver 

Creek WPA (Beaver Creek oxbow and the North Cell 

and South Cell wetlands), and McNeil Slough WPA 

(Bruce’s, Dowitcher, Woodduck, and Fidelity Ponds).

Semipermanent ponds are where the deep-marsh 

zone dominates the deepest part of the wetland area. 

Shallow-marsh, wet meadow, and low-prairie zones 

are usually present, and isolated marginal pockets of 

fen zones (bog zones) occasionally occur. Deep-marsh 

vegetation dominates the central areas of pond basins 

that ordinarily maintain surface water throughout the 

spring and summer and frequently maintain surface 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 87

water into fall and winter. Occasionally in deeper 

ponds with other zones, a narrow border of surrounding low prairie is inundated during unusually high 

water. Examples of semipermanent managed wetlands in the wetland management district are Pearce 

WPA (Upper Slough and Big wetland), Beaver Creek 

(Masters Oxbow and unnamed tributary), and McNeil 

Slough WPA (Turtle Pond and Bureau of Reclamation 

Ponds).

Widgeongrass is a submergent plant species, which grows 

completely under water.

R.A. Howard / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Wetland‐Associated Wildlife

Many mammals use wetlands and surrounding vegetation for water and cover but muskrats, mink, raccoon, and beaver are those most commonly associated 

with the lakes and wetlands in the refuge complex.

There have been no formal amphibian or reptile 

surveys in the refuge complex, but wetland species 

that have been recorded on Bowdoin Refuge include 

leopard frog, chorus frog, and painted turtle.

Due to the shallow nature of prairie lakes and wetlands, they may be dry for several months to several 

years. As a result, many refuge complex wetlands 

do not support fish. In 2002 and 2003, a fish-trapping 

study was conducted on Bowdoin Refuge on several 

small wetlands (Display Pond, Bowdoin Intake Canal, 

and Black Coulee Pond); carp, fathead minnow, spottail shiner, white sucker, yellow perch, brassy minnow, and brook stickleback were documented.

Wetlands normally carry high insect (invertebrate) populations. Nesting waterfowl, waterfowl 

broods, marsh birds, waterbirds, and shorebirds are 

highly dependent on these protein food sources for 

healthy, vigorous growth. Common aquatic macroinvertebrates documented on the Bowdoin Refuge are 

midges, scuds, water boatman, snails, damselflies, 

mayflies, and water fleas (Johnson 1990). The same 

insect species may be found in fresh and saline wetlands, but the total diversity decreases with increased 

salinity (Johnson 1990).

Concentrations of thousands of migrating shorebirds are found throughout most of the refuge complex, particularly in drier years when low water 

levels leave large areas of exposed shoreline. Thirtyseven species of shorebirds have been observed in 

the refuge complex; of these, 13 species including the 

spotted sandpiper and threatened piping plover will 

breed in the refuge complex (refer to “Appendix H–

Species Lists”). In 2002, Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge was designated as a site of regional importance by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network. It was given this distinction for documenting at least 20,000 shorebirds using the refuge 

annually or at least 1 percent of the biogeographic 

population for a species (Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network 2009).

As part of the central flyway, wetlands in the refuge complex are used by many waterfowl species as 

important stopover sites on migration routes (refer 

to “Appendix H–Species Lists”). Other bird species 

are common around the wetlands, such as sora rail, 

black-necked stilt, American avocet, yellow-headed 

blackbird, and marsh wren. Lake Bowdoin provides 

habitat for colonial-nesting and overwater-nesting 

waterbirds including western grebe, eared grebe, 

American coot, white-faced ibis, black-crown nightheron, American bittern, ring-billed gull, doublecrested cormorant, great blue heron, and American 

white pelican.

Target Waterbirds

The Service has identified a diverse group of target 

waterbird species for wetlands: northern pintail, mallard, redhead, tundra swan, marbled godwit, Wilson’s 

phalarope, white-faced ibis, and Franklin’s gull. The 

life history needs of these species are described below.
88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Northern Pintail. The northern pintail is the most 

widely distributed dabbling duck (surface feeder) in 

the Northern Hemisphere. It frequents lakes, rivers, 

marshes, and ponds in grasslands, and areas where 

water is lined with trees are avoided (DeGraaf et al. 

1991, Johnsgard 1979, Madge and Burn 1988).

Pintails have a tendency to avoid areas that are 

flooded too deeply if shallow sites are also present. 

These ducks feed in shallow waters of marshes, 

ponds, and wet meadows or in grain fields, consuming 

seeds, roots, and leaves of aquatic plants, emergents, 

and many terrestrial plants (Belrose 1980, DeGraaf 

et al. 1991). Specifically, plants commonly eaten by 

pintails include pondweeds, sedges, smartweed, fall 

panicum, brownseed paspalum, panic grass, bulrush, 

widgeongrass, chufa, and saltgrass (Belrose 1980, 

DeGraaf et al. 1991). Many well-managed wetlands 

have the potential to provide an abundant supply of 

high-energy and nutritionally complete foods for pintails when water depths are less than 18 inches and 

preferably less than 6 inches. Optimal foraging depth 

is less than or equal to 18 inches. Water more than 18 

inches can still provide important roost sites and give 

security from predators (Fredrickson 1991).

Pintails regularly breed in the shortgrass prairies 

of the northern United States and southern Canada 

and are especially attracted to large expanses of 

shallow open water where visibility is good and 

small seeds and invertebrates are readily available (Fredrickson 1991). These ducks migrate early 

in spring and move northward as soon as wetlands 

become ice-free (Fredrickson 1991). On the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex, pintails typically arrive in early 

March, and they normally initiate nesting earlier in 

the spring and summer than other dabblers. The first 

nests appear in early April during normal years, and 

nesting activity peaks during the first 2 weeks of May. 

The preferred nesting habitat is short grass where 

temporary ponds are abundant nearby. The highest 

nesting densities occur in open habitats where vegetation is low and sparse such as areas dominated by 

prairie grasses, whitetop, nettle, spikerush, rushes, 

and buckbrush or snowberry (Fredrickson 1991). 

The northern pintail builds its nest in a hollow on dry 

ground, generally within 300 feet of water (Madge 

and Burn 1988, Musgrove and Musgrove 1943). Grazing programs that leave good residue ground cover 

but remove robust growth can enhance nesting cover 

for pintails (Fredrickson 1991).

Mallard. Another dabbler, the mallard is one of 

the most familiar of ducks found throughout North 

America. Mallards use all wetland habitat types and 

depend on wetland areas and the associated upland 

habitats to survive. They feed on insects and larvae, 

aquatic invertebrates, seeds, acorns, aquatic vegetation, and grain. They are well adapted to eating both 

natural and domestic foods such as waste grain from 

crop harvests. Most of their diet is made up of wetland plants and grains such as wheat, barley, rice and 

oats (Montana Field Guide (no date(b)).

Mallards tend to leave their wintering areas early 

to reach the breeding grounds, usually departing in 

February and March. Migration periods in the Bozeman, Montana, area occur from February 25 to April 

20 and from October 15 to January 1, with peaks on 

March 20 and December 1 (Skaar 1969). On the Bowdoin Refuge Complex, mallards typically arrive the 

first week in March. Among dabbling ducks, the mallard is one of the latest fall migrants. In the northern 

tier of States (like Montana), local breeding populations of mallards are not appreciably augmented by 

more northerly birds until early October. Peak population numbers are reached in early November and 

begin to gradually decline as the season changes and 

waters begin to freeze.

Mallard hens prefer to nest in dense vegetation 

about 24 inches high, regardless of other cover qualities. The mallard begins to nest between April 10 

and April 30 over vast reaches of its breeding range 

(Belrose 1980). Each spring, the female mallard’s diet 

switches from plants to aquatic invertebrates. This 

diet provides her with the nutrition and energy she 

needs to lay and incubate a clutch of eggs. Mallard 

duck eggs usually hatch from late April to late May. 

As soon as the ducklings are dry, within the first 12 

hours of hatching, the hen mallard leads them to water (Belrose 1980).

Redhead. The redhead is a diving duck found in 

shallow freshwater lakes, ponds, and marshes (Belrose 1980). The redhead is a breeding bird of the 

northern prairies and associated parklands and the 

intermountain marshes of western Montana (Belrose 

1980). The largest populations of breeding birds are 

found in South Dakota and western Montana as well 

as Canada (Belrose 1980). They prefer semipermanent to permanently flooded wetlands that support 

persistent emergent vegetation.

Redheads obtain their food by diving in water 

3.3–9.8 feet deep, but they can dive as deep as 45.9 

feet. They feed in shallow waters by tipping up so 

they can reach the bottom from the surface. Ninety 

percent of their diet is plants and the other 10 percent 

are animals. The redhead’s diet consists of pondweed 

seeds, tubers, leaves, muskgrass, bulrush seeds, wild 

celery, duckweeds, water lily seeds, sedges, grasses, 

wild rice, widgeongrass, and coontail. During spring 

migration and the breeding season, adult redheads 

are opportunistic and omnivorous. In the spring in 

North Dakota and Canada, redheads forage in large, 

deep, open areas (more than 1 acre) with submersed 

aquatic vegetation; they feed primarily on proteinrich invertebrates, including Diptera larvae and 

Trichoptera (more than 50 percent by volume). Much 

of their remaining diet consists of bulrush seeds and 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 89

sago pondweed buds (less than or equal to 15 percent 

by volume) (Custer 1993). In fall and winter, they primarily eat leaves, stems, seeds, and tubers of aquatic 

plants, mostly submergents, with smaller amounts of 

aquatic insects (Custer 1993).

Most redheads depart wintering areas in the Laguna Madre of Texas within 2 weeks in early March 

and from the Atlantic Coast in mid-March. They are 

considered midseason migrants, because they migrate 

later than species such as mallard and northern pintail (Custer 1993). They reach breeding areas in the 

northern prairies of the United States in early April 

and numbers rapidly increase through the month 

(Belrose 1980); however, they typically arrive on 

the Bowdoin Refuge Complex as early as the second 

week in March. Redheads begin to appear on migration areas adjacent to their breeding grounds in September, reach peak numbers by mid-October, and are 

largely gone by mid-November (Belrose 1980).

The redhead uses smaller, shallower permanent 

to semipermanent wetlands with blocks of dense 

emergent vegetation for nesting—laying and incubating eggs (Custer 1993). Many nest studies reveal 

that redheads have a strong preference for hardstem 

bulrush beds over other types of vegetation, with cattails a second choice and sedges third (Belrose 1980). 

Deeper water with invertebrates or shallow water 

with moist-soil plants should be made available during the prelaying period. Water levels should be kept 

constant during the laying and incubation periods to 

reduce losses of clutches from flooding or from predators if the area becomes too dry. Recently flooded 

areas with high invertebrate populations should be 

available during the first few weeks of the brood period and should be followed by access to deeper water 

with ample pondweeds (Custer 1993).

Mallard Pair

Northern Pintail

John and Karen Hollingsworth / USFWS Gene Nieminen / USFWS

Redheads feed in large, open areas.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS

Tundra Swan. The tundra swan, once known as 

the whistling swan in North America, is the most 

numerous and widespread of the two swan species 

native to this continent. Tundra swans are attracted 

to large open wetlands for roosting and foraging 

(Earnst 1994). Its long neck allows it to feed in water up to 3.3 feet deep as it forages in shallow ponds, 

lakes, and riverine marshes. The swan will also feed 

in harvested agricultural fields and fields growing 

winter cereal grain. Tundra swans prefer wetlands 

containing sago pondweed regardless of wetland size 

or extent of open water (Limpert and Earnst 1994). 

Tubers and seed of the sago pondweed were the exclusive diet of swans collected in the Great Salt Lake 

marshes (Sherwood 1960).

Tundra swans migrate in flocks comprised of family groups or in small flocks comprised of several families and some nonbreeders. The swans begin to leave 

their wintering grounds and push northward with the 

first spring thaw in March. Tundra swans arrive on 

Bowdoin Refuge in the spring as early as mid-March 

and are gone by the end of the month. A large portion 

of the eastern population of tundra swans migrates 

through the central flyway in fall and spring, primarily through the province of Saskatchewan and the 

States of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. 

Staging areas are confined to southern Saskatchewan, 
90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

northeastern Montana, large portions of North Dakota, and northeastern South Dakota (Vrtiska et al. 

1999). They leave their major breeding grounds in 

Alaska in late September and early October (Belrose 

1980). They appear again on Bowdoin Refuge in the 

fall, around the last week in September and depart by 

mid- to late November. Censuses of tundra swans at 

Freezeout Lake, Montana, made by Dale Witt from 

1963 to 1969 revealed that the swans start arriving 

early October, build up to peak numbers by the end 

of the month or early November, and depart rapidly 

thereafter.

Tundra swan, Canada goose, and other waterfowl species at Lake Bowdoin.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Marbled Godwit. The marbled godwit is a large 

shorebird with a long, upturned bill. Most nest in 

prairies of north-central United States and southcentral Canada (midcontinental population). Within 

these grasslands, godwits require complexes of 

wetlands that represent a broad diversity of sizes 

and types—ranging from temporary to permanent 

(Melcher et al. 2006, Ryan et al. 1984). Godwits feed 

at water depths of 2–5 inches and in dry years, when 

temporary wetlands are limiting, the birds will shift 

to semipermanent wetlands. Such shifts underscore 

the need for conserving wetland complexes as opposed to single wetlands (Melcher et al. 2006).

Northbound migration for the midcontinental 

population peaks from late April to mid-May, with 

later peaks generally occurring at more northern 

latitudes. Godwits typically arrive on the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex the third week in April. Typical of 

most shorebirds, the marbled godwit’s southbound 

migration is quite drawn out. Suspected nonbreeders and unsuccessful breeders begin to form large 

flocks at staging sites within core areas of the breeding range as early as the first week of June. By late 

June and early July, successful breeders and, later, 

juveniles join staging flocks. Godwits may continue 

moving southward into November, although southbound migration peaks in mid-July to mid-September 

(Melcher et al. 2006).

The godwit breeds in the center of North America 

and winters along the coasts (Gratto-Trevor 2000). 

It is not well-known whether, or how, godwit breeding distributions are affected by annual changes in 

climatic or other conditions. Bowdoin Refuge data 

shows that banded individuals come back to the same 

location in subsequent breeding seasons. They will 

nest on occasion in tamegrass habitats, including 

hayfields and idle pastures (Ryan et al. 1984), especially if the vegetative structure is similar to that of 

native, shortgrass habitats. Typically, nesting birds 

avoid dense grass cover and rarely nest in croplands 

or stubble fields (Dechant et al. 2003). Adults with 

broods, however, are often found near taller grass (6–

24 inches) than that used for nesting, which provides 

escape cover and protection from exposure (Ryan 

et al. 1984). Godwits in the midcontinental breeding 

range appear to prefer large, contiguous blocks of 

habitat (Melcher et al. 2006). They nest on the ground 

in native prairie areas, a considerable distance from 

water (Montana Field Guide (no date (c)). Most authorities agree that marbled godwits in the midcontinental breeding range nest preferentially in sparse 

(less than 75-percent canopy coverage) to moderately 

(more than 75-percent canopy coverage) vegetated, 

native shortgrass (less than 6 inches) habitats—often 

grazed or recently idled from grazing (Melcher et al. 

2006).
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 91

Marbled Godwit

© Michael Forsberg

Wilson’s phalarope is a small “wader.”

© Dominic Sherony

Wilson’s Phalarope. Wilson’s phalaropes are small 

wading birds that use both fresh and alkali wetlands 

with three characteristics: open water, emergent 

vegetation, and open shoreline (Hohn 1967, Naugle 

1997, Prescott et al. 1995, Saunders 1914, Stewart 

1975, Stewart and Kantrud 1965). Phalarope need 

protected wetland complexes with both seasonal and 

semipermanent wetlands to provide suitable habitat 

during both wet and dry years (Colwell and Oring 

1988b, Kantrud and Stewart 1984). The phalarope 

feeds by swimming or “spinning” or walking along the 

shoreline of shallow grassy ponds or lakes and picking 

insects and crustaceans from the surface (Johns 1969). 

On its breeding grounds, Wilson’s phalarope forages 

on open water and flooded meadows, less frequently 

in upland habitats and along beaches (Colwell and 

Jehl 1994).

Wilson’s phalarope usually appears on the breeding grounds of Montana during the first week of May. 

In the central and northern Great Plains (Minnesota, 

Nebraska, and North Dakota), Wilson’s phalaropes 

arrive on the breeding grounds from mid-April to 

early May and depart from mid-August to early 

September (Howe 1972, Johnsgard 1980, Murray 

1983, Roberts 1932). Females arrive on the breeding 

grounds earlier than males (Colwell 1987, Reynolds 

et al. 1986) and commonly depart from breeding areas earlier than males, usually from early June to 

early July (Colwell 1987; Colwell and Oring 1988a,c; 

Dechant et al. 2003; Hohn 1967; Howe 1972). Typically, phalaropes begin arriving on the Bowdoin Refuge Complex the last week in April.

Wilson’s phalarope begins nesting in June in 

sparse to dense vegetation. Its nest is a grass-lined 

depression. Nesting habitat varies widely and includes wetlands, wet meadows, upland grasslands, 

and road rights-of-way (Bent 1962, Bomberger 1984, 

Colwell 1987, Colwell and Oring 1990, Dinsmore and 

Schuster 1997, Einemann 1991, Faanes and Lingle 

1995, Hohn 1967, Murray 1983, Roberts 1932, Stewart 

1975). Phalarope need wet meadows near deeper wetlands during the breeding season (Colwell and Oring 

1988b). This may make it easier for adults to move 

young from nests to wetlands by decreasing overland 

travel distance. Nest site selection varies seasonally—the birds nest in upland vegetation early in the 

breeding season and in wet meadow vegetation later 

in the season (Colwell and Oring 1990). They usually 

nest no more than 328 feet from shorelines (Colwell 

and Oring 1990, Eldridge 1992, Hatch 1971, Hohn 

1967). Burning can be used to improve nesting habitat (Eldridge 1992). In pastures that contain wetlands 

important to breeding Wilson’s phalaropes, grazing 

should be deferred until after July 15 (Prescott et 

al. 1993). Idle grasslands and previously grazed areas provide habitat for nesting, but areas with cattle 

present during the breeding season are less suitable 

(Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Renken 1983, Renken 

and Dinsmore 1987).

White-faced Ibis. Much larger than the phalarope, 

the white-faced ibis is a wader that probes deep in the 

mud with its long bill and feeds in shallow water or on 

the water surface (Cogswell 1977). Ibises typically feed 

on crayfish, frogs, fishes, insects, newts, earthworms, 

and crustaceans in freshwater marshes (Terres 1980). 

In the Central Valley of California they preferentially 

selected foraging sites with biomass that is significantly higher for midges (Chironomidae) and significantly lower for earthworms (Safran et al. 2000).

Most white-faced ibis arrive in Montana in May 

(Montana Bird Distribution 2002); however, they 

typically arrive on the Bowdoin Refuge Complex the 

third week in April. In late summer they disperse 

throughout the State before beginning the fall migration to their wintering habitat (Ryder and Manry 

1994). Most begin their southern movement in August, and by September they are usually gone from 

the State (Montana Bird Distribution 2002).
92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Breeding habitat is typically freshwater wetlands including ponds and marshes with pockets 

of emergent vegetation. The white-faced ibis also 

uses flooded hay meadows and agricultural fields as 

feeding locations. Ibises nest in areas where water 

surrounds emergent vegetation, bushes, shrubs, or 

low trees. In Montana, they use old stems in cattails, 

hardstem bulrush or alkali bulrush over shallow 

water as their nesting habitat (DuBois 1989). Water 

conditions usually determine whether nesting occurs 

in a particular area; therefore, ibis nesting sites can 

often move around from year to year. White-faced ibis 

is a fairly adaptable species but does require colony 

and roosting site isolation. Nesting colonies are often 

shared with black-crowned night-herons and Franklin’s gulls.

White-faced ibis are large wading birds.

© Michael Forsberg

Franklin’s Gull. A small gull found in the wetlands 

of the interior of North America, the Franklin’s gull 

is listed in Montana as a species of concern. It prefers 

large, relatively permanent, prairie marsh complexes. 

The gulls feed on insects, earthworms, fish, mice, and 

seeds. It forages while walking in fields, swimming, 

or in dense flocks in fields being cultivated by a plow. 

It is also very adept at catching flying insects on 

the wing (Burger and Gochfeld 1994). At Freezeout 

Lake, Montana, stomach contents of Franklin’s gulls 

included insects, earthworms, spiders, unidentified 

vertebrates, and plant material believed to be taken 

incidentally to consuming animals (Montana Field 

Guide (no date (a)).

Franklin’s gulls return to Montana, including the 

Bowdoin Refuge Complex, in mid-April and are gone 

by early to mid-October. In Montana, the extreme 

migration dates for this species are April 4, (recorded 

in 1971 at Benton Lake Refuge (Casey 2000) and October 11, recorded in 1955 at Medicine Lake Refuge 

(Montana Field Guide (no date (a), Reichel 1996).

The gull nests in colonies and builds its nests 

over water on a supporting structure of emergent 

vegetation including cattails and bulrushes (Burger 

and Gochfeld 1994). Typical water depth is 12–24 

inches. One key feature of selected nesting sites is 

water levels that remain high enough throughout 

the nesting period, or at least until the young can 

fledge, to provide protection from predators (Casey 

2000, Montana Field Guide (no date(a)). Breeding is 

localized and occurs mainly in the northern portion of 

States in the plains region (Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, and western Minnesota), prairie region 

of Canada, and in the Southwest (Nevada). According to the Western Colonial Waterbird Survey, from 

2009 to 2011, Franklin’s gulls were known to nest in 

five locations in Montana, averaging 8,097 breeding 

pairs, with 8,100 documented in 2011 (Wightman et 

al. 2011). Median colony size during the survey period 

was estimated at 1,200 breeding pairs while colony 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 93

size ranged from 16 to 4,833 breeding pairs (Wightman and Tilly 2011). Between 2009 and 2011, it is 

estimated that Bowdoin Refuge contained an average of 1,765 breeding pairs (ranging 1,025–2,450) or 

about 21.8 percent of Montana’s breeding population 

(Wightman et al. 2011). 

Avian Disease

The Bowdoin Refuge has a history of botulism outbreaks dating back to pre-refuge establishment, but 

efforts to document the severity and exact location of 

die-offs were not recorded until the 1940s. Botulism 

has been documented in Lake Bowdoin, Drumbo 

Pond, Lakeside, Dry Lake, and the Dry Lake Canal. 

Outbreaks generally begin in early to mid-July and 

may last into September. The numbers of waterfowl 

affected has varied greatly from year to year, while 

the location of disease hotspots—areas with the highest mortalities—has changed little. These hotspots are 

in the southwestern and southeastern bays of Lake 

Bowdoin, the northeast shore of Big Island in Lake 

Bowdoin, and the northwest portion of Drumbo Pond.

The first confirmed cases of West Nile virus in 

Phillips County, Montana, were documented in 2003. 

A small number of horses and humans became ill and 

unknown numbers were exposed to the virus. Many 

people reported finding dead birds of various species 

throughout the area. In early August 2003, a sudden 

die-off of pelicans was observed on Lake Bowdoin; 

sample carcasses sent in to the National Wildlife 

Health Center tested positive for West Nile virus. 

The disease has been documented in the area every 

year since this time, but the number of cases have 

varied greatly. Outbreaks have begun as early as 

mid-July and can last into fall when colder nighttime 

temperatures control the mosquito population.

Highly pathogenic avian influenza has not yet been 

documented in North America but, because of the serious health risks to humans and domestic fowl, the 

Service has entered into an interagency agreement 

to develop an early detection system should this influenza migrate to the continent.

The refuge complex staff completed a Disease 

Contingency Plan in 2006 for the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. This plan will be reviewed 

annually and updated as new information becomes 

available.

Riparian Areas

According to Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy, riparian areas support the greatest concentration of plants and animals 

yet only constitute 4 percent of Montana’s land cover 

(Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 2005). Plant species 

composition in riparian areas is influenced largely by 

water quality, water permanence, and soils.

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

manages two waterfowl production areas that are either bordered or crossed by riparian habitat: Beaver 

Creek WPA and McNeil Slough WPA. Beaver Creek, 

which flows through portions of Beaver Creek WPA, 

can be classified as a mixed riparian area—“riparian 

areas dominated by a mix of shrub and herbaceous 

species, with codominance of shrub and grass species present and tree cover is less than 15 percent” 

(Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 2005). Western 

wheatgrass, bluejoint reedgrass, rose, willow, silver 

sage, and snowberry are common plants along Beaver 

Creek. The Milk River, which borders McNeil Slough 

WPA, is classified as a broadleaf riparian area “dominated by broadleaf (cottonwood) forest, with total 

tree cover from 20 to 100 percent” (Montana Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks 2005). Associated shrub species 

are alder, bunchberry, serviceberry, thimbleberry, 

common chokecherry, and willow. Some of the more 

common invasive and nonnative plants found in riparian areas are Russian olive, Canada thistle, and leafy 

spurge.

Riparian Area–Associated Wildlife

Across the State, there are 149 bird species, 22 mammal species, 16 amphibian species, and 6 reptile species that depend on riparian and wetland habitat for 

breeding and survival. An additional 72 species of 

wildlife regularly use these habitats and benefit from 

riparian and wetland conservation (Sullivan 2008).

Birds observed on and near McNeil Slough WPA 

include raptors such as golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, 

northern goshawk, American kestrel, snowy owl, and 

western screech-owl. A great variety of passerines 

(perching birds and songbirds) use riparian habitat, 

including northern flicker, western wood-pewee, gray 

catbird, brown thrasher, cedar waxwing, loggerhead 

shrike, yellow warbler, and Baltimore oriole.

Although assessments of the refuge complex’s 

riparian areas have not been completed, a small 

mammal-trapping survey was conducted in 2004 on a 

State-owned wildlife management area near McNeil 

Slough WPA. The study found little brown myotis, 

silver-haired bat, deer mouse, northern grasshopper 

mouse, western jumping mouse, striped skunk, and 

three species of vole (Carson et al. 2004). Other mammals that use riparian areas are white-tailed deer, 

beaver, raccoon, porcupine, and red fox.

In 2000 and 2001, fish surveys in Beaver Creek 

on Beaver Creek WPA documented the presence of 

fathead minnow, black bullhead, carp, yellow perch, 

brook stickleback, pumpkinseed, white sucker, brassy 

minnow, black crappie, spottail shiner, and smallmouth bass.
94 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

3.3 Salinity Background

This section contains basic information about salts, 

quantification and classification of salinity, and principal salts at Bowdoin Refuge. Background about the 

salt balance covers the historical and current situations.

Salt residue accumulates at the southeastern outflow area of Lake Bowdoin. 

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Salinity can decrease the diversity of the wetland 

vegetation and the invertebrates that ducks like 

mallards rely on.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS

Salt Basics

The salt balance concept refers to the balance between the amount of salt entering a waterbody, in 

this case, Lake Bowdoin, and the amount of salt exiting. Over time, this salt inflow and outflow should be 

roughly equal to ensure the stability and resiliency 

of the lake system. A stable system increases the 

probability that plant and animal communities, which 

have adapted to this localized and sometimes highly 

variable system, remain within tolerable ranges and, 

thus, remain healthy and productive. If the system 

is not in balance, the concentration of salts is either 

increasing or decreasing depending on the direction 

of the imbalance. The magnitude of the salt imbalance 

is ultimately reflected in the diversity of (or lack of) 

plant and animal communities that are supported, as 

well as the number of viable management options to 

restore balance to the system.

Except for pure distilled water, all water has dissolved minerals or trace elements present in varying 

concentrations. These minerals (or salts) and trace 

elements are present within all landscapes in the underlying geology and soils as well as in precipitation 

that falls over an area. In many areas where precipitation does not exceed evaporation—which includes 

the arid climate of eastern Montana—the process of 

evaporation is a leading natural cause of concentrating salts in a system.

Evapoconcentration is the process of concentrating salts or trace elements (solids) in a liquid due to 

evaporation. When water evaporates during the hot, 

dry summer months, the solids remain in the water. 

As the volume of water is reduced by evaporation, 

the concentrations of these solids increase. In general, salinity concentrations are at their lowest during the spring after snowmelt and at their highest 

at summer’s end. Salts that precipitate out of water 

during the evaporative process are often seen on the 

soil surface as white salt residues or crystals. When 

these salts fully dry and are exposed to strong winds, 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 95

some particles become airborne and are transported 

out of the system by the wind. At Bowdoin Refuge, 

these conditions create the blowing salts events. The 

process of salts blowing out of a system is natural and 

is one way that a salt balance was maintained historically, especially during times of significant drought. 

Salts that do not blow away are re-dissolved when 

precipitation returns and water levels rise.

In wetland systems that are “closed basins”—

which means there is no natural outflow due to 

topographic features or some other barrier—the 

evapoconcentration process greatly affects the overall water chemistry and resulting water quality. For 

example, the Great Salt Lake, located in an arid landscape in northern Utah, is the largest natural lake 

west of the Mississippi River and is a closed basin. It 

is naturally salty due to evapoconcentration. There 

is no outflow, thus salts are only removed from the 

system through wind or through artificial removal 

activities. As a result, salt concentrations are two to 

eight times greater than the world’s oceans.

In comparison, a “flow-through system” is not 

closed—the water moves through the system before 

evaporation can accumulate the salts carried in the 

water to elevated concentrations. The Milk River, like 

all streams and rivers, is a flow-through system. Although salts do not accumulate like those in a closed 

system, salt concentrations vary depending on where 

the stream sits in relation to its overall watershed. 

Typically, salt concentrations are higher farther down 

in the watershed. In the case of the Milk River, concentrations are considerably higher where the Milk 

River empties into the Missouri River east of Nashua, 

Montana, compared with the headwaters area north 

of Browning, Montana. This is from the continual addition of salts and other minerals to the river as the 

water moves downstream in the watershed.

Quantification of Salinity

The concentration of salts present in the water and 

the underlying soils of Lake Bowdoin can be measured, quantified, and described. Typically, the concentration of salt in water is expressed as a measure 

of “total dissolved solids,” which comprise inorganic 

salts—principally calcium, magnesium, potassium, 

sodium, bicarbonates, chlorides, and sulfates—and 

small amounts of organic matter present in water. 

The measure of total dissolved solids, or TDS, is 

often reported as parts per thousand (ppt), percent, 

milligrams per liter, or total mass in grams. One 

way to measure the TDS is to take a water sample, 

evaporate the water, and weigh the remaining solids. 

This is the most accurate method to obtain TDS, but 

it is very time-consuming, expensive, and requires 

laboratory-type equipment; thus, this method’s utility 

for field testing and monitoring is limited.

Another way to measure TDS, which is quicker 

and less expensive and currently used by refuge staff, 

is to find out the electrical conductivity (or specific 

conductance) of water. The electrical conductivity 

(EC) is directly related to the concentration of dissolved ionized solids in the water. Ions from the dissolved solids enable water to conduct an electrical 

current, which can be measured with a conductivity 

meter. EC is reported in microSiemens per centimeter (μS/cm), milliSiemens (mS), or millimhos (mmhos). 

The relationship between EC and TDS is largely 

linear, thus conversion factors between EC and TDS 

are well understood. The following equation makes 

the conversion between EC and TDS (Tchobanoglous 

and Burton 1991):

(μS/cm)×(0.64 of EC)=mg/L of TDS

Salts in a waterbody are described by total weight, 

typically in tons. The total weight of salts is calculated by multiplying the concentration of salts in the 

water by the weight of the water. Weight of 1 acrefoot of water is approximately 1,360 tons.

(mg/L)×(weight of water)/1,000,000=tons of salts

Therefore, the water delivered by the Malta Irrigation District to Bowdoin Refuge averages about 500 

mg/L TDS. Subsequently, for every 1,000 acre-feet of 

water delivered at that concentration, approximately 

680 tons of salts are added to Lake Bowdoin.

(500 mg/L×1,360,000 tons)/1,000,000=680 tons of salts

Describing the salts by weight is useful, because the 

concentration of salts can vary considerably since 

concentrations depend on both the total amount of 

salts and the total amount of water. The total amount 

of water can fluctuate widely in a single year due to 

evaporation and water deliveries, which causes the 

salt concentrations to fluctuate. By evaluating only 

the total weight of salts, the seasonal variations 

shown in concentrations are removed, and general 

trends such as the salt removal rate are easier to 

evaluate.

Throughout this chapter, mg/L is used in reference 

to TDS to represent the salinity concentration. However, for the modeling conducted to analyze which 

alternative would be most effective at balancing salt, 

the total weight in tons was used as the measure to 

describe the amount of salts entering and exiting the 

refuge.

Classification of Salinity

Lake Bowdoin, like all of the wetlands on the refuge, 

can be described and classified in terms of its average 
96 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

salinity concentration. It is helpful to classify wetlands based on their salinity, because there has been 

considerable research describing the effect of varying 

salinity concentrations in terms of plant and animal 

communities and their tolerances to changing salinity. Entirely different plant and invertebrate communities thrive at varying salinity concentrations. 

In general, the higher the salinity concentration, the 

less diverse the communities tend to be (Gleason et 

al. 2009).

Refuge staff and others have been monitoring 

water quality in the wetlands since the late 1970s. A 

lot of information has been collected on salinity and 

how concentrations change with varying climatic 

conditions at the refuge. In 2009, Lake Bowdoin had 

an average salinity concentration of 10,500 mg/L. 

Following the salinity classification scheme displayed 

in table 6 (Stewart and Kantrud 1972), this concentration places the lake in the subsaline (second most 

concentrated) class.

Interestingly, monitoring data shows that even 

within Lake Bowdoin, considerable variation in salinity concentrations exists. For example, the east side 

of the lake is typically more salty (1,000–2,000 mg/L 

more concentrated) than the west side. This is due almost entirely to the inflows of fresher water from the 

Black Coulee drainage and the Dodson South Canal 

on the west side of the lake.

Figure 28 shows the locations of the monitoring 

sites on and off the refuge, along with the infrastructure for water management in and between 

the refuge wetlands. Flow-through wetlands like 

Black Coulee Pond on the west side of the refuge and 

Lakeside and the Farm Ponds on the east side, rarely 

exceed 1,250 mg/L as water and salt pass through to 

Lake Bowdoin or Dry Lake, respectively. In addition, 

monitoring data shows that salinity concentrations 

tend to be lowest in the spring and highest in the late 

summer due to the evapoconcentration process.

Table 6. Salinity categories and the corresponding ranges of specific conductance values.

Salinity category Conductance1

(μS/cm-1)

Concentrations of dissolved solids—salts 2

 (mg/L-1) (ppt)

Fresh 0–500 0–320 0–0.3

Slightly brackish 500–2,000 320–1,280 0.3–1.3

Moderately brackish 2,000–5,000 1,280–3,200 1.3–3.2

Brackish 5,000–15,000 3,200–9,600 3.2–9.6

Subsaline 15,000–45,000 9,600–28,800 9.6–28.8

Saline >45,000 >28,800 >28.8

Most of the refuge wetlands are less saline than 

Lake Bowdoin and fall into other salinity classes according to Stewart and Kantrud (1971), as follows:

■ Slightly Brackish—Black Coulee Pond, Display 

Pond, Farm Ponds, and Lakeside

■ Moderately Brackish—Goose Island Pond, Patrol 

Road Pond, Teal Pond Complex, and Strater Pond

■ Brackish—Dry Lake Pond, Piping Plover Pond, 

and Drumbo Pond

■ Subsaline—Lake Bowdoin

With the fresher water it receives, Black Coulee Pond 

supports a greater amount of cattail than in more saline 

wetlands.

Mike Artmann / USFWS
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 97

Principal Salts at 

Bowdoin Refuge

The principal salts at Bowdoin 

Refuge are sodium sulfate, sodium 

bicarbonate, calcium carbonate, 

calcium sulfate, and magnesium 

sulfate; minor amounts of chloride 

and fluoride salts are also present 

(Bauder et al. 2007, Gleason et al. 

2009). These salts are largely derived from the soils and underlying 

geology that compose this area of 

Montana. Geologic history indicates 

that Lake Bowdoin is an old oxbow 

of the Missouri River channel that 

was pushed far to the south during 

the advancement of the last glaciers, about 15,000 years ago (Alden 

1932).

The predominant soils on the 

refuge are clays and clay–loams. 

The most common clay-loam 

associations are Phillips–Elloam, 

Phillips–Kevin, Arvada–Bone, Scobey–Phillips, and Kevin–Sunburst. 

These soils range from mildly to 

strongly alkaline; soluble calcium 

and sodium salts are dispersed in 

much of the soil profile. The presence of these soluble salts contributes to the alkaline nature of 

refuge wetlands, in particular Lake 

Bowdoin. Delivered water from the 

Milk River via the Dodson South 

Canal also contains these primary 

salts. Although these salts occur 

in relatively low concentrations in 

the delivered water (typically less 

than 500 mg/L), the total volume of 

water is high; therefore, the total 

tons of salts is high. In addition, saline seeps occur as 

water moves through the soil profile and exits at the 

surface near and along the west and north shoreline 

of Lake Bowdoin.

Open water in the southern bay of Lake Bowdoin in spring (May 2007). 

Mike Artmann / USFWS

The (same) southern bay of Lake Bowdoin in fall (October 2007). 

Concentrated salt crystallized on top of very shallow water and was 

susceptible to blowing.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Presettlement Salt Balance

To understand how the salt balance has been lost 

or altered over time, it is important to look at how 

it was maintained in the past. For the salt load to 

balance over time, incoming salts must be removed 

(or moved through the lake system) in roughly equal 

proportions, either by flushing or by the wind when 

water levels are low and salts precipitate out. There 

is little doubt that Lake Bowdoin functioned as a 

flow-through system during spring runoff and highprecipitation events. The flow-through nature of the 

system was essential to maintaining the lake’s salt 

balance, as was the removal of salts by the wind during times of drought.

Historical evidence, in the form of a General Land 

Office (GLO) survey, helps shed light on how the system functioned in the past (figure 29). The GLO survey, which divided the landscape into 1-square-mile 

sections, was completed in 1892 and approved in 1893 

for the area near Malta including the refuge. This 

survey included the Great Northern Railway, which 
98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 29. Map of a historical survey showing the location of Bowdoin Refuge on the topographic features of the 

landscape. Source: General Land Office, 1892.
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 99

was constructed just a couple years prior in 1887. In 

addition, the survey shows that Lake Bowdoin was 

originally called “Alkali Lake” (figure 29), undoubtedly in direct reference to the alkaline characteristics 

of the water and soils of the lake. Interestingly, there 

is no mention or depiction of marsh or lake habitat in 

the current locations of Dry Lake or Drumbo Pond.

The GLO survey shows a stream entering Alkali Lake (Lake Bowdoin) on the west side in the 

general location where the Black Coulee drainage 

enters today. It is drawn on the map as a dashed 

line, suggesting the stream was intermittent. This 

makes sense given the arid climate of the area (less 

than 12.5 inches in precipitation per year). The volume of water entering the lake through this stream 

is, of course, unknown. However, the drainage area 

does span to a low divide near the Milk River to the 

west and includes many smaller coulees coming from 

the hills to the south. It is likely that, during heavy 

rainstorms or deep snow years, this stream carried 

a considerable flow into the lake. Likewise, a stream 

is depicted exiting the lake in the southeast side near 

the present-day southeast arm of the lake. Based on 

local topography downstream of this outflow point, 

any outflow would have flowed into Beaver Creek following a relatively similar path as occurs today.

As mapped in 1892, the overall size of Lake Bowdoin was about 40 percent smaller than it is today; 

surface acres were approximately 2,885 acres. At 

a smaller surface area, and with a smaller volume, 

historically the lake would have exited at a lower elevation than it does today. In addition to spilling at a 

lower elevation, even small floods from Beaver Creek 

would have likely entered and exited the lake (from 

the east) and, in doing so, removed salts with it as 

a flood moved downstream. During very large flood 

events, like the one in 1986, water entered the lake 

from several directions and extensively flushed salts 

downstream. Following large floods, the lake may 

have remained in a fresher state longer than normal, 

because the large influx of fresh water would have 

removed large quantities of salts.

Historically, the inputs of water and salts have 

come from precipitation, local runoff, Black Coulee 

drainage inflows, and Beaver Creek floods (likely 

the largest water inputs). The flow-through nature 

of Lake Bowdoin was critical to maintaining the 

salt balance. Wind also likely played an important 

role in removing salts when water levels were very 

low during droughts. Over time, this cyclical input 

and removal of water and salts from Lake Bowdoin 

maintained a brackish lake system, which supported 

a greater diversity of plant and animal communities 

than exists today.

Postsettlement Salt Balance

Why are salts “out-of-balance” at Lake Bowdoin? 

Simply put, significant development and changes in 

the last 100 years have altered the inputs and outputs 

of water and salts that maintain the lake’s salt balance. Many of these changes occurred decades before 

the Milk River Project (described below) and subsequent establishment of Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge in 1936. The combination of a modified landscape and reduced flooding continues to contribute to 

increased salinity levels. Below is a summary of the 

major changes that affected the processes controlling 

the salt balance in Lake Bowdoin:

■ Hydrologic Barriers: The Great Northern Railway (1887) and early roads and dikes (1900) altered water flow into and out of the lakes.

■ Irrigation Inputs: Starting in 1915, increased water from the Milk River Project (described below) 

west and south of the refuge added more water 

and salts to the lake. Without a consistent outflow 

mechanism, salts continue to increase.

■ Refuge Management: Following refuge establishment, there was an emphasis on water conservation for wildlife during the 1930s. The Service 

built higher dikes, retained water longer to benefit 

wildlife, and developed new sources of water.

■ Beaver Creek Development: Also during the 1930s, 

increased water development in the Beaver Creek 

watershed lowered the frequency of flooding, 

which greatly reduced the primary mechanism for 

removing salts.

Railroad and Early Settlers

This area of northeastern Montana is commonly referred to as the “Hi-Line” of Montana, which includes 

the northern tier of counties. The Milk River watershed was largely unsettled by Europeans settlers 

before completion of the Great Northern Railway in 

the late 1880s and early 1890s. The railroad passed 

through Malta around 1887, reaching Havre in 1890 

and its final destination, the west coast of the United 

States, in 1893. Regional industry and trade centers 

quickly grew around the railroad as goods, services, 

and people could now be moved quickly between locations. A post office was established in Malta in 1890. 

The 1892 GLO survey helped in the distribution of 

lands to homesteaders.

The railroad was a tremendously successful tool 

that propelled the area into full homesteading and 

economic development in the 1890s. However, the 
100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

railroad effectively functioned as a hydrologic barrier 

to the natural movement of surface water between 

Lake Bowdoin and Beaver Creek. Instead of water 

flowing unimpeded during floods as it had previously, 

water now funneled through a series of railroad 

trestles, bridges, and culverts to flow in and out of 

the lake. It is very likely that smaller floods, which 

would have entered Lake Bowdoin unimpeded from 

the east, were deflected downstream by the railroad, 

thereby reducing the volume of water entering the 

lake.

In addition to the railroad, the Brady–Bateman–

Switzer Company previously owned the lands within 

Bowdoin Refuge. The company was a partnership between three men from Helena and Great Falls, Montana, who started a cattle and hay ranch on Beaver 

Creek near the town of Ashfield. The company took 

up 19 desert and homestead entries along Beaver 

Creek and attempted to irrigate the land by diverting water from Beaver Creek and Lake Bowdoin. As 

early as 1900, the company constructed levees and 

ditches between Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake and at 

the outflow of Dry Lake. These structures helped to 

increase water storage capacity and increase capabilities for water movement between Lake Bowdoin 

and Dry Lake (John Simpson, hydrologist, USFWS 

Region 6; personal communication, 2011). The Brady 

ditch and structure increased the storage capacity 

of Dry Lake and Lake Bowdoin by effectively halting the natural flow-through nature of the system; 

it could also capture floodwaters from Beaver Creek 

for later irrigation use. GLO surveys conducted in 

1904 east of the refuge delineate extensive irrigation 

ditches and levees built to improve water distribution 

along Beaver Creek for pasture and grazing lands. It 

is clear that Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake were part 

of an active irrigation system as early as 1900, more 

than a decade before construction of the main infrastructure associated with the Milk River Project.

This railroad trestle over a wetland south of Lake 

Bowdoin creates a constricted waterway.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

The Brady ditch and structure changed the flow-through 

lake system to increase the water storage for irrigation 

uses.

USFWS

Milk River Project

With the completion of the railroad, farmers and 

ranchers continued to arrive and settle throughout 

the Milk River watershed. Early settlers of the Milk 

River watershed soon realized that, in this arid climate, water was limited and often came in sporadic 

deluges that were not conducive to growing crops and 

raising livestock consistently. Dryland farming was 

the only means available in the absence of irrigation 

sources, which at the time were only available near 

streams and rivers. It soon became evident that a 

supplemental, stable supply of water was necessary if 

these settlers were to produce agricultural products 

and make a living on the landscape.

At the turn of the century, new Federal laws 

such as the Reclamation Act in 1902 committed the 

Federal Government to fund the construction and 

management of irrigation projects for arid lands of 

20 States in the American West. To fund the construction and maintenance of irrigation projects, the 

act set aside money from the sale of semiarid public 

lands. In addition, the act established the U.S. Reclamation Service, the predecessor to the Bureau of 

Reclamation, to oversee the development of all irrigation projects in the West.

On March 4, 1903, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally authorized the Milk River Project, one 

of the first irrigation projects initiated under the 

Reclamation Act. The Milk River Project was one of 

many projects initiated during in the early 1900s to 

secure stable and reliable sources of water in Montana. The Milk River Project is a federally owned 

project that today supplies irrigation water to more 

than 110,300 acres in eight irrigation districts and to 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 101

approximately 200 irrigation pump contracts along 

the Milk River (figure 30). The authorized purpose for 

the Milk River Project is for irrigation; all other uses 

are secondary. Most of the Milk River flows used by 

irrigators and municipalities and for recreational and 

wildlife benefits comes from the Milk River Project.

Completion of the Milk River Project meant 

supplemental water from the St. Mary River was be 

available to irrigators in the Milk River watershed, 

which otherwise would have flowed north into Canada, and ultimately into Hudson Bay. The idea behind 

the Milk River Project was relatively simple: move 

water east across a low divide separating the St. 

Mary River and the Milk River watersheds (USRS 

1920). A 29-mile-long facility diverts water from the 

St. Mary River watershed near Glacier National 

Park into the North Fork of the Milk River. From 

there, the river flows into Canada for 216 miles before returning to the United States. After reentering 

the United States, the water flows into two primary 

reservoirs for storage until needed by downstream 

irrigators: (1) Fresno Reservoir is 104 miles west 

of Bowdoin Refuge; and (2) Nelson Reservoir is 4.5 

miles northeast of the refuge. The St. Mary facilities 

are located on the Blackfeet Reservation in Glacier 

County; Reclamation owns and operates the diversion 

facilities.

Although authorized in 1903, it took another 40 

years to complete the primary infrastructure of the 

Milk River Project. The construction of facilities began in earnest in July 1906 with the St. Mary Storage 

Unit along the St. Mary River. Because both the Milk 

River and the St. Mary River flow from the United 

States into Canada, a treaty was needed for water 

issues related to the Milk River Project. A treaty 

with Great Britain (for Canada) was signed in January 1909 and proclaimed in May 1910. It took several 

years to complete the canal and St. Mary Storage 

Unit, but in 1916 water from the St. Mary River 

was finally diverted into the North Fork of the Milk 

River; however, water for irrigation became available as early as 1911 in areas along the Milk River 

(USBR 1920). Other early infrastructure and facilities 

included the following:

■ Dodson Diversion Dam (January 1910)

■ Dodson North Canal (1914), built on the north side 

of the river

■ Dodson South Canal (1915), supplied by the Dodson Diversion Dam, provided water to fill Nelson 

Reservoir and irrigate areas south of the river and 

east of Dodson

■ Nelson dikes (1915), enlarged starting in 1921

■ Swift Current dikes (1915)

■ Vandalia Diversion Dam (1917)

■ Bowdoin Canal (1917)

■ Lake Sherburne Dam (1921)

■ Fresno Dam (1939)

Nelson Reservoir’s current storage capacity is approximately 79,200 acre-feet, and Fresno Reservoir’s 

is approximately 103,000 acre-feet. While Reclamation manages the water storage facilities, eight irrigation districts manage distribution of the water to 

irrigators (farmers and ranchers); the Malta, Glasgow, 

and Dodson districts are closest to the refuge.

At one time during the early construction history 

of the Milk River Project, Reclamation considered 

Lake Bowdoin as a potential reservoir for downstream irrigation. An early project document (1902–

11) by Reclamation states:

“The use of Bowdoin Lake as a reservoir site 

in connection with the Milk River project was 

considered by the employees of the Geological 

Survey before the Reclamation Act was passed. 

During the fall of 1902 a survey of the lake and 

adjacent territory was made and for several 

years thereafter the plans contemplated the 

construction of a reservoir that would utilize 

the lake for storage.”

Two items had to be considered before going forward 

with the reservoir plan for Lake Bowdoin: (1) moving 

the Great Northern Railway from south of Lake Bowdoin to north of the lake, from a point near Ashfield 

to a point near Strater; and (2) acquiring more than 

5,000 acres of land “occupied and controlled by the 

Brady–Bateman–Switzer Company of Great Falls.” 

The cost of these items made the development a reservoir prohibitive. Eventually, Reclamation acquired 

most of the lands and the lake, and plans for using the 

lake as a reservoir were abandoned. Instead, plans 

were considered to use Lake Bowdoin “as some plan 

for the control of the waters of Beaver Creek.” Reclamation also abandoned this plan, and instead the lake 

was primarily used as a sump for irrigation return 

flows and excess runoff from the Milk River Project.

The Milk River Project was very successful in 

bringing additional water, and with it economic viability and stability to lands all along the Milk River. Additional structures have been constructed, enlarged, 

and repaired over the last 80–90 years to improve the 

distribution of irrigation water and expand capabilities within the project.
102 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

In 1936, the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

was established as an overlay on lands owned and 

operated by Reclamation, with both agencies having 

jurisdiction. It was not until 1972 that the Service 

received primary jurisdiction over these lands. Bowdoin Refuge receives Milk River water through both 

the Dodson South Canal and the Bowdoin Canal. The 

Dodson South Canal provides water to lands immediately west of the refuge and is the feeder canal to 

Nelson Reservoir. This canal delivers water to Lake 

Bowdoin through the terms of a 1937 agreement 

between the Service and Reclamation. A sluice-type 

structure on the west side of the lake delivers the 

water; the structure was built more than two decades 

before the establishment of the refuge to divert irrigation return flows and excessive runoff in the canal 

into the lake. Unfortunately, construction of this canal 

intercepted the natural flow of surface water from the 

hills north of Lake Bowdoin. Additionally, seepage 

from the canal likely expanded saline seeps on the 

north and west shores of the lake.

The Black Coulee drainage, which drains into 

Lake Bowdoin, provides spring runoff and receives 

Milk River water as irrigation return flow supplied by 

the Dodson South Canal. Irrigation return flow comprises about 2,500 acre-feet annually to the refuge. 

The salt concentration of irrigation return flows is relatively fresh, about 500–700 mg/L. As such, the Black 

Coulee drainage is an important source of water for 

refuge habitats, especially wetlands on the west end 

of the refuge. However, the increased flow of water 

from increased irrigation capabilities brings in more 

salts than would likely have naturally occurred. Similarly, the Bowdoin Canal is an offshoot of the Dodson 

South Canal and provides irrigation water to lands 

south and east of the refuge, before emptying into 

Beaver Creek. The refuge can also receive water 

directly from the Bowdoin Canal into Drumbo and 

Goose Island Ponds. In addition, the refuge receives 

irrigation return flows from lands immediately adjacent to the refuge on the south side. These sources of 

irrigation return flow are important for the refuge. 

However, absent a flow-through system, they add 

more salts than otherwise would have been added to 

Lake Bowdoin, contributing to the salinity problem.

Salt residue covers Dry Lake’s northern bay, which 

supports salt-tolerant plants like bulrush and the lowgrowing saltgrass.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Refuge Establishment

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1936 to help restore declining waterfowl 

populations, which had been devastated by the loss 

of grassland and wetland habitats during the 1930s’ 

Dust Bowl. It was one of many national wildlife 

refuges established throughout the northern Great 

Plains during the 1930s for migratory birds.

The Bureau of Biological Survey (a precursor to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) correctly recognized 

the significance of Lake Bowdoin to protecting and 

restoring waterfowl populations in eastern Montana. 

The Bureau of Biological Survey began studying ways 

to increase the lake’s water-holding capacity to provide 

valuable wetland habitat along with looking for ways 

to secure a more stable source of water for the newly 

formed refuge. To this end, the Secretary of the Interior (for Reclamation) and the Secretary of Agriculture 

(for the Bureau of Biological Survey) signed an MOA 

on March 9, 1937, to provide a refuge water supply 

from the Milk River of up to 3,500 acre-feet per year.

However, the 3,500 acre-feet was never enough 

water to manage Lake Bowdoin as a flow-through 

system. Based on the combination of the arid climate, 

the unpredictable water supply year to year, and the 

need to keep Lake Bowdoin from going dry, the Service needed to retain as much delivered water and 

floodwater as possible. This additional water needed 

to last through the summer and into the fall to provide wetland habitat for waterfowl and to prevent 

an outbreak of avian botulism. Except during flood 

years on the refuge, which allowed the flushing of 

salts from the lakes, Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake 

were converted from a flow-through wetland system 

to a closed-wetland system.

During the 1930s and 1940s, the refuge received 

help from work crews employed through the Works 

Progress Administration, a Depression Era program 

that provided jobs on public works projects. These 

crews were instrumental in constructing refuge buildings and enhancing existing dikes, levees, roads, and 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 103

Figure 30. Map of the Milk River Project, Montana. Source: Bureau of Reclamation, 1983.

CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 105

water control structures to impound more water. The 

result was improved capabilities for water storage 

and management on Lake Bowdoin and Dry Lake.

While there is no question that changes to increase water storage capacity and manage water levels have provided tremendous benefits to waterfowl 

and wetland-dependent wildlife, these changes also 

have been some of the many factors contributing to 

salt accumulation in Lake Bowdoin.

Beaver Creek Watershed

Beaver Creek has its origin in the Little Rocky 

Mountains south of Malta, between Zortman and 

Lodgepole, Montana. The watershed is 195 miles long 

and has a drainage area of 2,060 square miles. Floods 

along Beaver Creek played a significant role in flushing salts from Lake Bowdoin and, over time, helped 

maintain the salt balance; however, water-related 

developments in the watershed have significantly 

reduced the frequency of natural floods.

Refuge data, starting in 1937, indicates that the 

historical, average, flood frequency was once every 

3–4 years. However, observations by refuge staff 

suggest that the frequency of floods since 1970 has 

decreased to once every 7–10 years. Only four floods 

have been recorded entering the refuge since 1970, 

the last being in 1996. It is likely that the establishment of numerous small impoundments and irrigation diversions in the Beaver Creek watershed 

has reduced the flood frequency on the refuge. The 

irrigation diversions and reservoir retention have 

reduced, by an estimated 45 percent, the average annual runoff in the Beaver Creek watershed upstream 

of Lake Bowdoin (Rodney and Mohrman 2006). Furthermore, the gradual but significant improvements 

in land management practices within the watershed 

might have contributed to the diminished magnitude 

and frequency of floods. Improved grazing, minimumtillage farming, conversion of dry cropland to grass, 

and other innovations designed to retain rain and 

snowfall and use it more efficiently have reduced the 

runoff to Beaver Creek. The combined effect of these 

evolving land management practices is to reduce flood 

frequency, thereby inhibiting the primary mechanism 

for removing salts from the refuge.

Current Salt Balance

Inputs and outputs of salt affect and create the current salt balance.

Inputs of Salts

The sources of salts into Bowdoin Refuge are primarily from irrigation return flow, canal deliveries, 

ground water seepage, Beaver Creek floods, and rainfall. Figure 31 shows the sources of salts into the refuge and the average weight in tons per year; nearly 

half of the salts are from irrigation return flow. These 

input amounts have been developed from historical 

monitoring data as well as modeling to recreate the 

salt and water balance at the refuge.

Figure 32 shows the results from the model that 

estimated the total weight of salt on the refuge as a 

whole (Lake Bowdoin, Dry Lake, Dry Lake Pond, 

Drumbo Pond, and Lakeside) and Lake Bowdoin individually. There was a general increase of salts on 

the refuge, with Dry Lake seeing the most dramatic 

increase in salts. This was due to the 1990s’ management practice of placing saline water on Dry Lake, 

which helped keep Lake Bowdoin in relative balance (figure 32). This management practice stopped 

in 1999, and Dry Lake has remained dry from 2000 

to present except for spring runoff and rain events. 

Salts on the refuge decreased in the early 2000s due 

to the gradual loss of accumulated salts in Dry Lake 

from blowing away and from the onset of a drought 

that reduced the salt inputs. However, the salts began increasing once again since refuge managers no 

longer used this method to remove salts, with most 

concentrating in Lake Bowdoin. Under the current 

management plan of preventing releases into Dry 

Lake, the salts in Lake Bowdoin will continue to increase.

Outputs of Salts

Management actions as well as natural processes remove salts from the refuge.

Managed Removal of Salts. Past managers understood the salt imbalance and dealt with it in various 

ways. As shown in figure 33, various water sources 

add approximately 7,000 tons of salts to Lake Bowdoin in a typical year. Refuge managers have used 

two primary management methods to improve Lake 

Bowdoin’s water quality and to reduce salinity concentrations:

■ Discharge water into Beaver Creek (flow-through 

system)

■ Manage Dry Lake as an evaporation basin for 

Lake Bowdoin (salts carried away by wind)

When water was plentiful and there were high spring 

flows in the Milk River and Beaver Creek drainages, 

past refuge managers occasionally managed Lake 

Bowdoin and Dry Lake as flow-through basins, flushing salts into Beaver Creek to improve water quality 

on the refuge. Managers made controlled releases 

to Beaver Creek in cooperation with downstream 

landowners. The releases, although rare, generally 
106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Bowdoin Refuge

Sources of Salts

(tons per year)

Figure 31. Chart of sources of salts into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

PRECIPITATION

66 tons/year

GROUND WATER SEEPAGE

1,279 tons/year

CANAL DELIVERIES

2,335 tons/year

IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW

3,178 tons/year

BEAVER CREEK FLOODS

99 tons/year

 

occurred before the start of the irrigation season to 

coincide with high stream flows in Beaver Creek during the spring. These high flows increased the dilution 

effect and discharges were within allowable limits, 

which minimized impacts to downstream irrigators.

However, in 1976, an accidental spill from the 

refuge into Beaver Creek due to failure of a water 

control structure occurred during the irrigation season. The Service settled the resulting lawsuit from 

downstream landowners claiming salts from the refuge impacted their lands. Consequently, this incident 

effectively stopped the Service from making future 

water releases into Beaver Creek; refuge staff has 

not intentionally released surface water from Lake 

Bowdoin into Beaver Creek since the late 1970s. As 

a result, managers needed to find another solution to 

deal with the increasing salinity concentrations on the 

refuge.

Droughts and floods in the 1980s provided a natural means of removing salts from the refuge. However, by the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Service 

needed to find other solutions. The solution at that 

time was to move salt-laden water from Lake Bowdoin to Dry Lake under the ice during the winter. 

This method was effective because, in the winter, the 

highly concentrated saltwater stays in solution (salt 

lowers the freezing point of water), while the fresher 

water separates and forms an ice layer on top. As water freezes, salts precipitate out into the water and 

the remaining ice contains very little salt. Refuge and 

State staffs recorded recent measurements of salt 

concentrations exceeding 30,000 mg/L under the ice. 

After transferring this salty water to Dry Lake, the 

water remained throughout the spring and summer 

until it finally evaporated and left behind the salt residue. High winds transported the salt particles, which 

eventually settled downwind on the refuge uplands 

or the neighboring lands to the east and southeast of 

the refuge. During periods of high winds, the large 

salt “clouds” were very visible as the salts blew away 

from Dry Lake. Several factors created ideal conditions for the transport of salts from Dry Lake: (1) the 

lake’s west–east geographic orientation; (2) the length 

of the lake; and (3) the surrounding topography (hilly 

on the east side) in relation to the prevailing westerly 

winds. The transfer of water into Dry Lake removed 

salts from Lake Bowdoin—approximately 5,000 tons 

of salt per year, or enough to roughly balance the annual salt inputs.

Although monitoring data clearly shows that this 

combination of moving water to Dry Lake and blowing salts was effective in maintaining relative salt 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 107

Figure 32. Graph of tons of salt in the lakes and wetlands at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1990–2007).

180

160

140

120

ons of Salt 100 1,000 T

80

60

40

20

0

TONS OF SALT in ALL REFUGE WETLANDS TONS OF SALT in LAKE BOWDOIN Only

199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007

loads in Lake Bowdoin, Service managers no longer 

find it a viable option due to the effects on neighboring landowners and the effects on habitat in Dry 

Lake. Continually placing highly concentrated saltwater in Dry Lake for many years changed the value of 

the area’s vegetation and habitat for wildlife. Where 

once sedges, rushes, and wetland grasses grew, today 

there are mostly weedy species such as kochia and 

large areas of bare soil. These effects occur across the 

1,200-acre Dry Lake basin even though salty water 

has not been placed there since 1999.

However, it is inaccurate to say Dry Lake currently has no wildlife value, because a variety of 

invertebrates and birds are adapted to saline environments. For example, when the Service managed Dry 

Lake as a wetland unit, or transported water to the 

lake, and food was available, large numbers of migrating and breeding waterfowl and shorebirds used Dry 

Lake. Even today, a variety of wetland-dependent 

birds and other wildlife use Dry Lake when there is 

water in the lake from runoff or precipitation. During 

years of abundant water supply, refuge staff manages 

Dry Lake as a separate wetland unit without the 

transfer of water from Lake Bowdoin. While water 

transfer may be a means to provide valuable wetland 

habitat, managers are not willing to accept the negative effects of transferring water to Dry Lake and the 

resulting blowing salts.

Natural Removal of Salts. The removal of salts due 

to natural climatic variables such as major drought 

and flooding still occurs on occasion, with the most 

recent in the mid-1980s. These natural events are 

important to keeping salinity concentrations from 

becoming even more extreme.

For example, a significant drought from 1983 

through 1985 reduced Lake Bowdoin’s water level 

nearly in half (figure 34). Salt concentrations in the 

lake eventually exceeded 30,000 mg/L, some of the 

highest concentrations ever recorded. Because of the 

smaller lake size, large areas of exposed shoreline 

were subject to drying and the forces of the wind; 

there was considerable wind removal of salts during 

the summers of 1984 and 1985. In fall 1985, the rains 

returned and Lake Bowdoin began to fill up again. 

This combination of concentrating the salts and transporting them away by wind, followed by an influx of 

water, created a dramatic decrease in salt concentrations from 30,000 mg/L to approximately 2,500 mg/L 

in spring 1986. This natural process continued into the 

next year starting in spring 1986, which saw abovenormal precipitation, and having high water levels all 

summer. In late September, a massive, widespread 
108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 33. Chart of sources of water into Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

Bowdoin Refuge GROUND WATER SEEPAGE

Sources of Water 236 acre-feet/year

(acre-feet per year)

IRRIGATION 

BEAVER CREEK FLOODS RETURN FLOW

331 acre-feet/year 2,527 acre-feet/year

PRECIPITATION

6,126 acre-feet/year

CANAL DELIVERIES

6,389 acre-feet/year

rainstorm led to a 200-year flood episode in the Beaver Creek drainage, subsequently flooding the refuge 

and surrounding landscape (figure 34). This historic 

flood moved downstream a large amount of the salts 

stored in the lake and effectively lowered the salinity 

concentration for several years thereafter.

The natural processes of drought and flooding 

have a role in moving salt out of the system; however, 

their occurrences are unpredictable (in the case of 

major floods) and likely do not occur at frequencies to 

sustain the salt balance in the lake system.

Water Supply

The sources of water into the Bowdoin Refuge are 

primarily from irrigation return flow, canal deliveries, ground water seepage, Beaver Creek floods, and 

rainfall. As shown previously, figure 33 shows these 

sources and the average quantity in acre-feet by year. 

These input amounts have been developed from historical monitoring data as well as modeling to recreate the salt and water balance at the refuge.

Currently, the primary water right for the refuge 

is a right for “flood flows” from Beaver Creek. The 

Service can exercise this water right only during 

periods of high flows, which typically occur during 

spring runoff or after the irrigation season is over. In 

addition, the refuge is entitled to continue receiving 

all surface flows that originate in the Beaver Creek 

watershed and drain naturally into the refuge. However, these Beaver Creek water rights are ineffective 

in supplying adequate water to the refuge and in 

maintaining acceptable water quality because of the 

following: (1) senior water users downstream have 

priority over the refuge; and (2) there is increased 

development, primarily exempt stock ponds, in the 

upstream portion of the watershed. Consequently, 

the refuge is highly dependent on deliveries from the 

Milk River Project to meet its water needs for achieving the refuge purposes.

In addition to the Beaver Creek floodwater right, 

the Service’s 1937 MOA with Reclamation provides 

for delivery of up to 3,500 acre-feet per year from the 

Milk River Project. In exchange for the water supply, 

the Service (then the Bureau of Biological Survey) 

agreed to contribute $40,000 toward the construction 

of Fresno Reservoir, which was completed in 1939. 

The MOA is still in effect and specifies that, during 

years of normal runoff, Reclamation will provide up 

to 3,500 acre-feet of water to the refuge each calendar 

year for improvement and maintenance of the refuge. 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 109

Figure 34. Map of water levels and salinity for Lake Bowdoin, Montana (1975–2007).

JULY 1985

Significant Drought 1984–85

SEPTEMBER 28, 1986

200-year Flood Flushing Event

JULY 1959—Historical Reference JULY 2009—Current Reference

CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 111

If runoff is below normal, the refuge is to receive that 

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

and Federal reclamation laws permit, because the 

primary purpose of the Milk River Project is for irrigation. Therefore, the primary source of water for the 

refuge under normal conditions is Milk River water 

delivered to the refuge via the Dodson South Canal.

In the past, the refuge has obtained water in excess of 3,500 acre-feet through deliveries using the 

Malta Irrigation District facilities; the Service pays 

a fee to the irrigation district for all delivered water. 

Recorded deliveries have averaged 4,877 acre-feet 

of water. Figure 35 shows the historical deliveries 

of water supplied to the refuge—with the greatest 

quantities coming from canal deliveries and rainfall. 

Still, the current water supply does not meet resource 

needs at Bowdoin Refuge; consequently, the Service 

entered negotiations with the State of Montana for a 

reserved water rights compact.

Water Rights Compact

To address water supply issues at Bowdoin Refuge, 

the Service chose to negotiate a reserved water 

rights compact with the State of Montana. The following sections summarize the pertinent Montana water 

history and water rights issues, as they relate to the 

refuge, along with a description of the water rights 

compact for Bowdoin Refuge.

Montana Water History and Water Rights. The Montana Water Use Act of 1973 changed water rights 

administration in the State significantly. The act 

required that all water rights existing before July 

1, 1973, be finalized through a statewide adjudication process in State courts. Furthermore, the act 

provided for the following: (1) the establishment of a 

permit system for all new water rights; (2) an authorization system for changing water rights; (3) a centralized records system; and (4) a system to reserve water 

for future consumptive uses and to maintain minimum 

instream flows for water quality, fish, and wildlife.

In 1979, the Montana legislature passed a bill 

amending the adjudication procedures for water 

rights. Rather than adjudicating water rights one 

watershed (“basin” in State terminology) at a time, all 

water rights existing before July 1, 1973, are to be adjudicated statewide in all 85 basins. The State established the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact 

Commission (Compact Commission) for negotiating 

compacts with Federal agencies and Indian tribes 

to quantify their reserved water rights. Thereafter, 

these compacts are included in adjudications.

ater Delivered Acre-feet of W

Figure 35. Graph of water deliveries to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1938–2008).

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

384042444648505254565860626466687072747678808284868890929496980002040608

191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919192020202020

Acre - Feet

Historic Water Supply to Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
112 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The Montana Supreme Court issued an order 

requiring everyone who believed they had existing 

water rights to file statements of claim with Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) by January 1, 1982. DNRC provides 

technical assistance to the Montana Water Court by 

examining each claim for completeness, accuracy, and 

reasonableness. These examinations frequently result 

in the development of “issue remarks” if there are 

problems identified with the claim. A claimant must 

deal with these issue remarks before the court will 

develop a decree for the basin. Following resolution 

of the issue remarks and development of a report by 

DNRC, the Montana Water Court will issue temporary preliminary decrees or preliminary decrees. 

An objective period follows issuance of the decrees, 

during which parties can request up to two 90-day extensions. At the close of the objection period, anyone 

whose claims have objections must be notified, which 

triggers a 60-day counter-objection period. After all 

objections are resolved for a claim, the water judge 

issues a final decree. Subsequently, DNRC issues 

each water right holder a “certificate of water right” 

based on that decree.

The DNRC designated the Beaver Creek watershed as “basin 40M” and the Milk River watershed 

as “basin 40J.” The water rights for Bowdoin Refuge 

consist of two major components: (1) water rights for 

water supplied within the Beaver Creek watershed; 

and (2) water from the Milk River watershed.

Water Rights Compact. Since 1995, the Service and 

the Compact Commission have been in negotiations 

about the Service’s assertion of Federal reserved 

water rights in the Beaver Creek watershed for 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. The two parties reached a settlement in January 2007, and the 

Compact Commission’s attorney developed a draft 

compact with input from the Solicitor’s Office (Department of the Interior) and Service staff. This 

compact was presented to the Montana legislature 

twice and was passed in House bill 717, “Bill to Ratify 

Water Rights Compact between the State of Montana 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge.”

The compact recognizes water rights from two 

sources: surface flows from the Beaver Creek watershed and ground water from existing wells within 

the refuge boundary. In addition, the Service has the 

right to develop up to 5,300 acre-feet of deep ground 

water. In negotiating the compact, the Service agreed 

to subordinate all of the water rights on Beaver 

Creek to valid, existing junior uses. In other words, 

the Service will not attempt to assert seniority in 

placing a “call” on any junior user after the date that 

the compact is finalized. A “call” is a request by an 

appropriator for water that a user is entitled to under 

its decree; such a call would force users with junior 

decrees to cease or diminish their diversions and pass 

the requested amount of water to the downstream 

senior making the call.

The Beaver Creek watershed is closed to all, 

large, future development as a result of the water 

right compact negotiated with the Fort Belknap 

Indian Reservation, which is in the same watershed 

as the refuge. Excluded from the closure are as follows: (1) exempt wells of 35 gallons per minute (gpm) 

that pump less than 10 acre-feet of water per year; 

and (2) stock ponds of 15 acre-feet or less that can 

fill and refill once each year. In return for agreeing 

to subordinate to existing valid junior uses, Bowdoin 

Refuge received a water right for 24,714 acre-feet per 

year from Beaver Creek and can continue to use 223 

acre-feet of ground water from any source within the 

refuge boundary. The refuge can also develop 5,300 

acre-feet of deep ground water from geologic formations dating at least back to the Jurassic Period.

The water rights compact is conditioned on the 

Service executing a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) with the State (DNRC) within 5 years of passage of the previously mentioned House bill 717 that 

ensures the Service’s use of these water rights will 

not continue or increase the issues associated with 

salinity and blowing salts. If the Service and DNRC 

cannot agree on an MOU, the water rights compact 

will be nullified; the Service would have to litigate its 

water rights in the Montana Water Court. The preferred alternative of the final CCP will be the basis 

for negotiating the MOU with the State.

3.4 State and Federal Listed 

Species

The Service has not documented any species listed as 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act using 

any lands or water within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The Great Plains population of 

the piping plover, federally listed as threatened in 

1985, has been found on Bowdoin Refuge.

Many species found in the refuge complex have 

been designated as species of concern by Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the Montana Natural 

Heritage Program (2009a, 2009b) or as birds of conservation concern by the Service (2008a).

Two bird species on the refuge complex are 

designated as Federal candidate species under the 

Endangered Species Act—greater sage-grouse and 

Sprague’s pipit. The Service has determined that both 

of these species warrant protection, but that listing is 

precluded by the need to address other listing actions 

of a higher priority. Both will remain classified as candidate species until listing proposals can be prepared. 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 113

Until listed as threatened or endangered, candidate 

species do not receive statutory protection under the 

Endangered Species Act.

The mountain plover, which is found on Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge within the refuge complex, is proposed for listing as a threatened species. 

The Service is still developing scientific information 

regarding the mountain plover’s life history, ecology, 

and habitat use to determine its status and eligibility 

for listing.

Piping Plover

Piping plovers occur in three distinct populations: Atlantic Coast, Great Lakes, and northern Great Plains. 

Of the roughly 6,000 piping plovers left in the world, 

about half breed in the northern Great Plains. Unlike 

the Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes populations, the 

northern Great Plains population is declining, somewhere between 6 percent and 12 percent annually 

(Larson et al. 2002, Plissner and Haig 2000, Ryan et 

al. 1993). This population is expected to go extinct in 

50–100 years unless significant conservation activities are started. The decline and poor prognosis led 

to the listing of this population in the mid-1980s as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act in the 

United States and endangered in Canada.

The first recorded sighting for piping plovers in 

Montana was in 1967 in Phillips County (Prellwitz 

et al. 1989). Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge is 

located on the extreme western edge of the breeding range for the northern Great Plains population. 

Piping plovers nest on wide, sparsely vegetated sand 

or gravel beaches and on islands in rivers. In the 

northern Great Plains, flooding of nests and chicks 

from precipitation or untimely discharges of water 

from dams has been a major cause of reproductive 

failure. The refuge has suitable breeding and nesting 

habitat for piping plovers; nevertheless, use has been 

very sporadic and in low numbers (nesting was last 

documented in 1999). Because of its history of piping 

plover use, 3,325 acres of Bowdoin Refuge has been 

designated as critical habitat for the piping plover.

The Bowdoin Refuge participates in the International Piping Plover Breeding Census every 5 years 

and is a member of the Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. In addition, refuge staff conducts 

annual surveys for piping plover on Bowdoin and 

Hewitt Lake refuges and at nearby Nelson Reservoir. The reservoir lies approximately 4.5 miles, as 

the plover flies, northeast of Bowdoin Refuge and 

is administered by the Bureau of Reclamation. This 

4,559-acre irrigation reservoir has approximately 34 

miles of primarily gravel shoreline at a normal pool 

elevation of 2,221 feet. This extensive shoreline often 

supports several nesting pairs of piping plover. Since 

the nearest Reclamation office is 200 miles away in 

Billings, Montana, the Service entered into an agreement with Reclamation to have the nearby refuge 

staff monitor plover use of the reservoir during the 

migration, breeding, and nesting seasons. Reclamation has provided the funding, and refuge staff has 

been responsible for the monitoring. In 2009, the 

Service no longer had the staff to continue this monitoring program. Future agreements to continue this 

partnership are contingent on the addition of a biologist or permanent biological technician to the refuge 

complex staff to carry out this additional work.

In cooperation with Reclamation, the refuge staff 

has improved nesting habitat on Nelson Reservoir 

by adding gravel to historical nesting areas and by 

periodically removing vegetation from those sites as 

needed. The Service has also collaborated with Reclamation and Ducks Unlimited to create Piping Plover Pond on the west end of Dry Lake. In addition, 

portions of the alkali beach on the pond have been 

enhanced with gravel to improve nesting habitat.

The Bowdoin Refuge has critical habitat for piping plover.

Gene Nieminen / USFWS

Plant Species

No federally listed plant species are known to occur 

at Bowdoin Refuge or within the Bowdoin Wetland 

Management District; however, comprehensive vegetation inventories have not been done for most of the 

district.

Animal Species of Concern

Species of concern are native animals breeding in 

Montana that are considered to be at risk due to 

their declining population trends, threats to their 
114 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

habitats, or restricted distribution (Montana Natural 

Heritage Program 2009a, 2009b). The Service identifies birds of conservation concern as migratory and 

nonmigratory birds of the United States and its territories that have declining populations, naturally 

or human-caused small ranges or population sizes, 

threats to habitat, or other factors. This designation 

helps stimulate coordinated and proactive conservation actions among Federal, State, tribal, and private 

partners. Bird species considered for inclusion on this 

list include nongamebirds, gamebirds without hunting 

seasons, subsistence-hunted nongamebirds in Alaska, 

birds that are candidates or proposed as threatened 

or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 

and birds that recently have been removed from a 

Federal listing (USFWS 2008a).

The refuge complex has documented more than 80 

wildlife species that are listed as State species of concern or Federal birds of conservation concern, or both 

(refer to “Appendix H–Species Lists”). In particular, 

many grassland-nesting birds such as Baird’s sparrow, 

Sprague’s pipit, and McCown’s longspur use the refuge 

complex for nesting and migration habitat each year. 

These birds, along with many others using the refuge 

complex, are identified on both the State and Federal 

lists as species that require special attention to prevent them from becoming threatened or endangered.

3.5 Cultural Resources

Based on radiocarbon dating, evidence of human occupation within the northwestern plains of the greater 

Missouri River drainage extends back at least 11,000 

years (Brumley 2006). Excavations from this area 

indicate that prehistoric inhabitants evolved significantly over time by adopting new methods of hunting, 

gathering, and preparing food. Cultural phases can be 

identified by the types or styles of projectile points 

used, means of food preparation, and presence or absence of certain items such as ceramics.

Rocks define a tipi ring at the Bowdoin Refuge.

Carmen Luna / USFWS

Prehistoric Occupation

The cultural sequence for prehistoric occupation in 

this area is often split into three major subdivisions 

based on these phases—early, middle, and late prehistoric.

Early Prehistoric

Dating back 11,000–7,700 years ago, early prehistoric 

or paleo-Indian peoples appear to have used heavy 

throwing or stabbing spears to hunt primarily big 

game such as mammoth and early bison. Evidence 

from this period in northern and central Montana is 

limited and most finds have been found on the surface.

Middle Prehistoric

Middle prehistoric humans occupied the area 8,000–

1,300 years ago and may have hunted a larger variety 

of animal species as well as gathered and processed 

wild plant foods. Projectile points from this period 

were presumably designed for a spear thrower, 

known as an atlatl. Evidence also shows that the bow 

may have coexisted and eventually replaced the atlatl. Signs of stone boiling and the appearance of pottery indicate changes in food processing and storage.
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 115

Late Prehistoric

Dating from 100 A.D. to historical times, this period 

is characterized by projectile points used with the 

bow and arrow. Bison were still the primary game, 

but communal kills that involved driving animals over 

a cliff, into corrals, or into natural traps were more 

common. There is also significant evidence of the use 

of pottery and ceramics.

Protohistoric and Historic 

Native Americans

The protohistoric period is the period of time between 

the arrival of horses and manufactured goods in the 

area and before the arrival of white traders and explorers. This time period lasted only about 100 years 

in this area due to the arrival of the Lewis and Clark 

expedition in the early 1800s.

On arrival of the early white explorers, northern Montana was occupied primarily by three tribal 

groups: the Gros Ventres or Atsina, the Piegan of 

the Blackfoot Confederacy, and the Assiniboine. As 

a result of warfare and migration of Euro-Americans, 

the Sioux (Fort Peck Reservation), Chippewa, and 

Cree (Rocky Boy’s Reservation) had also moved into 

northern Montana by the late 1800s (Wolfgram and 

Nemeth 1998). Cultural remnants from these groups 

can be found scattered over most undisturbed areas 

within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lodges, tipi rings, and rock cairns are the most 

common remains encountered.

Historic Euro‐Americans

The post-Lewis and Clark historic period in central 

and northern Montana can be divided into three generalized periods based on the major type of economic 

activity—fur trade era, ranching and railroad era, and 

homestead era (Wolfgram and Nemeth 1998).

Fur Trade Era

The fur trade era began in Montana a year after the 

Lewis and Clark Expedition returned to St. Louis. 

By the 1840s, trading posts were established along 

the Missouri River and most of its major tributaries 

including the Milk, Marias, Musselshell, and Yellowstone Rivers. Most of these posts were small, 

independent ventures and lasted little more than a 

year. In addition, a network of military posts was established throughout central and northern Montana.

By the mid-1880s, much of the Plains Region of 

northern Montana was ceded by the Native American 

tribes present there, and these peoples were moved 

to smaller reserves with boundaries similar to those 

found today. The fur trade era came to an end at the 

same time, and most of the trade and military posts 

were closed.

Unreserved public domain in northern Montana 

was opened to settlement in 1887, and that same 

year the Great Northern Railway was built along the 

Milk River valley. Large cattle and sheep operations 

quickly moved into the area.

Ranching and Railroad Era

The ranching and railroad era in northern Montana 

coincided with a major boom in the market for beef 

cattle. The slaughter of the once-vast herds of bison 

and the considerable increase in the human population after the Civil War created an almost insatiable 

market for beef. The railroad development across 

northern Montana meant that large numbers of cattle 

could be shipped throughout the United States. Many 

of the branch lines that extended from what is now 

called the Burlington–Northern Railroad have since 

been abandoned, but many of the towns that were 

established along those branches as well as along the 

main railway remain today. These communities were 

service points for the coal-fired locomotives or as sidings for freight (railway sections where one section is 

lowered to allow two trains on the same rail to pass). 

These towns became important to the farmers who 

came to the region during the homestead era. One 

siding town that experienced the rapid boom and just 

as rapid bust of the railroad era was Bowdoin, for 

which the refuge was named. The old town site is located on the southeast boundary of Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge.

Homestead Era

The homestead era in northern Montana lasted only 

18 years between 1900 and 1918. Before 1900, farmers considered the region to be much too dry, and the 

open, rolling grasslands were not conducive to the 

farming techniques of the time. As dryland farming techniques improved—and with the passing of 

the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 and the Three 

Year Homestead Act of 1912—the stage was set for 

a major land rush in Montana. Individuals were provided with a free 320-acre homestead and, after only 3 

years, could lay full claim to the land even if they only 

lived on it for 5 months of the year.

In 1902, the Newlands Reclamation Act committed the Federal Government to develop and manage 

irrigation systems along the major rivers in Montana. 

Also in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation came into 

existence with funding from the sale of public lands. 

Since there was a lack of reliable, stable water in the 
116 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Milk River system, a plan was developed to divert 

spring and floodwaters from the St. Mary River in 

western Montana into the Milk River system and 

store it for later use in downstream reservoirs. The 

Milk River Project would irrigate and reclaim more 

than 250,000 acres of agricultural land along the Milk 

River valley and was one of the first projects of this 

type in the United States interior.

The period between 1909 and 1916 was wetter 

than normal and individuals were able to exist off 

their 320-acre farms. However, by the mid-1920s the 

situation had changed, and it became clear that farms 

had to be significantly larger to provide a living. 

Many homesteaders went broke and their lands were 

purchased by those who had been able to persevere.

Crews from the Works Progress Administration constructed several buildings for the Bowdoin Refuge headquarters (1961).

USFWS

History of Bowdoin Refuge 

Complex

The establishment and early history of the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Complex is tied to the Emergency 

Relief Act and the Works Progress Administration 

program. Created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl 

era of the mid-1930s, these programs were developed 

to employ the maximum number of people to work 

on public lands. The Civilian Conservation Corps was 

never assigned to work on any areas of the refuge 

complex (Speulda and Lewis 2003).

Works Progress Administration crews performed 

construction on the refuges in the refuge complex 

between 1936 and 1941. Their activities focused not 

only on buildings, roads, and other facilities, but also 

on the construction of dams and levees to impound 

water. Recognizing the importance of the Milk River 

system to the Lake Bowdoin Migratory Waterfowl 

Refuge (now Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge), the 

Bureau of Biological Survey (now U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) contributed funds for the construction of 

the Fresno Reservoir Dam near Havre, Montana, 

in exchange for a 3,500 acre-foot water right. This 

agreement was signed on March 7, 1937, and the Milk 

River Project still serves as the main source of water 

for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge.

Construction projects completed by the Works 

Progress Administration at the Bowdoin Refuge 

headquarters were a residence for the manager, an 

office, a shop and service building, vehicle storage, 

an observation tower, and a road to the headquarters 

area. The office building and residence were unique 

for the time—instead of the concrete block buildings 

common in this era, the crews built wood structures 

due to the availability of salvaged wood from dismantled farmsteads on other refuges. The shop building burned down soon after being built, and a new 

structure was built on the concrete foundation. Crews 

also landscaped the headquarters area, constructed 

the two stone pillars that still stand at the refuge entrance driveway, put in flagstone walks, developed a 

10-acre garden and orchard, and installed overhead 

electric lines from Malta to the new headquarters.

Early habitat projects completed by Works Progress Administration crews on Bowdoin Refuge included planting trees, shrubs, and aquatic vegetation, 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 117

collecting rock, constructing nesting islands on Lake 

Bowdoin, and constructing water delivery and control systems. Many other refuge projects were also 

accomplished by the Works Progress Administration 

“boys” when refuge managers were able to get funding and workers, which was often difficult according 

to refuge narratives. While none of the buildings or 

bridges constructed by the Works Progress Administration crews survived, most of the dams, dikes, 

ditches, and a few water control structures still exist. 

In addition, a small National Youth Administration 

crew was employed in 1937 to conduct a nest and 

brood count throughout Bowdoin Refuge.

The Works Progress Administration was pivotal 

to the establishment of all four satellite refuges. 

During this Dust Bowl era, the country and the 

Government were very focused on capturing and 

conserving water for wildlife, particularly waterfowl, 

and agricultural operations. Water impoundments 

were popularized when the connection was made to 

employing out-of-work citizens to build the structures needed to impound and manage limited water 

resources. Most of this work was completed on public 

lands, except for the privately owned easement refuges, known today as limited-interest refuges. These 

limited-interest refuges are encumbered by a refuge 

or flowage easement, or both, and the Service has 

acquired less than 10 percent of the refuge acquisition boundary. By definition, only Lake Thibadeau is 

considered a limited-interest refuge, but the remaining satellite refuges (Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, 

and Hewitt Lake) have their origins in this program. 

These types of refuges are found not only in Montana, 

but also in North Dakota and South Dakota. Most of 

the land within these refuges is still in private ownership and the refuges do not fully function as feetitle refuges, hence the name, limited interest. The 

Works Progress Administration constructed dams, 

spillways and water control structures on the private 

lands of what was to become Black Coulee, Greedman Coulee (now Creedman Coulee), Hewitt Lake, 

and Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges. Willing landowners signed perpetual refuge and flowage 

easements granting the Government the right to 

construct and maintain these structures; control the 

uses that occur on these impoundments and other 

lakes, rivers, and streams; and control hunting and 

trapping. The real benefit to these landowners was a 

more reliable water source; as an added benefit, some 

of these landowners were also employed by the Government to build these impoundments. Most of the 

structures are still functioning, but due to development in the watershed, much of the water that once 

flowed into these impoundments is captured before it 

ever reaches some refuges. Some habitat work was 

conducted by the Works Progress Administration 

crews including planting seed balls of sago pondweed 

(a desirable aquatic plant) in Hewitt Lake and constructing a nesting island at Black Coulee.

3.6 Special Management Areas

Areas with official designations are managed to 

retain the special features that led to their designation. While not suitable for wilderness, the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge has been identified as an 

important bird area.

Wilderness Review

A wilderness review is the process used for determining whether to recommend Service lands or waters 

to Congress for designation as wilderness. The Service is required to conduct a wilderness review for 

each refuge as part of the CCP process. Lands or 

waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness are identified in a CCP and further evaluated to 

determine whether they merit recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. To be designated 

a wilderness, lands must meet certain criteria as outlined in the Wilderness Act of 1964:

■ Generally appears to have been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature, with the imprint of human 

work substantially unnoticeable

■ Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation

■ Has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient 

size to make practicable its preservation and use 

in an unimpaired condition

■ May also contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value

Bowdoin Refuge is the only unit in the refuge complex that meets the wilderness criteria for size and 

for scientific, scenic, and ecological value. In 1973, 

the refuge was evaluated for inclusion in the Wilderness System by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife (now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

The report concluded that Bowdoin Refuge was not 

suitable for this designation due to the extensive 

development and intensive management needed to 

meet refuge objectives (Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife 1973). This still holds true today. The 

refuge landscape has been altered by roads, fences, 

and extensive human effects from livestock grazing 
118 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

and wetland modifications that preclude it from being 

designated a wilderness.

Important Bird Area

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge has been designated as an important bird area through a program 

administered by the National Audubon Society. This 

program is a global effort to identify and conserve areas that are vital to birds and for biodiversity. Important bird areas are sites that provide essential habitat 

for one or more species of birds. These areas include 

sites for breeding, wintering, or migrating birds. Important bird areas may be a few acres or thousands of 

acres, but usually they are discrete sites that stand 

out from the surrounding landscape. Important bird 

areas may include public or private lands, or both, 

and they may be protected or unprotected (National 

Audubon Society 2010). To qualify as an important 

bird area, sites must satisfy at least one of the following criteria to support the following types of bird 

species groups:

■ Species of conservation concern (for example, 

threatened and endangered species)

■ Restricted-range species (species vulnerable because they are not widely distributed)

■ Species that are vulnerable because their populations are concentrated in one general habitat type 

or biome

■ Species or groups of similar species (such as waterfowl or shorebirds) that are vulnerable because 

they occur at high densities due to their behavior 

of congregating in groups

More than 260 species of birds have been documented 

on the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. According 

to the National Audubon Society, the list of species 

breeding on the refuge has 19 species of global and 

continental conservation concern.

■ Global Concern—ferruginous hawk, piping plover, long-billed curlew, red-headed woodpecker, 

Sprague’s pipit, Brewer’s sparrow, chestnut-collared longspur

■ Continental Concern—northern harrier, Swainson’s hawk, upland sandpiper, marbled godwit, 

Wilson’s phalarope, common tern, burrowing owl, 

short-eared owl, willow flycatcher, loggerhead 

shrike, Baird’s sparrow, McCown’s longspur

The Bowdoin Refuge has one of only four nesting 

colonies of American white pelicans and one of only 

five nesting colonies of Franklin’s gulls in Montana.

The upland sandpiper uses habitats on the refuge 

complex. In Montana, it has been declining in range 

and abundance.

© Michael Forsberg

Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network

Because of the concentrations of migrating shorebirds, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network recognizes Lake Bowdoin as a site of regional importance.

3.7 Visitor Services

Visitors to the Bowdoin Refuge Complex enjoy a variety of wildlife-dependent, public use activities such 

as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. Most 

visitors use the Bowdoin Refuge’s 15-mile auto tour 

route. Brochures containing area maps, public use 

regulations, bird species, and general information are 

available for the units in the refuge complex.

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge office is 

open Monday–Friday, 7:30 a.m.–4:00 p.m. The auto 

tour route and remainder of the refuge are open from 

dawn to dusk, except during hunting season when 

hunters are allowed reasonable time to access hunt-
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 119

ing areas when arriving before dawn and leaving 

after dusk. The report Banking on Nature 2004—The 

Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National 

Wildlife Refuge Visitation shows that in 2004, 7,147 

individuals made 5,217 recreational visits to Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge (Caudill and Henderson 

2005). About 83 percent of these visits were by nonresidents. Hunting accounted for about 23 percent of 

the visits while the remainder of the outings is attributed to other activities such as wildlife observation, 

photography, and hiking. Hunters are required to 

register at a kiosk located in front of the headquarters building so these numbers are fairly accurate. 

Visitors are asked to sign the guest register at the 

headquarters entrance, but registration is not mandatory. Nonhunting use is estimated each year based on 

the guest register and head-counts of education and 

interpretation groups.

No documented visitation data is available for the 

rest of the refuge complex; nevertheless, the Service 

estimates that current visitor use throughout the refuge complex is approximately 25,000 annually.

Hunting

In addition to the site-specific regulations mentioned 

below, all State of Montana hunting regulations apply to Service lands in the refuge complex. Shotgun 

hunters may only possess and use nontoxic shot on 

lands within the refuge complex, and vehicle travel 

and parking is restricted to roads, pullouts, and parking areas.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge

Public hunting of migratory gamebirds (ducks, geese, 

coot, swan, sandhill crane, and mourning dove), 

upland gamebirds (pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, 

greater sage-grouse, gray partridge), fox, and coyote is permitted in the designated portions (about 40 

percent) of Bowdoin Refuge (figure 36). An accessible 

boat dock, pier, and parking area are available at the 

west boat launch on Lake Bowdoin. Boating is only 

allowed on the refuge during the hunting season and 

only in those areas open to hunting. A 25-horsepower 

boat motor limit protects submerged aquatic vegetation in the refuge’s shallow wetlands. Big game hunting is not allowed at the refuge and predator hunting 

(fox and coyote) requires a special use permit approved by the refuge manager.

Since 2002, the eastern portion of the refuge that 

is normally closed to hunting has been opened to upland gamebird hunting throughout December. The 

first 2 days of the special opening are limited to only 

young hunters. Waterfowl generally remain on Bowdoin Refuge until freezeup. To avoid disturbance to 

these migratory birds, the opening of the late-season 

hunt for upland gamebirds is contingent on waterfowl 

being gone by November 30.

Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge

Black Coulee comprises fee-title refuge lands and 

waterfowl production areas, which are surrounded 

by private lands encumbered by Service easements. 

The hunters wanting access to these private lands 

must get permission from the landowner. Another 

portion of the refuge was acquired as Black Coulee 

WPA; hunting here can be challenging, because public 

use regulations for refuges are different from those 

for waterfowl production areas. Hunting is open to 

the general public on the waterfowl production area. 

Hunting on the refuge is open but requires landowner 

permission to access private lands. The refuge is 

otherwise open to hunting for big game, migratory 

gamebirds (ducks, geese, coot, swan, sandhill crane, 

and mourning dove), and upland game (pheasant, 

sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge, fox, and coyote). Hunters must follow State 

game laws including seasons and limits when hunting 

on this refuge.

Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge

Most of the land within the refuge boundary is private land and hunters wanting access must get permission from the landowner. The refuge is otherwise 

open to hunting for big game, migratory gamebirds 

(ducks, geese, coot, swan, sandhill crane, and mourning dove), and upland game (pheasant, sharp-tailed 

grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge, fox, and 

coyote). Hunters must follow State game laws including seasons and limits when hunting on this refuge.

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge

A portion of the land within the refuge boundary is 

private land and hunters wanting access to this inholding must get permission from the landowner. A 

portion of the land within the Executive boundary 

was acquired as Hewitt Lake WPA. The refuge is 

otherwise open to hunting for big game, migratory 

gamebirds (ducks, geese, coot, swan, sandhill crane, 

and mourning dove), and upland game (pheasant, 

sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge, fox, and coyote). Hunters must follow State 

game laws including seasons and limits when hunting 

on this refuge.

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge

Most of the land within the refuge boundary is private land and hunters wanting access must get per-
120 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 36. Map of current and planned public use sites and activities at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, 

Montana. 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 121

mission from the landowner. The refuge is otherwise 

open to hunting for big game, migratory gamebirds 

(ducks, geese, coot, swan, sandhill crane, and mourning dove), and upland game (pheasant, sharp-tailed 

grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge, fox, and 

coyote). Hunters must follow State game laws including seasons and limits when hunting on this refuge.

Waterfowl hunting continues to be popular at the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex (top photo—1940; bottom photo—2009).

USFWS Carmen Luna / USFWS

Waterfowl Production Areas

Except for Holm WPA, all waterfowl production 

areas within the Bowdoin Wetland Management District are open to hunting big game, migratory birds, 

upland game, and furbearers according to State game 

laws and regulations. Big game hunting on McNeil 

Slough WPA is restricted to archery, muzzleloader, 

and shotgun only. The Pearce WPA has an accessible 

hunting and photography blind and a parking area.

Fishing

Although recreational fishing opportunities are available on McNeil Slough WPA (Milk River) and Beaver 

Creek WPA (Beaver Creek), the Service does not 

actively manage sport fisheries within the Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District. The remaining wetlands within the refuge complex have only minimal 

habitat or high salinity levels, or both, and do not support a game fishery. Bowdoin Refuge is closed to fishing to provide a refuge for migratory birds and due to 

the poor fish habitat as a result of high salinity levels.

Anglers have many quality fishing opportunities 

on other public lands around the refuge complex including Nelson Reservoir, Cole Ponds, Milk River, 

Missouri River, Fort Peck Lake, and stocked ponds 

on both public and private lands (Missouri River 

Country 2007).

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

Opportunities for wildlife observation and photography are abundant within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, and more than 25,000 people 

visit annually for these purposes.

The Bowdoin Refuge’s bird list can be used across 

the entire refuge complex. The Bowdoin Refuge’s 15-

mile auto tour route guides visitors through a variety 

of wildlife habitats. The auto tour route is graveled 

and is maintained throughout the year but may be 

closed periodically due to impassable or hazardous 

conditions. Binoculars and field guides can be checked 

out at the refuge headquarters. Near the headquarters office, the 0.4-mile Display Pond Trail (walking) 

features a photography blind for visitors including 

those with disabilities. The refuge is also a designated 

stop on the Northeastern Montana Birding Trail. 

Walk-in access is allowed anywhere on the refuge except for the closed area surrounding the shop, equipment storage, and residential areas. Boating is only 

allowed on the refuge during the hunting season and 

only in those areas open to hunting. A 25-horsepower 

boat motor limit protects submerged aquatic vegetation in the refuge’s shallow wetlands.

Parking and walk-in access is allowed on the satellite refuges and the waterfowl production areas 

in Bowdoin Wetland Management District. People 

wishing to access the easement portions of the satellite refuges must gain permission from the affected 

landowners. The Pearce WPA has an accessible photography blind.

Commercial filmmakers and still photographers 

must acquire a special use permit to work on Service 
122 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

lands. The permit specifies regulations and conditions 

that the permittee must follow to protect the wildlife 

and habitats they have come to capture on film and 

to prevent unreasonable disruption of other visitors 

enjoyment of the refuge complex. Commercial filming 

and photography on Service lands must also demonstrate a means (1) to generate the public’s appreciation and understanding of the refuge’s wildlife and 

their habitats and the value and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, or (2) to facilitate the 

outreach and education goals of the refuge complex.

Birdwatchers look for the Baltimore oriole in riparian 

areas, this bird’s habitat.

David Brezinski / USFWS

Environmental Education

The diversity of habitats and wildlife found throughout the Bowdoin Refuge Complex make it an ideal 

“classroom” for the area’s environmental education 

needs. The refuge complex staff has instituted educational programs—such as the wildlife poetry, wildlife 

art, and centennial quilt contests—to promote an appreciation and understanding of the wildlife and habitats the refuge complex was established to protect. 

Teacher workshops have been offered at Bowdoin 

Refuge in cooperation with Montana State University–Northern (Havre, Montana). Unfortunately, 

limited staff and resources are making environmental 

education programs increasingly rare and opportunistic, except for annual events such as the following:

■ Migratory Bird Day

■ Enrichment Days (a 2-day educational event in 

conjunction with the local schools, area businesses, 

organizations, and other agencies)

■ National Wildlife Refuge Week

A variety of elementary and high school science 

classes have used the refuge as an outdoor classroom. 

School groups can check out the wetland teaching 

trunk, bat teaching trunk, binoculars, birding field 

guides, and a variety of wildlife videos to use on or 

off the refuge. Slide presentations about local birds 

and bats are also available and can be taken to the 

classroom or used for onsite programs.

Interpretation

Most of the public brochures and interpretive panels 

have been updated following Service guidelines. Brochures containing area maps, public use regulations, 

and general information are available for the refuge 

complex and include the following:

■ Auto tour interpretive guide highlighting the 

numbered stops

■ General brochure for Bowdoin Refuge

■ Bird list for Bowdoin Refuge

■ Public use regulations for Bowdoin Refuge

■ Public use regulations for Bowdoin Wetland Management District, including the satellite refuges

These brochures are available at the refuge complex headquarters and at the main kiosk. The kiosk 

has three interpretive panels displaying a location 

map, general refuge information, wetland facts, and 

information about habitat management techniques. 

In addition, the refuge complex’s Web site provides 

information about programs and regulations.

The Service has provided local newspapers with 

periodic news articles on refuge complex activities 

and informative articles on the values and protection 

of the area’s natural resources. Monthly updates on 

refuge complex activities are also prepared for the 

Malta Chamber of Commerce.

3.8 Management Uses

The Service manipulates habitat through several 

management uses that are carried out under specific, 

prescribed conditions to meet the needs of wildlife 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 123

and habitat management and to reduce hazardous 

fuel loading—cooperative farming, prescribed burning and haying, and prescriptive grazing.

Cooperative Farming

Restoration of cropland and DNC fields back to native species is quite time and labor intensive. Therefore, the refuge complex addresses this habitat need 

by working with cooperative farmers to gradually 

convert disturbed grasslands to native grasses, forbs, 

and shrubs, which have the greatest potential to survive and outcompete invasive species while providing 

habitat to grassland-dependent migratory birds.

Cooperative farming of Service lands is usually 

done on a share basis where the Service and the cooperator each receive a share of the crop. The Service 

may retain its share (1) as standing cover for wildlife 

forage, (2) in exchange for additional work from the 

cooperator such as invasive plant control and grass 

seeding, or (3) in exchange for supplies from the cooperator such as herbicides and fence materials for 

habitat protection and improvement. Any fees or cash 

income received by the Service are deposited in the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. The refuge manager issues farming cooperators a cooperative farming agreement or a special use permit. Subsequently, 

cooperators are allowed to (1) till, seed, and harvest 

small grain, (2) control invasive plants, or (3) harvest 

hay on the restoration site until native seed can be 

planted and becomes established. These agreements 

are generally issued for a 2- to 4-year management 

prescription but in some cases may extend longer to 

allow time for establishment of native plants.

Prescribed Burning, Haying, 

and Grazing

Scientific and management communities largely 

agree that continuous idling of grassland is a poor 

management choice in comparison to periodic treatment to rejuvenate grasslands. Continuous idling 

(for example, more than 10 years) without periodic 

treatment as a conscious management decision fails 

to address long-term grassland health (Naugle et 

al. 2000). Methods used by managers to rejuvenate 

grasslands are prescribed burning, haying, and grazing. Periodic rejuvenation of vegetation is necessary 

to maintain optimum plant vigor, remove excessive 

litter, and stimulate plant height and density. Litter 

accumulations not only negatively affect the health of 

stands of vegetation but also negatively affect duck 

production (Naugle et al. 2000) as well as other wildlife that depend on grassland habitats.

Methods used by managers to rejuvenate grassland are haying (predominantly in seeded grasslands) 

and burning and grazing (predominantly in native 

prairie).

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed fire is recommended as a primary grassland management treatment whenever possible, 

because fire provides the fastest and most effective 

means of litter removal (Naugle et al. 2000). Most 

grasses and forbs respond positively to burning in 

the grassland of the northern Great Plains. Nonetheless, care must be taken when using fire to manage 

grasslands in drier climates, such as in eastern Montana. The use of fire may have a negative vegetation 

response due to longer recovery periods attributed 

to reduced litter and soil moisture, increased evapotranspiration rates and solar radiation, less snow 

retention, and poorer water infiltration (Henderson 

1982, Hulbert 1986, Old 1969, Wright and Bailey 

1980).

Bird species native to northern mixed-grass prairie are well adapted to defoliation by fire (Murphy et 

al. 2005). In general, decreases in species abundance 

and nesting density during the first growing season 

after prescribed burning are offset by increases in 

following years compared to pre-burn levels; nest 

survival appears unaffected. The short-term unavailability of breeding habitat probably is outweighed 

by the long-term benefits from using prescribed fire 

to restore and maintain vegetation structure and to 

manage the fuel load by reducing accumulated litter 

and woody vegetation. Data collected by Murphy et 

al. (2005) in the plains of North Dakota indicates that 

occurrence and survival of nests of some bird species 

is negatively associated with the extent of trees and 

tall shrubs in the landscape. Efforts to reduce these 

fuels via prescribed fire seem warranted for improving the productivity of grassland birds as well as addressing other prairie restoration objectives.

In presettlement times, the frequency of wildfire was variable, occurring every 5–10 years (Frost 

1998, Wright and Bailey 1980). However, very little 

research has been conducted regarding fire in the 

drier prairies of north-central Montana. Askins et al. 

(2007) suggest that grazing and the lack of moisture 

maintained grass as the dominant vegetation with 

fire playing a lesser role; they estimated a fire-return 

interval of 10–26 years for eastern Montana. Wildfires 

have been greatly suppressed since settlement by 

Europeans, and the use of prescribed fire by the Service and other groups or agencies has been sporadic.

Based on information regarding vegetation recovery intervals and bird-nesting studies, Naugle et al. 

(2000), recommends 3- to 10-year fire intervals in the 

wetter regions of the northern Great Plains and 10-
124 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

year or greater intervals in the drier mixed-grass and 

shortgrass zones. Since 2000, the Bowdoin Refuge 

Complex has increased the use of prescribed fire as a 

habitat management tool to improve plant diversity 

and structure and to improve grassland habitat for 

upland-nesting birds and other wildlife. However, before an extensive prescribed fire program can occur, 

a greater understanding of fire frequency in this arid 

climate is needed.

The Service uses prescribed fire to rejuvenate grasses and reduce vegetative litter.

James Graham / USFWS

Haying

About 4,478 acres of Service-owned uplands had been 

cultivated by the previous landowner. Since Service 

acquisition, most of these previously farmed areas 

have been converted to dense nesting cover or native 

grasses. The restoration of cropland to seeded grassland such as DNC is relatively easier to establish, 

less expensive than native prairie restoration, and 

provides valuable wildlife habitat. In the 1970s, 200 

acres of native prairie habitat on Bowdoin Refuge 

was “broken” to plant DNC to enhance nesting habitat for waterfowl (Duebbert 1969). Of the remaining 

4,278 acres, 465 acres have been restored to native 

grasses. Seeded grasslands such as DNC fields must 

be periodically rejuvenated to maintain optimal nesting cover for migratory birds and optimal plant vigor. 

Nesting waterfowl using DNC fields require vigorous stands of vegetation with the tallest, most dense 

cover form that is possible under prevailing soil and 

climate conditions (Duebbert et al. 1981).

Restoration of previous cropland areas to DNC 

or native grasses is initially very time-intensive. It 

requires seedbed preparation by tilling, use of control 

measures to reduce or eliminate undesirable plants 

or weeds, planting of a protective annual crop for 

1–2 years, and finally planting of grasses into the remaining crop stubble. Once established, DNC fields 

require periodic disturbance (mainly haying) every 

4–10 years to maintain plant vigor. An exact schedule 

for disturbance of these fields is not possible because 

of other contributing variables such as the accumulation of vegetative litter, soil, and climate conditions. 

The average life expectancy of a DNC field is approximately 15 years, before plant diversity has declined 

and it becomes necessary to reestablish it. DNC fields 

in the refuge complex have been established for 20 or 

more years and are in need of replanting. Given the 

intensive management requirements along with the 

limited lifespan of DNC fields, the refuge complex has 

been gradually working to reseed DNC fields to native grasses. The only fields that will remain as DNC 

will be parcels of land regarded as highly erodible.

Native grass restoration initially is as intensive 

as the planting of DNC fields but once established it 

should never require further restoration other than 

invasive plant management and periodic disturbance 

by prescribed fire, haying or grazing. Restoration of 

fields to native grasses depends on the availability of 

funds as well as climate conditions and the establishment of native grasses.

Grazing

Historically, vast herds of bison ranged throughout 

north-central Montana. The mixed-grass prairie 

evolved and depended on these native grazers for 

its diversity and productivity. As bison were eradicated, cattle were brought in to graze on the large, 

expansive grasslands—most of the area that is now 

the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex was 

extensively grazed by domestic livestock. Bowdoin 

Refuge uplands were grazed more heavily than other 

areas because of the presence of a reliable source of 

water in Lake Bowdoin. Today, native grazers such 

as pronghorn, white-tailed deer, and mule deer continue to browse and graze the uplands. Their grazing 

habits are different from that of bison or cattle, but 
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 125

it is not certain what effects these native big game 

grazers have had on upland vegetation communities, 

particularly at Bowdoin Refuge. Observations have 

shown that pronghorn and other native ungulates 

may be overharvesting plant species that they prefer 

to eat such as winterfat, resulting in overbrowsing 

this native plant.

After Bowdoin Refuge was established, grazing 

continued until it was gradually phased out between 

1973 and 1977. The plan at that time was to rest areas 

indefinitely, and then to resume grazing on a periodic 

basis as needed, anticipating intervals of 6–10 years. 

In 1986, a short-duration, high-intensity grazing experiment was conducted on Bowdoin Refuge with an 

objective to break up large mats of clubmoss. Prescriptive grazing was not used again on the refuge 

complex until 2001. The objectives of the limited grazing program started in 2001 are to promote a diversity of native species and to control invasive plants by 

mimicking bison grazing and subsequently benefitting 

the mixed-grass prairie through control of vegetative 

litter and increased plant production and diversity.

The right to graze the lands encumbered by refuge 

and flowage easements in the four satellite refuges is 

maintained by the private landowners.

Winterfat

Mike Artmann / USFWS

3.9 Socioeconomic 

Environment

Most of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex is open to public use including the compatible, 

wildlife-dependent uses of hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, and photography. These recreational 

opportunities attract outside visitors and bring in 

dollars to the community. Associated visitor activity—such as spending on food, gasoline, and overnight lodging in the area—provides local businesses 

with supplemental income and increases the local tax 

base. Management decisions for the refuge complex 

about public use, expansion of services, and habitat 

improvement may either increase or decrease visitation to the refuge complex and, thus, affect the 

amount of visitor spending in the local economy.

As part of the CCP process, the Service had a contractor prepare an socioeconomic study for the Bowdoin Refuge Complex (BBC Consulting 2010), which 

is the basis for the following sections described below: 

population and employment, public use of the refuge 

complex, and baseline economic activity.

Population and Employment

The refuge complex is located throughout Valley, 

Phillips and Blaine Counties; a portion of the refuge 

complex is also located within Hill County. The entireties of these four counties comprised the socioeconomic study area.

Population and Demographics

The population of the four-county study area was 

estimated to be 33,741 in 2008. Hill County has the 

largest population (16,500) among the included counties while Phillips County has the smallest population 

(3,900) as well as the most refuges and waterfowl 

production areas in the refuge complex. Blaine and 

Valley Counties have similarly sized populations 

(6,500 and 6,900 respectively). The population of the 

study area declined by 5 percent between 1990 and 

2000, from 37,800 to 36,000. The population of Montana grew by 13 percent from 800,000 to 900,000 over 

the same period. Future population projections for 

the study area and the State overall are expected to 

follow historical trends: the study area population is 

expected to decline slowly, and the State population 

will increase slowly.

In 1990, about 18 percent of the population was 

between 45 and 64 years old; that same demographic 

constituted 22 percent of the population in 2000 and 

27 percent in 2008. All other age groups are holding steady or have declined except for young adults 

whose population has grown slightly since 1990.

Employment

Employment in the four-county study area grew 

slowly between 2001 and 2007 from 19,700 to 21,000, 

an increase of 7 percent. Hill County had the largest workforce with 10,414 employees, followed by 

Valley County (4,820), Blaine County (3,144), and 

Phillips County (2,687). As of December 2009, the un-
126 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

employment rate for Blaine County was 5.3 percent, 

Hill County was 4.9 percent, Phillips County was 6.5 

percent, and Valley County was 5.2 percent. These 

compared favorably with a statewide unemployment 

level of 6.8 percent (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

2009).

The study area primarily employs individuals in 

government, farm employment, retail trade, accommodations, food services, and construction. Government establishments employed 22 percent of the 

workforce while farm employment accounted for 15 

percent of the workforce. Retail trade was the largest 

private, nonfarm source of employment (12 percent).

Public Use of the Refuge 

Complex

Public use and visitation levels are described below.

Public Use

Wildlife observation, photography, and hiking (nonconsumptive activity) account for 77 percent of visits 

to the refuge complex (Caudill and Henderson 2005). 

Most wildlife observers visit in the spring and summer, when the greatest numbers of migratory birds 

inhabit the area.

Hunting accounts for the remaining 23 percent of 

visitation to the refuge complex. Public hunting of 

migratory gamebirds and upland gamebirds are most 

popular. Predator hunting (fox and coyote) is allowed 

throughout the refuge complex. Big game hunting 

is allowed throughout the refuge complex except at 

Bowdoin Refuge and Holm WPA.

Fishing is permitted only on McNeil Slough WPA 

and Beaver Creek WPA. Most wetlands within the 

refuge complex have minimal habitat for fish or high 

salinity levels that cannot support a game fishery. In 

2004, there were no fishing recreation visits to the 

refuge complex (Caudill and Henderson 2005).

Occasionally, Bowdoin Refuge offers environmental education opportunities including school group 

tours, Migratory Bird Day, Enrichment Days, and 

National Wildlife Refuge Week.

Camping and fires are not allowed on the refuge 

complex; however, the Bureau of Land Management 

oversees land around the refuge complex, which is 

open for camping. There are also several motels located in the town of Malta as well as two recreational 

vehicle campgrounds.

Visitation Levels

Annual visitation to the entire Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex is an estimated 25,000 

people according to Service staff. Visitation is most 

heavily concentrated during wildlife-viewing seasons 

in the fall and spring and hunting season in the fall. 

Bowdoin Refuge staff estimates that 90 percent or 

22,500 of all visitor days at the refuge complex are 

from outside the four-county study area. Of the total 

visitors to the refuge complex, the visitation breakdown follows:

■ 12,680 visitor days are for wildlife viewing

■ 6,646 visitor days are for hiking and walking

■ 5,674 visitor days are for hunting of big game, 

predators, upland gamebirds, and migratory birds

Baseline Economic Activity

The refuge complex affects the economy through the 

nonresident visitor spending it generates and the 

employment it supports. Combining the effects of 

Service employment and visitor spending, the total 

economic activity generated by the refuge complex in 

the four-county study area is approximately $910,000 

annually.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Employment

The refuge complex employs five full-time equivalent 

employees and has a payroll of $398,553, or about 

$80,000 per employee. Using the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey data for 

individuals in these income categories, roughly 79 

percent of annual income is spent locally. Under this 

assumption, the refuge complex contributes $316,000 

to the local economy in employee spending.

Pasqueflower

© Cindie Brunner
CHAPTER 3 –Refuge Complex Resources and Description 127

Visitor Spending

The refuges and waterfowl production areas in the 

refuge complex currently experience total visitation 

of about 22,500 nonresident visitor days per year. Of 

these, roughly 17,400 visitor days are for nonconsumptive recreational activities and 5,100 are for 

hunting. Combining these visitation numbers with 

nonresident spending averages from the Banking on 

Nature study, total visitor expenditure generated by 

the refuge complex is estimated to be $594,000 per 

year. Of this total, about $313,000 comes from nonconsumptive recreational activity and $281,000 comes 

from hunting.

3.10 Partnerships

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

has a history of fostering partnerships that help accomplish its vision and goals. These organizations 

and individuals with whom a common goal is shared 

include county, State, and Federal agencies; nongovernmental organizations and conservation groups; 

schools, colleges, and universities; and local landowners and private citizens. These partners have assisted 

in wildlife and habitat management, visitor services 

and recreational activities, land protection and acquisition, fire protection, law enforcement, and community outreach. Several of these relationships have 

developed into formalized partnerships with written 

agreements or memoranda of understanding while 

others remain more informal.

Private lands and significant acreages of Federal 

and State lands surround the refuge complex. Activities on and uses of these lands have a tremendous effect on the adjacent Service lands. These neighboring 

landowners and agencies have been and will continue 

to be partners in achieving the refuge complex’s vision while sharing ideas and resources.

3.11 Operations

Service operations consist of the staff, facilities, 

equipment, and supplies needed to administer 

resource management and public use programs 

throughout the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, which is located across a four-county area 

totaling 17,183 square miles. Within this area, the 

Service is responsible for the protection of 85,713 

acres of lands and waters including 17,009 acres of 

refuge lands, 10,635 acres of wetland easements, 

39,767 acres of grassland easements, and 9,504 acres 

of fee-title waterfowl production areas.

Staff

Currently, the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex staff comprises five permanent full-time employees (table 7). Since 1998, the refuge complex has 

lost two positions—one permanent biological science 

technician and a permanent maintenance worker. 

The current staffing level remains well below the 

minimum prescribed in the June 2008 Final Report—

Staffing Model for Field Stations (USFWS 2008c), 

which recommended 6.5 additional staff including a 

GS–13 refuge manager, GS–12 wildlife refuge specialist, GS–9 park ranger (visitor services specialist), 

GS–9 park ranger (law enforcement), GS–12 wildlife biologist, WG–8 maintenance worker, and GS–6 

biological science technician (0.5 full-time equivalent 

employee).

Table 7. Base staff funded in fiscal year 2011 at 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Montana.

 Staff group Position

Management GS–12 refuge manager

GS–9 wildlife refuge specialist 

(assistant refuge manager and 

collateral-duty law enforcement 

officer)

Biology GS–11 wildlife biologist

Administration GS–7 administrative support 

assistant

Maintenance WG–8 maintenance worker

Facilities

Facilities are used to support habitat and wildlife 

management programs and wildlife-dependent public 

use activities for visitation estimated at 25,000 visitors 

annually. The refuge complex has one full-time maintenance worker to maintain buildings, fences, and roads.

Facilities have remained fairly updated over the 

years. The refuge headquarters and shop were built 

in 1980 and have been maintained in good condition. 

The headquarters was expanded in 2003, adding five 

new offices and a mailroom. Two new houses were 

constructed in 2001 to provide housing for refuge 

employees. In addition, the apartment building used 

for seasonal housing was remodeled in 2004 but still 

does not have sufficient space for the number of volunteers and seasonal employees needed to accomplish 

field projects. A new cold storage building with five 

parking bays was constructed in 2009.
128 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Bowdoin Refuge Facilities

■ 5,241-square-foot headquarters office building

■ 0.25-mile asphalt entrance road and parking area

■ 15-mile, self-guided auto tour route (graveled)

■ Solar-powered entrance gate with a timer

■ Two kiosks including interpretive signs

■ 0.4-mile hiking trail (paved) with one photo blind, 

bench, and overlook

■ Two 2,700-square-foot, three-bedroom houses for 

staff; two unattached two-car garages with houses 

(684 and 672 square feet)

■ 2,184-square-foot, two-bedroom bunkhouse apartment for seasonal staff with three parking bays

❏ 3,472-square-foot maintenance shop and storage 

facility

❏ 3,600-square-foot cold storage building with five 

parking bays

❏ 600-square-foot storage shed for the airboat

❏ 700-square-foot storage shed for all-terrain vehicles and field equipment

❏ 348-square-foot seed storage shed

❏ Two aboveground fuel tanks

Carmen Luna / USFWS

Bowdoin Refuge Complex Facilities

■ 62 miles of road (40 miles are Service-only roads 

and 22 miles are open to the public)

■ 34 pullouts and parking areas

■ 10 bridges (2 are Service-only bridges and 8 are 

open to the public)

■ 90 miles of boundary fence

■ Eight entrance signs

■ 137 water control structures

■ 32 miles of canals and dikes
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service selected the management direction described in this chapter after 

determining that it does the following:

■ best achieves the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex purposes, vision, and goals, and 

helps fulfill the Refuge System mission

■ maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of the refuge complex and the 

Refuge System and addresses the significant issues and mandates

■ is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management

This chapter first describes the management focus for 

the refuge complex, and then sets out the associated 

objectives and strategies that the refuge complex 

staff will carry out to achieve the CCP goals. The 

stepdown management plans listed in table 15 (section 4.9) will provide implementation details for specific programs. The chapter sections follow:

■ 4.1 Management Focus

■ 4.2 Goal for Upland Habitat and Associated 

Wildlife

■ 4.3 Goal for Wetland Habitat and Associated 

Wildlife

■ 4.4 Objectives that Support the Goals for Upland 

and Wetland Habitats

■ 4.5 Goal for Salinity and Blowing Salts

■ 4.6 Goal for Visitor Services and Cultural 

Resources

■ 4.7 Goal for Partnerships

■ 4.8 Goal for Operations

■ 4.9 Stepdown Management Plans

■ 4.10 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

■ 4.11 Plan Amendment and Revision

The American avocet is a target waterbird for the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex.

© Michael Forsberg
130 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

4.1 Management Focus

The Service will use the best available science and 

research to determine the most effective methods for 

protecting, restoring, and enhancing native mixedgrass prairie to provide quality nesting habitat for 

targeted grassland-dependent birds. Invasive and 

nonnative plants, particularly Russian olive trees 

that fragment grassland habitat, will be controlled, 

reduced, or eliminated and areas will be restored to 

native plants, as needed.

Refuge complex staff will manage enhanced wetlands to mimic natural conditions for target species of 

wetland-dependent migratory birds during spring and 

fall migrations and during the breeding and nesting 

season. The Service will enhance the waterfowl sanctuary area on the eastern half of Bowdoin Refuge by 

closing this portion of the refuge to all foot traffic until 

migrating waterfowl depart, no sooner than December 1.

This will not affect current waterfowl-hunting areas.

The Service will work with the State to determine 

the feasibility of offering a compatible, big game hunt 

on Bowdoin Refuge. Programs for the other wildlifedependent public uses—fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation—will be maintained or improved.

The visitor contact area will be expanded, and a 

visitor services specialist will be added to the staff. 

All programs will provide visitors with information 

on the purposes of the refuge complex including the 

protection of migratory birds and their habitats, the 

importance of protecting the remaining native mixedgrass prairie, and the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System.

Increased research and monitoring, staff, funding, 

infrastructure, and partnerships are required to accomplish the goals, objectives, and strategies for the 

refuge complex, outlined in this chapter.

The canvasback duck is one of many migratory bird 

species that use Lake Bowdoin.

Donna Dewhurst / USFWS

Salinity and Blowing Salts

The Regional Director selected “Salinity Alternative 

4” (from the draft CCP and EA) as the preferred 

alternative to address the salinity and blowing salts 

issue at Bowdoin Refuge. The Service will design and 

construct an underground injection well to force saline water from Lake Bowdoin below the lowermost 

geologic formation containing drinking water. This 

pumping will continue until a salinity objective of 

7,000 mg/L is achieved. At that time, the Service will 

determine the best way to recreate a flow-through 

water system that maximizes the flushing effects 

of natural flooding. The pump may also be operated 

periodically to maintain this saline objective. Section 

4.5 provides background information about the salt 

situation and management considerations at Bowdoin 

Refuge, followed by specific objectives and strategies.

Divestiture of Lake Thibadeau 

Refuge

The Regional Director selected “Lake Thibadeau Alternative 2” (from the draft CCP and EA) as the preferred alternative—divestiture—for Lake Thibadeau 

National Wildlife Refuge. The Service will prepare a 

proposal to divest this refuge from the National Wildlife Refuge System. This proposal will be reviewed 

by the Migratory Bird Conservation Committee and 

require an Act of Congress to be approved. The refuge and flowage easements will then be revoked and 

the water rights voluntarily relinquished back to the 

State. Subsequently, all other rights will be given to 

the landowner, including the management of all structures or the Service may choose to remove them. This 

divestiture process will be completed within 5 years. 

The goals, objectives, and strategies described in this 

chapter do not apply to this refuge.
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 131

Refuge Complex Objectives and 

Strategies

Sections 4.2–4.8, organized by goal, set out the objectives and strategies that serve as the steps needed 

to achieve the CCP goals for the four refuges (not 

including Lake Thibadeau Refuge) and Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District. While a goal is a 

broad statement, an objective is a concise statement 

that indicates what is to be achieved, the extent of the 

achievement, who is responsible, and when and where 

the objective should be achieved—all to address the 

goal. The strategies are the actions needed to achieve 

each objective. Unless otherwise stated, the refuge 

complex staff 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.

Appendix B contains the required compatibility 

determinations for public and management uses associated with the CCP.

4.2 Goal for Upland Habitat 

and Associated Wildlife

Protect, enhance, and restore grassland habitat for breeding and migratory birds and other 

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

Native Grassland

Prairie ecosystems thrive on the intermittent disturbance brought by frequent fire and the irregular 

mosaic of vegetation carved out by insects and native grazers, especially the periodic passage of bison. 

These disturbances and subsequent renewal have 

shaped the life cycle of every native prairie organism. More than 150 years ago, bison were replaced 

with cattle, which grazed differently and did not 

migrate. Historically, continuous cattle grazing was 

allowed on the refuge complex until the mid-1970s. 

This, combined with a lack of fire for at least 70 years, 

has resulted in a loss of plant structure and species 

diversity, both of which are necessary for a healthy 

and productive grassland ecosystem. The more palatable, tall, cool-season grasses such as green needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass have been replaced 

by increasers such as blue grama, fringed sagewort, 

and clubmoss. While these plants are an important 

part of native prairie, they should be components of a 

more diverse community (Lacey et al. 2005). The loss 

of variety in plant species and structure can be detrimental to grassland-dependent birds, which require a 

variety of habitats for nesting and foraging.

Today, cattle grazing can be a valuable tool in the 

absence of bison. If applied or used properly, grazing 

of native prairie by cattle can be used to stimulate 

vegetative and reproductive growth of plants. However, it is important that it be closely monitored and 

follow a prescription to achieve a habitat objective.

Grassland-nesting birds are one of the most rapidly declining groups of wildlife in North America, 

primarily due to habitat loss (Peterjohn et al. 1999). 

The Service has selected six target species of upland 

birds; these species depend on native prairie habitat 

and are listed as species of concern by Federal, State, 

and private entities (table 8). The upland habitat 

objectives, for both native and disturbed grasslands, 

focus on providing quality habitats (table 9) for these 

target species. The resulting habitats should benefit 

a much broader group of secondary bird species as 

well as a variety of other wildlife, both migratory and 

resident. This includes several of the target species of 

waterbirds (refer to section 4.3).

Native Grassland Objective 1

Over the next 15 years or more, manage for native 

grassland plant species composition that approximates the historical plant community consisting of (1) 

80–90 percent grasses and grass-like plants including green needlegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and 

western wheatgrass, (2) 8–12 percent forbs such as 

American vetch, dotted gayfeather, purple prairie 

clover, and other native forbs, and (3) 4–6 percent 

shrubs such as winterfat, silver sagebrush, and rubber rabbitbrush.

Strategies

■ Complete a baseline inventory of native grasslands in the refuge complex to determine abundance and overall health of grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs including whether remnants of the historical climax plant community exist and can serve as 

a seed source for restoration efforts.

■ Determine if native ungulates are overbrowsing 

forbs and shrubs.

■ Determine priority areas for restoration using the 

baseline inventory.

■ Develop a grassland habitat management plan 

that incorporates tested methods for preserving 

and enhancing native grassland.
132 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 8. Conservation status of target species of upland birds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Species Montana species 

of concern1

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

focal species 2

Partners in 

Flight priority3

Bureau of Land 

Management 4

National 

Audubon 

Watch List 5

Baird’s sparrow

Sprague’s pipit

Chestnut-collared longspur

Greater sage-grouse

Long-billed curlew

Marbled godwit

S2

S2

S3

S3

S2

—

√

Candidate

√

Candidate

√

√

1

1

2

1

2

2

Sensitive

Sensitive

Sensitive

Sensitive

Sensitive

Sensitive

Red

Yellow

Yellow

Yellow

Yellow

Yellow

1 S2=At risk because of very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction or 

 extirpation in the State. S3=Potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, or habitat, even though 

 it may be abundant in some areas. (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks; Montana Natural Heritage Program)

2 Candidate=A species under consideration for official listing, for which there is sufficient information to support listing.

3 1=Needs conservation action. 2=Needs monitoring.

4 Sensitive=Proven to be imperiled in at least part of its range and documented to occur on Bureau of Land Management lands.

5 Red=Declining rapidly or having very small populations or limited ranges and facing major conservation threats; typically of global 

 conservation concern. Yellow=Declining or rare; typically of national conservation concern.

Table 9. Nesting habitat requirements for target species of upland birds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Montana.

Species Vegetation height

(inches)

Litter depth1

(inches)

Shrub cover

(percent)

Area

sensitive 2

Use of nonnative 

vegetation

Baird’s sparrow 8.3–13.4 1.6–8.3 <25 Yes Low

Sprague’s pipit 10–12.5 0.8–4.3 5–20 Yes Low

Chestnut-collared longspur

5.9–11.8 <2.5 <25 Yes Low

Greater sage-grouse >5.9 — 15–31 Yes —

Long-billed curlew 2.5–11 — 0 Yes Some

Marbled godwit 5.9–11.8 0.8–3.5 — Yes Low

Source: Davis (2004), Dechant et al. (2003), Dieni and Jones (2003), Green et al. (2002), Jones (2010), MSGWG (2005).

1 (—)=No data found.

2 Area sensitive=Species are more abundant or occur more frequently in larger patches of mixed-grass prairie; size of the area varies 

 with the species.

■ Use a variety of management techniques such 

as prescribed burning, prescriptive grazing, and 

“interseeding.” Use care with prescribed fire in 

this arid climate—to determine if and when an 

area should be burned, consider weather patterns 

(for example, annual rainfall since an area was last 

burned), vegetation, plant diversity, and current 

use by target bird species.

■ Plant silver sagebrush on the Korsbeck and Beaver Creek WPAs to provide additional breeding, 

nesting, and feeding habitat for greater sagegrouse.

■ To determine the effectiveness of management 

techniques, use a scientifically credible and conservative adaptive management monitoring scheme 

including evaluating the response of target upland 

bird species. Use this adaptive management approach to determine if the most effective methods 

and technologies are being used to achieve this 

objective.

■ Collaborate with the Bureau of Land Management 

to monitor the prairie dog town on Hewitt Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge to ensure that it is maintained. Possibly pursue an agreement to close the 

entire prairie dog town to shooting year-round.
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 133

■ Use habitat evaluations on Bowdoin Refuge to 

determine potential effects (and their degree) of 

native big game grazers such as white-tailed deer 

and pronghorn overbrowsing desirable native 

plant species, which would affect both species diversity and structure.

Silver Sagebrush

Gary A. Monroe / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Rationale. Restoration of the historical plant community in the uplands is a long-term project that goes 

well beyond the 15-year scope of the CCP. Ideally, upland habitats in the refuge complex will consist, over 

time, of grassland that provides a diversity of native 

vegetation and a mosaic of vegetative structure 

across a broad landscape. This mosaic of vegetation 

communities supports a greater diversity of grassland birds (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006, Madden et al. 2000) 

and other wildlife; however, whatever treatments are 

used for restoration must take into account the dry 

climate and the needs of the target bird species. The 

fact that many of the target birds are present and 

nesting on uplands in the refuge complex indicates 

that these areas are already providing some habitat 

for these species. Using both monitoring and adaptive management will be important before choosing 

where, how, and when to enhance the vegetative and 

structural diversity of an area.

The Society for Ecological Restoration defines 

ecological restoration as “the process of assisting the 

recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, 

damaged or destroyed” (Society for Ecological Restoration International 2004). As stated in their International Primer on Ecological Restoration, ecosystems 

may be altered “to the point at which the ecosystem 

cannot recover its predisturbance state or its historical developmental trajectory. Restoration attempts 

to return an ecosystem to its historic trajectory.” 

It is not known how far the refuge complex will get 

along the restoration trajectory over the 15 years of 

the CCP; but with an initial baseline inventory, the 

Service could at least track that uplands were moving toward the ideal plant community and structure 

described in this objective.

A reference ecosystem that serves as a model is 

necessary to design restoration. Historical conditions 

are a good starting point for restoration design. The 

conditions described in this objective are based on 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–Natural Resource Conservation Service’s ecological site 

description for the silty 10- to 14-inch precipitation 

zone (Lacey et al. 2005). Ecological site descriptions 

are based on “relic areas and other areas protected 

from excessive disturbance,” illustrating the historical climax plant community as further described below (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2003):

The historic climax plant community for a site 

in North America is the plant community that 

existed at the time of European immigration 

and settlement. It is the plant community that 

was best adapted to the unique combination of 

environmental factors associated with the site 

[...] Natural disturbances, such as drought, 

fire, grazing of native fauna, and insects, were 

inherent in the development and maintenance 

of these plant communities [...] Plant communities that are subjected to abnormal disturbances and physical site deterioration or that 

are protected from natural influences, such as 

fire, for long periods, seldom typify the historic 

climax vegetation and may exist in a steady 

state that is different from the historic climax 

plant community. The historic climax plant 

community of an ecological site is not a precise 

assemblage of species for which the proportions 

are the same from place to place or from year 

to year.

The ecological site description describes the grass, 

forb, and shrub species that compose the historical 

climax plant community and how the site may be 

affected by management actions such as lack of fire 

and overgrazing and environmental conditions such 

as prolonged drought. According to the ecological 

site description, most of the native uplands in the refuge complex are classified as “Plant Community C,” 

which is characterized by a loss of tall bunchgrasses 

(green needlegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and porcupine grass) and an overabundance of clubmoss, blue 

grama, and prairie Junegrass.

Bowdoin Refuge may support as many as 300 

white-tailed deer and pronghorn. Pronghorn graze 

some portions of the refuge year-round. While the full 

effect of this constant grazing is unknown, observations of sentinel forbs and shrub species on portions 
134 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

of the refuge show signs of severe overgrazing (Bob 

Skinner, wildlife biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lewistown, Montana; personal communication, 

March 2007). Sentinel species are those species of 

desirable native plants that are often overbrowsed. 

These grazers, although native, can have detrimental 

effects on species diversity and structure due to their 

plant preferences. The Service will need to determine 

the severity of the grazing and, if necessary, determine how to better distribute and reduce herd sizes.

Clubmoss

M.C. Stensvold / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Native Grassland Objective 2

Within 3 years, use various treatment methods to 

determine the most effective technique for treating 

and restoring refuge uplands that have become unnaturally dominated (greater than 30-percent cover) 

by clubmoss.

Strategies

■ Thoroughly research clubmoss effects and other 

studies dealing with clubmoss.

■ Network with other agencies and universities 

that are dealing with clubmoss such as Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, The Nature Conservancy, and Montana State University.

■ Recruit graduate students to carry out clubmoss 

studies on the refuge complex.

■ Initially, establish small research plots of approximately 0.5 acre (=148 feet×148 feet) within 

a designated 5-acre, native-grassland study area 

that contains at least 30-percent clubmoss cover. 

Locate plots in areas with no nearby infestations 

of invasive plants.

■ Investigate the effectiveness of using methods for 

treating and removing clubmoss: prescribed fire, 

grazing, “interseeding” of historical climax plant 

community species, fertilizing, herbicides, and 

other mechanical techniques.

■ Map and monitor all treatment and control plots 

and document the clubmoss response.

Rationale. While clubmoss is a natural component 

of native uplands, overgrazing, drought, and lack of 

fire have allowed it to increase as herbaceous cover 

decreased. Clubmoss spreads slowly but tolerates 

drought better than most native grasses and forbs. 

According to the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service ecological site description, clubmoss cover in 

the historical plant community varied from none to 

trace amounts. Vegetation measurements taken in native prairie (four study plots, 445 acres total) on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge from 1998 to 2001 show 

clubmoss cover to average 21 percent with a standard 

deviation of 15 percent (Dieni and Jones 2003).

The role of clubmoss in plant communities is not 

well understood. It has been theorized that clubmoss 

outcompetes other vegetation by forming dense mats 

that intercept water and prevent seed germination 

(Heady 1952, Majorowicz 1963). Other studies have 

rejected this hypothesis and have suggested that (1) 

clubmoss does not affect water use by other plants 

(Colberg and Romo 2003) and (2) that seed germination is more affected by the species of seeds in the 

seedbanks (Romo and Bai 2004). Clubmoss may also 

reduce runoff, increase water infiltration in heavy 

rain events ,and prevent invasive plants from becoming established in native grasslands that have been 

stressed by past overgrazing or drought (Van Dyne 

and Vogel 1967).

Furthermore, little is known about the value of 

clubmoss to wildlife. Dieni and Jones (2003) found 

that some grassland-nesting songbirds such as Baird’s 

sparrows and western meadowlarks select nest 

patches (1.64 foot–radius plots around nests) with 

little or no clubmoss cover, while chestnut-collared 

longspurs favor sites with more cover. Sprague’s pipits, did not indicate a preference.

While not seeking to eliminate clubmoss, reducing its abundance in some areas will help in the restoration of the uplands to the historical climax plant 

community. Small research plots and a combination 

of treatments will be used to simultaneously reduce 

clubmoss and reintroduce decreaser species such as 

green needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass. Suc-
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 135

cessful methods will be used for future management 

of clubmoss to create a diversity of native vegetation 

and a mosaic of vegetative structure across uplands in 

the refuge complex.

Disturbed Grassland

Of the 4,477 acres of disturbed grasslands in the 

refuge complex, 4,008 acres are on the wetland management district and 469 acres on Bowdoin Refuge. 

These disturbed grasslands are areas where the 

soil has been disrupted either by Service activities 

or by former landowners for agricultural purposes. 

These lands have been seeded to dense nesting cover 

(DNC), a mixture of several tame wheatgrasses and 

legumes that is particularly attractive to nesting waterfowl. The predominant grass species in the DNC 

mix were intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, 

slender wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass, and 

western wheatgrass; the legumes were alfalfa and 

sweetclover.

Many of the DNC fields in the refuge complex 

are in poor condition with respect to plant diversity. 

These fields have only two to three of the originally 

planted species remaining and in many cases are 

dominated by exotic cool-season grasses (for example, 

crested wheatgrass and cheatgrass). Proper management of DNC is very intensive. A successful planting 

may provide quality habitat up to 8 years without disturbance; however, it is the periodic vegetation treatments such as burning and haying that capitalize on 

the relationship between young, 

vigorous stands of vegetation and 

higher wildlife production (Duebbert et al. 1981). With a rotational 

management plan that periodically 

rejuvenates the stand, the lifespan 

of a DNC seeding is about 15 years 

(Higgins and Barker 1982, Lokemoen 1984). Most of the refuge 

complex’s DNC fields are well past 

this 15-year period.

Due to the intensive management requirements and the 

limited lifespan of DNC plantings—combined with recent studies indicating minimal benefits to 

grassland-nesting birds in DNC 

plantings in areas with an abundance of perennial cover (Arnold 

et al. 2007)—the refuge complex 

will gradually work to reseed the 

disturbed grasslands to native 

Refuge employees apply bands to grassland-nesting birds such as Baird’s vegetation.

sparrow to gather scientific information.

D.M. Prellwitz / USFWS

Disturbed Grassland Objective 1

Over the next 15 years, reseed at least 500 acres to 

native herbaceous mixtures on areas that have become decadent and overrun by nonnative, cool-season 

grasses to comprise more than 60-percent native 

grasses and forbs within 10 years after seeding.

Strategies

■ Use the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s 

ecological site descriptions, based on soil type, to 

determine characteristic vegetation composition 

for each site.

■ Use locally collected seeds for planting to maintain the genetic strain of native plants found in the 

area, based on availability and cost.

■ Use appropriate techniques for site preparation to 

ensure weed-free seedbeds.

■ Use farming activities to prepare appropriate 

seedbeds.

■ Manage habitat using tools such as prescribed fire 

and prescriptive grazing, haying, and resting.

■ Use integrated pest management strategies to 

reduce invasive plants including noxious weeds.
136 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Use the best available science and updated techniques for restoration and monitoring response.

■ Work with universities and other partners to pursue graduate student and research projects that 

address specific management challenges for restoring and managing disturbed grasslands including controlling clubmoss and crested wheatgrass.

■ Monitor the response of target species of upland 

birds before and after treatment to determine the 

success of management techniques, and use adaptive management to ensure the refuge complex is 

using the most effective methods and new technologies.

■ In restored areas, continue to trap mammalian 

predators such as raccoons and skunks (1) to decrease predation on ground-nesting migratory 

birds and their nests and (2) to protect birds that 

have been live-trapped for banding or disease detection. Continue to use only live traps in these 

situations to ensure that only targeted predator 

species are removed from the area (use no leg hold 

traps).

Rationale. Using appropriate management techniques 

to emulate the natural disturbances under which native prairie plants evolved, the native plant seeding 

should persist in perpetuity. The native plantings will 

reduce habitat fragmentation and attract grassland 

birds that have adapted to the diverse structure of 

native prairie; whereas DNC limits the structural diversity of the vegetation and likely attract those bird 

species that key into tall dense cover. Native grass, 

although more difficult to establish and usually more 

expensive, can be maintained in a vigorous condition 

longer without the need for constant rejuvenation.

Disturbed Grassland Objective 2

Over the next 15 years, continue to use and maintain 

DNC on disturbed grasslands for wildlife habitat; 

maintain DNC every 4–7 years to promote the optimal vigor of present plant species.

Strategies

■ Use appropriate techniques for site preparation to 

ensure weed-free seedbeds.

■ Use farming activities to prepare appropriate 

seedbeds.

■ Seed DNC on highly erodible lands in Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District.

■ Manage habitat using tools such as prescribed fire 

and prescriptive cattle grazing and haying to establish and maintain DNC.

■ Use integrated pest management strategies to 

reduce noxious weeds and other invasive plants.

Rationale. Disturbed grasslands that have not been 

targeted for native plantings will be maintained in 

their current state of cover, and periodic treatment 

will remove accumulated duff and rejuvenate plants. 

Vegetative cover including DNC plantings older than 

15 years will be managed to maintain their vigor, so 

these areas could continue to provide value to wildlife 

and increased soil stabilization for reduced sedimentation into wetlands.

Some areas might be reseeded to DNC if needed 

to maintain structure and productivity. Fields dominated by exotic cool-season grasses such as crested 

wheatgrass and cheatgrass might become source sites 

from which these exotic grasses could invade adjoining grasslands. In these situations, it might be more 

appropriate due to funding availability to plant DNC 

rather than a native grass mixture. In those seed 

mixes, viable grasses will be western wheatgrass, 

slender wheatgrass, and tall wheatgrass and alfalfa 

will be a compatible legume. On highly erodible land 

that has lost its topsoil layer due to years of farming, planted DNC could reduce erosion and initiate 

the redevelopment of a topsoil layer for future native 

seed establishment.

4.3 Goal for Wetland Habitat 

and Associated Wildlife

Provide wetland habitat for breeding and 

migratory birds and other wildlife that maintains biological diversity and integrity of prairie pothole wetlands.

Wetlands in the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex are a mixture of managed and natural wetlands of different types, sizes, and water quality. Managed wetlands are areas created or restored through 

water management, such as using water control 

structures to manually flood areas and to conduct water drawdowns. The focus for managed wetlands is to 

mimic natural wetland conditions whenever possible.

Temporary, seasonal, and semipermanent wetlands are by far the most important types of wetlands 

for most species of waterfowl that breed throughout 

the Prairie Pothole Region (Kantrud et al. 1989). Waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds depend on 

this complex of wetland types to fulfill various needs 
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 137

throughout their life history, particularly during the 

breeding season (Baldasarre and Bolen 2006). For 

example, during a radio-telemetry study of mallards 

nesting North Dakota, eight females used 7–22 different wetlands during the breeding period; the birds 

preferred temporary, seasonal, and, to a lesser extent, 

semipermanent wetlands (Dwyer et al. 1979).

By understanding how waterfowl and other waterbirds use resources, managers are able to attract and 

hold these species on managed wetlands. Manipulation of soil and water to produce essential habitat 

structure or foods may be necessary. The sharp increase in invertebrate populations when wetlands 

flood following a dry phase is an important reason for 

artificially flooding and draining wetlands to enhance 

waterfowl habitat (Cook and Powers 1958, Kadlec and 

Smith 1992), and it is the basis for the modern-day 

practice of moist-soil management (Fredrickson and 

Taylor 1982).

To promote seed-producing wetland plants for 

fall migrants like waterfowl, it is important to know 

the regional growing seasons. Managers can use this 

information to schedule gradual drawdowns of managed wetlands to achieve the most productive plant 

response. Plant promotion is also good structure for 

production and diversity of invertebrates. The average length of the growing season in Phillips County, 

Montana, is 130 days (PhillCo Economic Growth 

Council, Inc. 2001). Where the growing season is 

shorter than 140 days, wetland drawdowns are described as early or late drawdowns. Early drawdowns 

are those that occur during the first 45 days of the 

growing season, whereas late drawdowns occur in 

the latter 90 days of the growing season (Fredrickson 

1991). In areas characterized by summer droughts, 

early drawdowns often result in good germination 

and newly established plants have time to establish 

adequate root systems before dry summer weather 

predominates. For example, smartweed tends to respond best to early drawdowns, whereas sprangletop 

responds best to late drawdowns. Drawdowns can 

be natural or mechanical (by means of water control 

structures).

Drawdowns attract a diversity of foraging birds 

such as shorebirds and white-faced ibis to wetlands 

with abundant food resources, concentrated in 

smaller areas and at different water depths (Fredrickson 1991). Slow drawdowns (2–3 weeks) are 

usually more desirable for plant establishment and 

wildlife use. Slow release of water concentrates and 

traps invertebrates, making them readily available to 

foraging birds. Furthermore, drawdowns scheduled 

to match the spring migration are beneficial to migratory waterbirds.

Managed Wetlands

Lake Bowdoin attracts thousands of ducks, swans, 

and geese during the spring and fall migrations. The 

lake is a 4,470-acre (at full pool) natural, subsaline, 

permanent wetland that, during the early history of 

Bowdoin Refuge, was modified to create additional 

wetland habitat for migratory birds. Modifications to 

the lake included water control structures and a dike 

system for holding delivered water and capturing 

floodwaters and runoff.

Additionally, the Service manipulates water in 

several ponds in the refuge complex that attract a 

tremendous diversity of waterfowl and shorebirds, 

including the threatened piping plover. The deepwater impoundments have emergent vegetation such as 

bulrush and cattails and are important nesting, broodrearing, and feeding sites for diving ducks such as the 

canvasback, as well as for the marsh wren, sora, and 

others.

Some of the managed semipermanent wetlands in 

the refuge complex lack full-management capabilities 

from off-refuge irrigation return flows, subirrigation, 

and seepage from Nelson Reservoir. Examples of 

these are Ducks Unlimited Pond, Patrol Road Pond, 

and Strater Pond.

Dave Menke / USFWS

The sora is a small marshbird that uses ponds in the 

Bowdoin Refuge Complex.

Target Waterbird Species

The Service has selected a diverse group of target 

waterbird species, including ducks and shorebirds 

(table 10). Table 11 displays the habitat needs for 
138 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

these target species. Managing for the life history 

needs of these species provides the natural wetland 

diversity and conditions needed not only for these 

targeted species but also for an even greater variety 

of wetland-associated wildlife. Monitoring will focus 

on these targeted species to determine their response 

to wetland management.

Table 10. Conservation status of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Montana.

Species Montana species 

of concern1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service focal species

Partners in 

Flight priority 2

Bureau of Land 

Management 3

National Audubon 

Watch List 4

Northern pintail — √ — — —

Mallard — √ — — —

Redhead — — — — —

Tundra swan — — — — —

Piping plover S2 Threatened 1 Special status Red

White-faced ibis S1 — 2 Sensitive —

Willet — — 3 — —

Franklin’s gull S3 — 2 Sensitive —

Wilson’s phalarope — √ 3 Sensitive Yellow

1 S1=At high risk because of extremely limited or rapidly declining numbers, range, or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to global 

 extinction or extirpation in the State. S2=At risk because of very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent, or habitat, making 

 it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the State. S3=Potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining 

 numbers, extent, or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks; Montana Natural 

 Heritage Program)

2 1=Needs conservation action. 2=Needs monitoring. 3=Local concern.

3 Special status or Sensitive=Proven to be imperiled in at least part of its range and documented to occur on Bureau of Land 

 Management lands.

4Red=Declining rapidly or having very small populations or limited ranges and facing major conservation threats; typically of global 

 conservation concern. Yellow=Declining or rare.

Shorebird Habitat Target Species

Nearly 40 species of shorebirds migrate through the 

interior region of North America and 13 species breed 

in this region (Helmers 1992). Shorebirds exploit upland habitats associated with wetlands by foraging in 

shallowly flooded pastures or irrigated agricultural fields with short, 

sparse, residual vegetation left from 

mowing, haying, grazing, or burning practices. Migratory shorebirds 

consume large numbers of invertebrates. Invertebrate availability 

in wetlands is a function of the hydrologic regime. Many shorebirds 

feed predominantly on chironomid 

larvae (bloodworms), which occur 

in open shallow habitats with a silt 

substrate relatively free of vegetation.

Most shorebird use occurs where 

vegetation cover is less than 25 percent. Shorebirds prefer short vegetation, generally 

less than half the height of the bird. Nest sites for 

the target shorebirds range from sand or gravel substrate with no vegetation (piping plover) to midgrass 

prairie (marbled godwit, willet). Managing for a range 

of wetland habitat conditions, from sparsely vegetated mudflats to moderately vegetated open shallows, will provide shorebirds with required habitats 

throughout their migratory and breeding periods.

Eleven species of shorebirds have been documented breeding on the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex: piping plover, killdeer, long-billed 

curlew, common snipe, upland sandpiper, marbled 

godwit, willet, spotted sandpiper, American avocet, 

Wilson’s phalarope, black-necked 

stilt, and mountain plover. Shorebird habitat management in the refuge complex emphasizes provision 

of breeding habitat for three target 

species: piping plover, marbled 

godwit, and willet (table 12). These 

species represent different guilds 

(groups of species all members of 

which use similar resources in a 

similar way). Meeting the diverse 

habitat requirements for these species will likely provide quality habitat for all shorebirds.

Spring migration habitat should 

be available on the refuge complex 
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 139

by mid-April that provides foraging water depths of 

0 (dry mud) to 0.6 foot (18 centimeters), which meets 

the needs of these species, as specified below and in 

figure 37:

■ Piping plover: 0–0.1 feet (0–3 centimeters)

■ Marbled godwit: 0.1–0.5 feet (4–16 centimeters)

■ Willet: 0–0.5 feet (0–16 centimeters)

Table 11. Life history needs of target species of waterbirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Montana.

Species Arrival date Forage depth

(feet)

Peak nesting monthNesting site 

(distance above water line) Departure date

Northern pintail Mid-March to 

early April ≤1.5 Mid-May Shortgrass uplands November

Mallard Mid-March ≤1.5 May Uplands, 2 feet Freeze-up to 

November

Redhead April1 3.3–9.8 Late May

Emergent vegetation 

(cattails and hardstem 

bulrush), 0.2–0.8 feet

Early October 1

Tundra swan Late March and 

late September 0–3.3 — — Early April andNovember

Marbled godwit Late April 2 0.2–0.43 May Midgrass uplands, 

<0.5 feet 4 September

White-faced ibis May2 0–1 May Cattails and bulrushes, 

3 feet September

Franklin’s gull Mid-April 0–0.5 5 May Cattail or bulrush mats Mid-October

Wilson’s phalarope Early May 0–0.25 June Uplands and wet meadows Mid-August to

early September

Source: Unless otherwise the noted, this information came from Birds of North America Online (Poole 2005) and Montana Field 

Guide (2010).

1 Frank Belrose (1980).

2 Ryan and Renken (1987).

3 Melcher et al. (2006).

4 Eldridge (1992).

5 Refuge staff observations.

Table 12. Nest site and habitat characteristics of target, interior-nesting shorebirds at Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, Montana.

Species Nest site Substrate Wetland type Vegetation

height

Vegetation

density

Nesting

behavior

Piping plover Beach or 

peninsula

Open, salt flats, 

or gravel

Alkaline or saline None Sparse Semicolonial

Marbled godwit Upland Open or vegetated Freshwater or 

saline

Medium Moderate Solitary

Willet Upland 

prairie

Open or vegetated Freshwater or 

saline

Medium Moderate Solitary

Source: Helmers (1992).

Wetland Habitat Objectives

The following objectives address management of the 

temporary, seasonal, and semipermanent wetlands 

within the Bowdoin Refuge Complex.
140 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 37. Graph of water depth and substrate preferences of shorebird foraging guilds (Helmers 1992).

Wetland Habitat Objective 1

Depending on the availability of delivered water and 

environmental conditions, fill at least 70 percent of 

the temporary wetlands to a maximum of 1.5 feet in 

spring (by April 15) for 3 out of every 5 years to provide breeding, nesting, feeding, and migration habitat 

for target waterbirds and feeding and breeding habitat for resident waterfowl and shorebirds.

Strategies

■ Coordinate with Malta Irrigation District for 

timely water delivery to ensure water is available 

for peak migration periods for waterbirds.

■ Develop new ground-water wells to supplement 

wetland management needs in the refuge complex.

■ Develop water-pumping sites on Beaver Creek 

WPA and McNeil Slough WPA to create wetland 

habitat for migratory birds.

■ Manipulate water levels with flooding and drawdowns (natural and physical releases).

■ Monitor the response of target waterbirds to habitat management.

■ Monitor the response of plants and invertebrates 

to the timing of flooding and drawdowns.

■ Monitor for undesirable plants such as cattail and 

bulrush. To maintain no more vegetation than a 

ratio of 70:30 for vegetation to open water, conduct 

management actions necessary to set back monocultures of these plants through flooding, prescribed 

burning, prescriptive grazing, or chemical use.

■ Time flooding and drawdowns to mimic natural 

hydroperiods (wet cycles).

■ Conduct all water manipulations slowly, so invertebrates can adjust to the changes in water level 

and temperature.
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 141

■ Use mid- to late-summer water deliveries as part 

of managing large monocultures of cattails that 

reduce the availability of open-water habitat for 

waterbirds.

■ Allow wetlands to go dry by late spring or early 

summer through evaporation or water level management.

■ Identify and map potential areas to create or enhance wetlands.

Rationale. Wetland vegetation is important to waterbirds such as waterfowl because they produce seeds, 

tubers, browse, and nesting sites and serve as litter 

or food for invertebrate populations. Temporary, 

seasonal, and semipermanent potholes are by far the 

most important wetland areas for breeding waterfowl 

(Kantrud and Stewart 1977, Stewart and Kantrud 

1973). They provide migratory bird habitat for spring 

migration, feeding, and resting. In addition, potholes 

provide breeding habitat for the target species that 

depend on temporary wetlands. These wetlands are 

particularly important breeding habitat for early 

nesting species such as northern pintail and mallard 

and also serve as habitat for migrating waterfowl and 

shorebirds (Baldasarre and Bolen 2006). Temporary 

wetlands hold water for only a few weeks after snowmelt and occasionally for a few days following heavy 

rainstorms in late spring, summer, and fall. They are 

especially important, because they provide isolation 

and spacing for pairs of breeding waterfowl. Temporary wetlands are shallow basins; therefore, waters 

warm rapidly and are the first to become ice-free in 

late winter and early spring and provide the first 

sources of invertebrates (Baldasarre and Bolen 2006, 

Swanson et al. 1974).

Timing, speed, and duration of water deliveries 

and wetland drawdowns have important effects on 

the composition and production of wetland plants, 

invertebrate production and accessibility, and use 

by waterbirds. Fall flooding provides waterfowl and 

other waterbirds access to invertebrates and to seeds 

produced by wetland plants. Wetland edges with 

mudflats or shallow areas create feeding habitat for 

shorebirds and resting areas for other waterbirds. 

As a wetland deepens toward the center, it creates 

different feeding depths for various species of waterbirds.

Wetland Habitat Objective 2

Depending on the availability of delivered water and 

environmental conditions, fill at least 70 percent of 

the seasonal wetlands to a maximum of 1.5 feet in 

the spring or fall, or both, for 4 out of every 5 years 

to provide feeding, breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, 

and migration habitat for target waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds.

Strategies

■ Coordinate with Malta Irrigation District for 

timely water delivery to ensure water is available 

for peak migration periods for waterbirds.

■ Acquire funding to buy additional delivered water 

from Malta Irrigation District (when available) for 

Lake Bowdoin during the spring or fall, or both.

■ Manipulate water levels with flooding and drawdowns (natural and physical releases).

■ Time flooding and drawdowns to mimic natural 

hydroperiods.

■ Conduct all water manipulations slowly, so invertebrates can adjust to the changes in water level 

and temperature.

■ Monitor the response of plants and invertebrates 

to the timing of flooding and drawdowns.

■ Monitor for undesirable plants such as cattail and 

bulrush. To maintain no more vegetation than a 

ratio of 70:30 for vegetation to open water, conduct 

management actions necessary to set back monocultures of these plants through flooding, prescribed burning, prescriptive grazing, or chemical 

use.

■ Gradually fill temporary wetlands in late summer 

(September) over a 2- to 3-week period to provide 

feeding habitat for fall-migrating shorebirds. Continue filling to a maximum of 1.5 feet by October 

30 for use by fall-migrating waterfowl and other 

waterbirds and in preparation for the following 

spring migration.

■ Gradually begin filling wetlands by the beginning 

of April over a 2- to 3-week period for spring migrants. Continue filling to a maximum of 1.5 feet 

by April 15 for use by spring-migrating waterfowl 

and other waterbirds.

■ Provide a 70:30 ratio of emergent vegetation to 

water over 7–8 years, with cattails not occupying 

more than 70 percent of a wetland. Remove 80–100 

percent of cattails by using disking, burning, or 

chemical treatment when cattails exceed 70 percent of the wetland surface.

■ Use chemicals approved by the Service for aerial 

spraying to kill undesirable plants in wetlands.
142 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Rationale. Seasonal wetlands maintain water in spring 

and early summer but normally are dry by late summer and early fall. They provide migrating, feeding, 

and resting habitat for migratory waterbirds. In addition, seasonal wetlands provide habitat for breeding 

and brood rearing for species such as northern pintail, 

mallard, and marbled godwit. These wetlands provide 

abundant invertebrate foods and other components 

of breeding habitat, including nesting cover for those 

species of ducks that nest over water (Baldasarre and 

Bolen 2006, Kantrud et al. 1989).

Waterfowl have various tolerances for the height 

and density of vegetation. Mallards and blue-winged 

teal readily use habitats with dense vegetation; 

northern pintails prefer shallow, open habitats where 

visibility is good and vegetation sparse. Shallow water is essential for dabbling ducks such as northern 

pintails and mallards whose optimum foraging depth 

is 0.2–0.8 feet. Wetland vegetation is important, because it provides seeds, tubers, browse, and nesting 

sites for waterfowl; this vegetation serves as litter or 

food for invertebrate populations.

Timing, speed, and duration of water deliveries 

and of wetland drawdowns all have important effects 

on the composition and production of wetland plants, 

invertebrate production and accessibility, and use by 

waterbirds. The key to managing habitat for migrating shorebirds is to encourage invertebrate production, and then make the invertebrates available to 

the birds. The proper regime of drawdown and flooding can stimulate plant growth and decomposition 

and create a detrital food source for invertebrates. 

When the water is drawn down slowly (0.8–1.6 inches 

per week) during the appropriate times of the year, 

shorebirds are attracted to the available invertebrates. Shorebirds feed primarily on midge larvae 

during migration. Several studies revealed that, irrespective of wetland type, midge larvae are often the 

most abundant invertebrate. Midges are often most 

abundant in areas of shallow, open water that is not 

shaded by submergent and emergent vegetation. Because many waterfowl hens and broods also consume 

midge larvae, management of habitat for shorebirds 

is also beneficial for waterfowl (Eldridge 1992). Fall 

flooding provides waterfowl and other waterbirds 

access to invertebrates and to any seeds produced 

by wetland plants and prepares the wetland for the 

following spring migrants.

Wetland Habitat Objective 3

Depending on the availability of delivered water and 

environmental conditions, fill at least 70 percent of the 

semipermanent wetlands to provide shallow areas of a 

maximum of 1.5 feet (for dabbling ducks such as northern pintail and mallard and for wading birds such as 

white-faced ibis and willet) and deep areas of 3–4 feet 

(for deep-water species such as lesser scaup). Allow 

emergent vegetation to establish as nesting habitat for 

overwater nesters, but allow no more vegetation than 

a ratio of 70:30 of emergent vegetation to open water.

Strategies

■ Time the delivery of the Malta Irrigation District 

water to achieve this objective.

■ Manipulate water levels with flooding and drawdowns (natural and physical releases).

■ Time flooding and drawdowns to coincide with the 

migration periods.

■ Conduct all water manipulations slowly, so invertebrates can adjust to the changes in water level 

and temperature.

■ Monitor the response of target waterbirds to these 

manipulations.

■ Monitor the response of plants and invertebrates 

to the timing of flooding and drawdowns.

■ Monitor for undesirable plants such as cattail and 

bulrush. To maintain no more vegetation than a 

ratio of 70:30 for vegetation to open water, conduct management actions necessary to set back 

monocultures of these plants through prescribed 

burning, prescriptive grazing, flooding, mechanical 

treatment, or chemical use.

■ Flood the uplands surrounding the emergent vegetation zone in early spring to kill wet meadow 

plants, allowing midges to rapidly colonize the 

detritus. Maintain the high water level, and then 

slowly lower it to expose the decomposing vegetation during the peak shorebird migration.

■ Through the nesting period, maintain 2–3 feet of 

water in areas with emergent vegetation for birds 

that nest over water.

■ Fill 50 percent of the semipermanent wetlands to 

full capacity (at least 2–3 feet of water below the 

emergent vegetation) by May 15 to provide migration habitat for waterbirds, to serve as brood-rearing habitat for waterfowl, and to provide nesting 

habitat for overwater nesters such as white-faced 

ibis, Franklin’s gull, and grebes. Annually rotate 

the wetlands that are flooded, allowing some to 

remain dry.

■ Use drawdown structures or allow natural 

evaporation on these semipermanent wetlands to 
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 143

encourage nutrient recycling and increase production of invertebrates and desirable wetland plants 

and seeds. Determine the timing of these drawdowns depending on weather conditions (particularly increasing temperatures to aid evaporation) 

and management objectives.

■ Use chemicals approved by the Service for aerial 

spraying to kill undesirable plants.

White-faced ibis congregate in a wetland at Bowdoin Refuge Complex.

USFWS

Rationale. Semipermanent wetlands ordinarily retain 

water through spring and summer and frequently into 

fall and winter. They are highly important to diving 

ducks and especially important for dabbling ducks in 

years when drought limits the availability of temporary and seasonal wetlands. During drought conditions in North Dakota, mallard broods occurred only 

on semipermanent wetlands (Baldasarre and Bolen 

2006, Talent et al. 1982), and 58 percent more duck 

broods were recorded using semipermanent potholes 

in comparison with other types of wetlands in North 

Dakota and South Dakota (Baldasarre and Bolen 2006, 

Duebbert and Frank 1984). Semipermanent wetlands 

provide migration habitat for migratory waterbirds 

such as diving ducks (redhead and lesser scaup) both 

in the spring and fall (if they still have water) but, 

more significantly, habitat for brood rearing and overwater nesting for waterbirds such as white-faced ibis. 

These wetlands also provide escape cover.

The structure created by emergent vegetation 

is an essential feature of wetland habitats. Weller 

and Spatcher (1965) recorded maximum diversity 

and abundance of birds on marshes in Iowa where 

the ratio of emergent vegetation to water was 50:50 

and referred to this form of wetland physiognomy as 

hemimarsh (Baldasarre and Bolen 2006). Bulrushes 

and especially cattails are among the most common 

plants in emergent communities. These plants are 

primarily important as cover, although alkali bulrushes are key food producers (Baldasarre and Bolen 

2006). When conditions allow these plants to become 

a monoculture and overtake a wetland, animal and 

plant diversity declines. Wetland vegetation is important to waterbirds such as waterfowl because they 

produce seeds, tubers, browse, and nesting sites and 

serve as litter or food for invertebrate populations. 

Timing, speed, and duration of water deliveries and 

of wetland drawdowns all have important effects on 

the composition and production of wetland plants, 

invertebrate production and accessibility, and use 

by waterbirds. Filling wetlands in the fall will make 

seeds from wetland plants more readily available to 

migrating waterbirds.

Alkali bulrush is a common emergent plant in the refuge 

complex. 

S Database TNALP SCRN–AD R.H. Mohlenbrock / US
144 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Wetland Habitat Objective 4

On semipermanent wetlands having limited management capabilities, manage emergent vegetation as a 

hemimarsh to provide open water and cover for migratory birds.

Strategies

■ Monitor for undesirable emergents such as cattail and bulrush. To maintain no more vegetation 

than a ratio of 70:30 for vegetation to open water, 

conduct management actions necessary to set back 

monocultures of these plants through the use of 

a glyphosate or, where possible, through flooding, 

prescribed burning, prescriptive grazing, mechanical treatment, or chemical use.

■ Restore the natural vertical structure in riparian 

corridors using native species such as cottonwood, 

willows, and native shrubs to provide habitat for 

migratory birds and other native wildlife. Continue to fence riparian areas to protect them from 

trespass cattle grazing.

■ Use chemicals approved by the Service for aerial 

spraying to kill undesirable plants.

■ Monitor the response of waterbirds to management actions.

Rationale. Cattails are of little value as duck food but 

are more important as escape, loafing, and nesting 

cover for some species of waterfowl, other waterbirds, and red-winged and yellow-headed blackbirds. 

However, when unchecked, cattail stands often expand rapidly to the exclusion of other vegetation and 

open water; such conditions severely restrict waterfowl and shorebird use (Baldasarre and Bolen 2006, 

Kaminski et al. 1985).

The desired optimal wetland condition that provides the greatest diversity and number of birds is 

hemimarsh. In hemimarsh conditions, wetland vegetation cover and water in a semipermanent wetland 

is at a 50:50 ratio (Weller and Spatcher 1965). Wetland birds that find hemimarsh conditions favorable 

include various waterfowl and shorebird species such 

as herons, gulls, terns, blackbirds, and grebes. All 

of the target species regularly use these particular 

semipermanent managed wetlands at various times 

of the year. In addition, they provide ideal nesting 

cover for birds that nest over water. It is important 

to avoid undesirable plants and monocultures of 

plants in hemimarsh wetlands. Undesirable plants 

are plants that quickly shift diverse floral systems 

toward monocultures, are difficult to reduce in abundance, have minimal values for wetland wildlife, or 

outcompete plants with greater value (Fredrickson 

and Reid 1988b).

Through limited water level management or 

chemical use, or both, the Service anticipates being 

able to achieve emergent vegetation to open water 

ratios close to the 50:50 ratio (such as 30:70 and 70:30 

ratios) recommended by Weller and Spatcher (1965) 

in most years (approximately 11 out of 15). Because of 

the dynamics involved with these particular wetland 

conditions over time, the coverage of emergent vegetation may fall well outside the target range (30- to 

70-percent coverage) in some years and, during years 

of extreme drought, cover of emergents such as cattail and bulrush may exceed the upper target of 70 

percent.

The Drumbo, Goose Island, Patrol Road, Strater, 

and Black Coulee Ponds are considered semipermanent and the Service does not have complete management capabilities in these wetlands because of 

subirrigation and irrigation return flows entering the 

refuge. Consequently, cattails have overgrown these 

wetlands.

Avian Disease

The refuge complex staff completed a Disease Contingency Plan in 2006 for the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. The Bowdoin Refuge has a history 

of botulism outbreaks, which generally begin in July 

and last into September. The numbers of waterfowl 

affected has varied greatly from year to year, while 

the location of disease hotspots—areas with the highest mortalities—has changed little: the southwestern 

and southeastern bays of Lake Bowdoin, the northeast shore of Big Island in Lake Bowdoin, and the 

northwest portion of Drumbo Pond.

A sudden die-off of pelicans on Lake Bowdoin in 

2003 was the result of West Nile virus, and the disease has been documented in the area every year 

since this time. Outbreaks begin as early as July and 

can last into fall.

While not documented at the refuge complex, new 

disease threats continue to emerge such as highly 

pathogenic avian influenza and Newcastle disease. 

The Service can no longer afford to rely on past informal protocols for avian diseases.

Avian Disease Objective

Manage wetlands to minimize or avoid outbreaks of 

avian botulism on the Bowdoin Refuge throughout 

the 15-year CCP. Continue to monitor for existing and 

new avian diseases throughout the refuge complex, 

particularly for those that might transfer to other 

wildlife and humans.
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 145

Strategies

■ Follow the monitoring and response protocols outlined in the disease contingency plan.

■ Annually review and update the disease contingency plan and continue to monitor for disease 

outbreaks within the refuge complex.

■ Maintain a supply of personal protective equipment for emergency cleanup operations.

■ Cooperate with partners who are responsible for 

detecting and monitoring existing and new wildlife 

diseases.

■ Continue to submit tissue samples to the National 

Wildlife Health Center for disease diagnosis.

■ Avoid fluctuating water levels in botulism hotspots 

between early July and early September when 

outbreaks are likely to occur; plan water deliveries during early spring (through May 15) and late 

summer (early September).

■ As temperatures rise in the summer, monitor wetlands weekly for disease outbreaks. Send sample 

carcasses to the National Wildlife Health Center 

for analysis. Remove birds in areas with high visitor use.

■ Continue to educate staff and visitors on how to 

avoid contact with wildlife diseases that have the 

potential to be transferred to humans.

■ Continue to allow the U.S. Interagency Working 

Group to monitor the refuge complex for avian 

influenza outbreaks.

■ When approved, implement the Mountain–Prairie 

Region policy for a mosquito control plan to address potential outbreaks of West Nile virus or 

avian influenza.

Rationale. America’s global economy and the ability for individuals to easily travel around the world 

have escalated the transfer of new diseases, harmful 

to both animals and humans, to North America. Most 

recently, concerns have been raised over the potential migration to North America of highly pathogenic 

avian influenza. The Service’s response to this outbreak could rapidly change management of Service 

lands. Unlike avian botulism, highly pathogenic avian 

influenza and West Nile virus pose serious human 

health risks (USFWS 1999a). Service employees and 

visitors are made aware of disease symptoms and 

avoiding the risks of contracting these diseases before 

going into the field. Unfortunately the symptoms of 

these diseases make it impossible to detect their presence and spread among wildlife until mortality occurs 

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2010).

Avian botulism is a paralytic disease caused by ingestion of the Clostridium botulinum bacteria. The 

bacteria can exist as a dormant spore in soil for many 

years until a combination of warm temperatures, a 

protein source, and an anaerobic (no oxygen) environment allows the bacteria to become active and release 

its toxin. Decaying vegetation attracts a large number of aquatic invertebrates that pick up the toxin 

and are then ingested by waterfowl and shorebirds. A 

cycle develops when the affected birds die and the fly 

larvae that feed on the carcasses are, in turn, ingested 

by other birds. Sudden water drawdowns during this 

period could expand the spread of the botulism toxin 

by causing significant die-offs of aquatic invertebrates 

(Davis et al. 1971, USFWS 1999a). By avoiding the 

flooding of botulism hotspots during July through 

September, an outbreak would be avoided or at least 

reduced in severity.

Piping Plover

The northern Great Plains population of piping plover 

consists of about half of the world population of this 

plover. This population is expected to go extinct in 

50–100 years unless significant conservation activities 

are started. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge has 

more than 1,300 acres of critical habitat designated 

for the piping plover. The Service has collaborated 

with Reclamation and Ducks Unlimited to restore 

and create habitat for this threatened species.

Piping Plover Objective 1

Over 15 years, annually monitor and protect piping 

plover nests found within the refuge complex and 

monitor the success of protected nests and hatched 

young. Strive for fledging rates of more than 1.36 

fledglings per breeding pair of plovers (USFWS 

2003).

Strategies

■ Continue to participate in the International Piping Plover Census and annually monitor for the 

presence of piping plovers on Bowdoin and Hewitt 

Lake refuges.

■ Survey wetlands for piping plovers by the most 

appropriate means (for example, by boat, walking the shoreline, or viewing from a vehicle with 

a spotting scope). Conduct surveys between late 

May and mid-June.
146 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Erect wire mesh cages with netted tops over 

piping plover nests that are in danger of being 

trampled or subjected to predation by birds.

■ Move or elevate active nests that are in danger 

from rising water (Prellwitz et al. 1995).

■ Monitor the success of protected nests by searching for “pip chips” (small pieces of egg shell left in 

the nest bowl during the hatching process) in or 

near the nest bowl or by timing nest visits based 

on known (or suspected) nest initiation date, laying rate, and average incubation period.

■ Monitor hatched young to when they fledge.

Rationale. The northern Great Plains population of 

piping plovers is listed as threatened in the United 

States (USFWS 1985) due to a poorly understood 

decline in abundance. Mabee and Estelle (2000) suggested that nest predation is a major problem limiting 

the nest success of piping plovers throughout their 

range. However, according to Murphy et al. (2003), 

predators can successfully be deterred from depredating eggs of piping plovers by placing large (10-foot 

diameter) mesh exclosures (cages) over individual 

nests. Recruitment has improved with the use of 

these cages in the northern Great Plains (Murphy et 

al. 2003). Exclosures placed after one or more eggs 

have been laid in the nest bowl have resulted in less 

than 2-percent nest abandonment (Atkinson and 

Dood 2006).

Beginning in 1991, biologists throughout North 

America collaborated in a monumental effort known 

as the International Piping Plover Census (Haig and 

Plissner 1993). Breeding and wintering habitats are 

censused at 5-year intervals to (1) establish benchmark population levels for all known piping plover 

sites, (2) survey potential breeding and wintering 

sites, and (3) assess the current status of the species 

relative to past population estimates.

Piping Plover Objective 2

Over 15 years, improve and protect breeding, nesting, 

and feeding habitat on Piping Plover Pond at Bowdoin Refuge. Manage for gravel or alkaline beaches 

with no vegetation or vegetation that is short (less 

than 0.3 feet) and sparse (less than 10 percent cover), 

that are at least 65.6 feet wide, and that provide water for foraging throughout the breeding and broodrearing season.

Strategies

■ Monitor Piping Plover Pond for encroachment of 

invasive plants, trees, and other tall vegetation. 

Maintain at least 90-percent bare gravel on nesting beaches.

■ Apply herbicides, mechanical disturbance, or 

other means to remove upland vegetation before 

the breeding season or after plovers have left the 

area. Restrict control activities between May 15 

and August 7 (Stewart 1975) or any time that piping plovers are present on the beaches.

■ Acquire money to buy the water resources necessary to properly manage piping plover habitat at 

Bowdoin Refuge.

■ Continue to work with Reclamation and other 

agencies to acquire additional knowledge and 

resources to improve and protect piping plover 

habitat on Piping Plover Pond at Bowdoin Refuge.

■ Deliver water to Piping Plover Pond during the 

fall or spring, before the breeding season (refer to 

above Managed Wetlands section).

Piping Plover Chick

USFWS

Rationale. In Montana, spring arrival of piping plovers 

usually occurs from late April through early May and 

departure is by late August (Lenard et al. 2003, Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee 1997). Soon 

after spring arrival, male piping plovers begin establishing and defending territories that include a section 

of shoreline and an area of open ground (Whyte 1985).

Studies and observations of nesting habitat used 

by piping plovers indicate that the birds prefer a combination of suitable nesting substrate, lack of vegetative cover, existence of favorable water conditions, 

and availability of suitable forage habitat (Corn and 

Armbruster 1993, Licht 2001, Prindiville-Gaines and 

Ryan 1988, Root and Ryan 2004, Schwalbach 1988, 

Ziewitz et al. 1992). Sites with gravel substrate appear to provide the most suitable habitat and eggs 

there are more likely to hatch than those on alkali 
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 147

substrate (Prindiville-Gaines and Ryan 1988, Whyte 

1985). Espie et al. (1996) found that, in Saskatchewan, 

depredated piping plover nests were generally closer 

to vegetation than successful nests. Prindiville-Gaines 

and Ryan (1988) found that breeding piping plovers 

chose territories with an average beach width of 82 

feet, with optimal habitat characteristics of greater 

than 65.6 feet. Nesting sites studied by Schwalbach 

(1988) were found to be characteristically barren or 

with short (less than 0.3 feet) and sparse (less than 

10-percent) vegetative cover.

4.4 Objectives that Support 

the Goals for Upland and 

Wetland Habitats

To meet the goals for both upland and wetland habitats, the Service will treat invasive and nonnative 

species, suppress wildfires, and carry out habitat protection and acquisition. All of these activities directly 

affect the ability of the Bowdoin Refuge Complex to 

meet the goals for upland and wetland habitats.

Invasive and Nonnative Species

Invasive species, nonnative species, and noxious 

weeds are major threats to native upland and wetland ecosystems in the United States. Infestations 

of invasive species have a direct effect on the ability 

of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex to 

fulfill its wildlife conservation mission including species recovery, biological diversity, biological integrity, 

and natural functions.

Montana’s noxious weed list contains 32 species 

and the Montana Department of Agriculture has categorized noxious weeds into four categories based on 

the invasion stage of each species:

■ Priority 1A—weeds that are not yet found in 

Montana

■ Priority 1B—weeds that have a limited presence 

in the State

■ Priority 2A—weeds that are common in isolated 

areas of Montana

■ Priority 2B—weeds that are abundant and widespread

The refuge complex does not have any priority 1A or 

1B species. At Bowdoin Refuge, there is an infestation of perennial pepperweed, which is a priority 2A 

species. Most of the refuge complex’s noxious weeds 

are in the priority 2B category: leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, Canada thistle, yellow toadflax, and 

saltcedar. In addition, the refuge complex has infestations of other nonnative, invasive species that, 

although they are not listed as noxious weeds by the 

State, may have negative effects on desirable refuge 

habitats: Russian olive, crested wheatgrass, reed canarygrass, Japanese brome, and Phragmites.

Some of the undesirable, nonnative species are 

within shelterbelts in the refuge complex. These 

shelterbelts were probably planted in the 1930s or 

1940s for wildlife and around existing homesteads 

before the land was purchased by the Service; the 

shelterbelts consist mostly of Russian olive trees and 

caragana and cover about 8 acres.

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

Objective 1

Over 15 years, eradicate at least 25 acres of Russian 

olive trees and other nonnative trees and shrubs. Restore the sites to native herbaceous species that, in 

10 years postestablishment, will comprise more than 

60-percent native grasses and forbs throughout the 

refuge complex.

Strategies

■ Map all treatment sites.

■ Cut all standing trees and treat stumps with appropriate herbicide.

■ As appropriate, use chemicals approved by the 

Service for aerial spraying to kill Russian olive 

trees.

■ To remove woody material, use machinery to cut 

and shred trees and bushes or pile and burn them.

■ Remove vegetation that is impeding water delivery systems and boundary fences.

■ Begin removing all shelterbelts to create more 

contiguous blocks of grassland habitat, and restore 

it to prevent invasive species from encroaching. 

Allow no additional shelterbelts.

■ Monitor and diligently re-treat areas to prevent 

reinfestation.

■ Restore bare areas resulting from the removal 

of Russian olive trees to native grass cover and 

monitor the results.
148 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Develop a program that provides information to 

the local community, partners, media, and other 

interested individuals or groups about the need 

to remove Russian olive trees to reduce the fragmentation of grassland habitat and to maintain the 

refuge canals used for managing wetlands.

■ Collaborate with the Malta Irrigation District and 

Reclamation to treat Russian olive trees that occur along the Dodson South Canal, which is the 

major water delivery canal for Bowdoin Refuge.

■ Network with other agencies and refuges to stay 

current on effective treatment methods and to 

share equipment and resources.

■ Map current infestations and actively monitor (at 

least every 3 years) these sites for new invasions. 

Immediately treat any new invasion to prevent 

expansion.

Rationale. Research indicates that native grassland 

birds need large, uninterrupted tracts of treeless 

grasslands (Bakker et al. 2002, Herkert 1994, Winter 

et al. 1999). Preventing the encroachment of woody 

vegetation into grassland systems contributes significantly to the recovery of grassland bird populations (Herkert 1994). The literature overwhelmingly 

indicates that planted and exotic trees in prairie 

landscapes often negatively affect a variety of birds 

(Bakker 2003). Specifically, trees on the prairie are 

correlated with negative consequences to ducks 

(Rumble and Flake 1983), other wetland birds (Naugle et al. 1999), prairie grouse (Hanowski et al. 2000, 

Niemuth 2000), grassland passerines (Grant et al. 

2004, Winter et al. 2000), and ring-necked pheasants 

(Schmitz and Clark 1999, Snyder 1984). The effect of 

trees on the prairie landscape is greater than their 

“footprint,” because they also affect the surrounding habitat. Many grassland birds avoid areas near 

trees, and bird abundance and nest success increases 

as distance to trees increases (Delisle and Savidge 

1996, Gazda et al. 2002, Helzer 1996, Johnson and 

Temple 1990). For example, at one time there were 

nine active lek sites on Bowdoin Refuge. Today there 

are none. This may be directly tied to the invasion 

of Russian olive trees into what was once contiguous 

grassland habitat. Research supports this theory, 

including numerous studies that determined sharptailed grouse leks were abandoned as tree cover increased, even as far away as 2 miles (Hanowski 2000). 

A study of active and inactive leks in Minnesota 

concluded that active sharp-tailed grouse leks had 

significantly lower proportions of upland forest and 

brush cover types and higher percentages of native 

grasses than inactive leks (Hanowski 2000). Gregg 

(1987) and Prose (1987) showed preferred lek sites by 

sharp-tailed grouse are characterized by low, sparse 

vegetation and that an excess of woody cover, within 

2,625 feet of the lek site (well over half a mile), has 

a negative effect on the number of dancing males. 

Although Russian olive trees and other woody vegetation are often planted to benefit birds like grouse 

and pheasants, Kelsey et al. (2006) found that the 

detrimental effects of fragmenting grassland habitat, 

which reduces nesting success and increases predation, far outweighed any benefits to these species.

The Russian olive infestation on Bowdoin Refuge 

is so extensive that it can seem overwhelming (figure 

38). After more than 30 years of unchecked growth 

and expansion, some areas such as the northwest 

corner of Big Island, Dry Lake Canal, and around 

Dry Lake Pond have become virtual Russian olive 

forests. The Russian olive stand on Big Island was 

chosen as the first target area because it is mostly 

native prairie, the infestation is relatively small (12 

acres), and it is an “island” isolated from other areas 

making it unlikely to be reinvaded. A second target 

area is about 7 acres of trees around Piping Plover 

Pond. This wetland was enhanced to provide nesting 

habitat for piping plovers, and removing trees will 

benefit this threatened species. In addition to the two 

target areas, about 8 acres of shelterbelts in the refuge complex will be removed, and additional Russian 

olive removal will take place as needed.

By removing Russian olive trees, the positive effects on grassland-nesting birds in the native prairie 

can be substantial. For example, using a 328-foot 

(100-meter) buffer around groups of trees, the Service 

estimates that removing 12 acres of Russian olive trees 

on Big Island may actually improve at least 50 acres 

of prairie habitat for some grassland birds (figure 39). 

Improving nesting habitat for migratory birds through 

removal of Russian olive trees is necessary and required, by policy, to support and achieve the establishing purposes of the units within the refuge complex.

Combining treatments—such as mowing saplings, 

cutting trees, girdling, burning, grinding and chipping 

stands of small and possibly large trees, and chemical 

use—is the most effective means of controlling Russian olive because the effects are cumulative and act 

on the plant at all life stages (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002). Treatment requires funding, 

equipment, and staff for effective control and possible 

eradication of small infestations. Complete eradication of Russian olive is often impractical; however, it 

is practical for small isolated stands where the cost 

of control and time investment is small (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002).

The removal of at least 25 acres of Russian olive 

trees over 15 years may seem like a small amount given 

the timeframe and infestation. However, it is difficult 

to control this species in this part of Montana, making 

this a realistic objective for the following reasons:
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 149Figure 38. Map of Russian olive tree infestations in and around Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 
150 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Figure 39. Map of Russian olive evaluation areas (Big Island) for grassland restoration at Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

■ Removal of Russian olive trees on this scale is 

time- and labor-intensive. In the past, the lack of 

funding and staff has meant that removal has been 

sporadic and slow.

■ Current treatment methods and available herbicides are inefficient. For example, trees on Bowdoin Refuge that the Service has cut and treated 

often resprout from the roots, so the same areas 

must be re-treated for up to 5 years in some cases 

for good control. Plants are generally produced 

from stratified seed, but plants can grow from 

stump sprouts, stem cuttings, and root pieces 

(Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002). 

(Note: Because the embryos of many tree and 

shrub seeds are immature when the seeds fall, 

the embryos require time in a moist, cool environment to develop to the point where they can 

germinate—a process called stratification.)

■ Cutting, grinding, and treating the trees is only 

the first step. If the Service is unable to use machinery to grind up the trees, the debris must be 

removed or gathered into piles and burned. This 

often involves heavy equipment that can disturb 

the surrounding grassland. To prevent invasive 

plant infestation, the entire area will have to be 

reseeded to native herbaceous vegetation. Revegetation should be done with the objective of providing plants that are well adapted and that can 

suppress the spread and growth of Russian olive 

(Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002). 

Continued monitoring and treatment of these areas will take many years.

■ Russian olive trees on private land surround Bowdoin Refuge (figure 38). The Dodson South Canal 

(owned by Reclamation and maintained by the 

Malta Irrigation District), which delivers water 

to the refuge, is lined with Russian olive trees 

for miles. Even if every Russian olive tree on the 

refuge were removed, there would be a constant 

source of seeds from across the boundary fence 

and coming into the refuge with delivered water.

However, increased funding or staff, or improved 

treatment methods, could increase the amount of 

acres treated and restored over the life of the CCP. 

Russian olive is not listed as a noxious weed in Montana but is listed in several other western States; 
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 151

subsequently, the Federal, State, and local agencies 

in these States are becoming more active in controlling Russian olive. The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive 

Control Demonstration Act, passed in 2006, directed 

the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense to establish a Federal program aimed at finding 

and carrying out the best means of controlling and 

eradicating Russian olive and saltcedar.

Nonnative Russian olive along Lakeside Canal in the Teal Pond area.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

Objective 2

Within 2 years, establish a baseline inventory of all 

invasive plants including noxious weeds for Service 

lands. Eliminate small infestations of saltcedar, spotted knapweed, and yellow toadflax on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Reduce leafy spurge, 

perennial pepperweed, reed canarygrass, Japanese 

brome, and Phragmites on the refuge complex by at 

least 50 percent (measured by canopy cover) over 15 

years.

Strategies

■ Write an integrated pest management plan within 

2 years.

■ Complete the baseline inventory with help from 

the Service’s Invasive Species Strike Team.

■ Using the Invasive Species Strike Team, Montana 

Conservation Corps, or refuge staff, repeat the 

inventory of all invasive plants including noxious 

weeds on Service lands every 5 years.

■ Store all inventory data in the Refuge Lands Geographic Information System (RLGIS) database.

■ Use integrated pest management to control invasive plants, and review literature for updated 

information on control techniques. Allow use of 

aerial applications of chemicals as outlined by the 

chemical label and Service policy for the use of 

aerial applicants.

■ Coordinate the control of invasive plants by meeting and cooperating with county weed boards, 

irrigation districts, and other partners to share 

information and discuss control strategies.

Reed Canarygrass

Sheri Hagwood / Bureau of Land Management
152 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Map sites of invasive plant treatment each year 

in RLGIS.

■ Monitor infestation rates and effectiveness of control efforts.

■ Increase the Service’s ability to control and monitor invasive plants by pursuing additional money 

through partnerships, grants, and invasive species’ programs.

■ Familiarize all staff with State-listed noxious 

weeds including staying current on potential new 

threats to Service lands.

■ Map and store in RLGIS the invasive plant infestations noted by Service staff while conducting 

other work activities.

■ Deploy early detection and rapid response strategies to attack newly found infestations before they 

become larger, causing harm and becoming more 

costly to treat.

Rationale. These problem plants can displace native 

vegetation over large areas, have the ability to form 

nearly monotypic stands in the absence of management, and, therefore, threaten native biodiversity 

(Bedunah 1992, Hutchison 1992, Svedarsky and Van 

Amburg 1996, Trammel and Butler 1995, Watson 

1985). The control or elimination of invasive plants 

on Service lands will comply with State and Federal 

laws for invasive and noxious species.

Trying to manage an invasive plant infestation 

without any idea of the size, canopy cover, or rate of 

spread jeopardizes the efficiency of the control efforts 

and waste precious time and resources. An inventory 

will help prioritize the strategies for elimination of 

new and isolated infestations and containment or reduction of larger infestations.

Invasive and Nonnative Species 

Objective 3

Within 5 years, treat 20 acres of native grassland with 

varying degrees of crested wheatgrass infestation using a mix of treatments to determine effectiveness. 

Based on the results, add crested wheatgrass management to the integrated pest management plan.

Strategies

■ Work with local universities to recruit graduate 

students to conduct research projects on controlling crested wheatgrass on the refuge complex.

■ Within 2 years, ground-truth the vegetation map 

to verify the extent of the crested wheatgrass infestation on Bowdoin Refuge.

■ Identify four 5-acre plots on Bowdoin Refuge that 

are in various stages of crested wheatgrass infestation, from initial invasion with individual plants 

making up less than 5 percent of the cover to 

where the cover is more than 50-percent crested 

wheatgrass. Using the best available science, 

apply to the plots and monitor effectiveness of a 

combination of treatments (such as wicking or spot 

spraying with herbicides, haying, prescriptive 

grazing, prescribed burning, and seeding of native 

grasses and forbs).

■ Use the results of the plot treatments to develop 

a plan for management and reduction of crested 

wheatgrass across the entire refuge complex.

■ Continue to work with other refuges, Grasslands 

National Park (Saskatchewan), University of 

Regina, and other agencies and organizations to 

apply adaptive management to control of crested 

wheatgrass as new data and treatment methods 

become available.

Rationale. Planted to stabilize soil on abandoned cropland during the drought of the 1920s and 1930s and 

as a hay and forage crop for cattle ever since, there 

are 15–26 million acres of crested wheatgrass on this 

continent today (Lesica and DeLuca 1996). Although 

it may be useful for agricultural purposes, rangeland 

dominated by crested wheatgrass has reduced value 

to wildlife, especially migratory birds, compared to 

native rangeland. Lloyd and Martin (2005) found that 

reproductive success of chestnut-collared longspurs 

was significantly lower in crested wheatgrass stands 

than in native prairie.

In addition to its negative effects on plant and 

wildlife diversity, crested wheatgrass can be detrimental to soil conditions by making it harder to get 

native seeds established, which can cause erosion and 

increase the chances of invasion by invasive plants 

(Ambrose and Wilson 2003, Jordan et al. 2008, McWilliams and Van Cleave 1960).

Researchers from the University of Regina and 

Grasslands National Park, both in Saskatchewan, 

Canada, have been conducting extensive research 

on crested wheatgrass infestations. They have also 

started studies of this species at Medicine Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, east of Bowdoin Refuge 

Complex. Grasslands National Park is about 200 miles 

northeast of Bowdoin Refuge. The work of these 

Canadian researchers and that of other researchers 

suggests that a combination of treatments is necessary to control crested wheatgrass. Depending on 
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 153

whether the crested wheatgrass is 

invasive, planted, or a new infestation 

versus an old infestation, one site may 

need a different combination of treatments than another (Johnson 2004, 

Wilson 2000, Wilson and Gerry 1995, 

Wilson and Pärtel 2003). The Bowdoin 

Refuge staff has formed an informal 

working group with other refuges in 

Montana, Grasslands National Park, 

and the University of Regina to share 

resources and ideas for controlling 

crested wheatgrass.

Wildfire Management

The use of prescribed fire is a potential strategy for meeting several of 

the previous objectives for upland 

and wetland habitats. The following 

objective primarily addresses wildfire. Prescribed fire can be an effective tool to manage grassland vegetation.

Mike Granger / USFWS

Wildfire Management Objective

Over the next 15 years, suppress all wildfires occurring within the refuge complex, maintaining an initial 

attack success rate of 95 percent or higher.

Strategies

■ Conduct hazardous fuel treatments to reduce the 

threat of catastrophic wildfire to values at risk.

■ Use BAER (Burned Area Emergency Response) 

or BAR (Burned Area Rehabilitation) monies as 

needed following wildfires.

■ Within 1 year, complete the draft fire management 

plan and ensure it reflects the goals and objectives 

in the CCP.

■ Have several refuge staff members maintain the 

necessary qualifications to conduct prescribed 

burns and to respond to wildfires.

■ Require the fire management program for the refuge complex to continue following applicable laws, 

Department of the Interior and Service policies, 

and guidance established at national, regional, and 

local levels.

Rationale. The refuge complex is within the Service’s 

Eastern Montana Fire Management District. Fire 

management staff and equipment may be used to 

respond to wildfire anywhere within the fire management district, using local refuge staff as well as other 

Federal and non-Federal partners to assist in wildfire 

suppression.

Treatment of hazardous fuel, thereby reducing the 

threat of catastrophic wildfire, is important to protect 

sensitive habitats and species, cultural resources, 

Federal and private infrastructure and facilities, and 

nearby local residences. Historically, wildfires had the 

ability to burn vast areas; with settlement, there is 

a high probability that wildfires on refuge complex 

lands would damage neighboring properties.

The community of Malta is identified as a “Community at Risk.” Due to the small size of Service 

lands, the rapid rates of spread from grass fuel, and 

the potential for wildfire to cross onto adjacent lands, 

the Service has chosen to suppress all wildfires to 

reduce potential threats to neighboring private land.

Following a wildfire, BAER treatments are intended to protect public safety, to stabilize resources, 

and to prevent further degradation of natural and 

cultural resources. These treatments are considered 

emergencies and are done within 1 year of wildfire 

containment.

The BAR treatments are nonemergency efforts 

made within 3 years of wildfire containment. The 

treatments (1) will improve fire-damaged lands that 

are unlikely to recover to management-approved conditions and (2) will repair or replace minor facilities 

damaged by wildfire.

The use of BAER and BAR monies will follow 

national and regional policy and guidance. It is likely 

BAR money will be used the most within the refuge 

complex, including repairing or replacing fences dam-
154 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

aged by wildfire and treating burned areas to prevent 

the spread of invasive plants.

Service policy requires that every Refuge System unit with burnable vegetation must have a fire 

management plan. The fire management plan is a 

stepdown plan from the CCP and provides specific 

guidance for how the fire management program will 

be carried out to meet national, regional, and refuge complex goals and objectives. An approved fire 

management plan allows the manager to consider a 

wide range of suppression alternatives and to conduct 

prescribed burns. Intended to be dynamic and reflect 

current policies and situations, the fire management 

plan is periodically reviewed or revised; required updates and revisions will follow national and regional 

policy and guidance.

To maintain the high initial attack success rate, it 

is important that refuge staff maintain and develop 

their qualifications to safely and effectively respond 

to wildfires and to use prescribed fire. In addition, 

local agreements between Federal and non-Federal 

partners will be maintained or pursued.

Appendix I further describes the fire management 

program for the refuge complex.

Habitat Protection and 

Acquisition

Habitat protection and acquisition will ensure the 

long-term protection of upland and wetland breeding habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

Conversion of grasslands to cropland has generated 

a need for upland habitat protection adjacent to 

wetlands. The Prairie Pothole Region probably once 

produced 15 million ducks each year but now produces about one-third that number, with drainage of 

wetlands the main reason for the difference (Belrose 

1976). In addition, agriculture activities associated 

with annual crop production is the predominant factor 

affecting the landscape in the Prairie Pothole Region 

(Kantrud et al. 1989).

Native prairie grassland (upland) and wetland 

are the most productive habitat types in Montana, 

particularly in the Prairie Pothole Region. Although 

some laws protect these areas, which mostly occur 

on private lands, these vital habitats continue to be 

lost. The Service has committed to work with willing 

landowners in Montana to compensate them for protecting these habitats, primarily through perpetual 

grassland or wetland conservation easements. As of 

2009, willing landowners have been compensated for 

protecting more than 50,000 acres of grassland and 

wetland habitat in the refuge complex.

Habitat protection needs evaluation through a 

priority system to identify critical areas and the most 

effective means of protection—through either fee 

title or easement. Conservation easements have several advantages over outright purchase of lands by 

the Service. First, easements are more cost-effective 

both in terms of initial purchase and in long-term 

management responsibilities. While easement contracts require attentive enforcement to ensure habitat protection, they do not carry the other burdens 

of ownership such as maintenance of facilities, fences, 

and signs; control of noxious weeds; and mowing of 

roadside ditches. Second, the landowner still owns 

and manages the land that has a conservation easement. The Service developed the conservation easement program to protect natural resources on the 

landscape while minimally affecting normal farm and 

ranch operations.

The northern shoveler is one of the duck species that nests 

in upland habitats.

Dave Menke / USFWS

Upland Habitat

Livestock grazing is the primary land use in the Prairie Pothole Region of north-central Montana, where 

large tracts of contiguous grassland (more than 4,940 

acres) remain, and where populations of nest predators such as red fox and raccoon are sparse and the 

coyote is the dominant predator (Ball 1995). The loss 

of upland-nesting cover and plant foods has reduced 

the value and productivity of associated wetlands for 

nesting waterfowl and their broods and other migratory birds and wildlife. This makes the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex uniquely important 

for the continued conservation of habitat that remains 

intact and valuable for migrating and breeding waterfowl and other migratory birds.

Grassland conservation easements are perpetual 

and protect both existing and restored grasslands 

from being cultivated. Additional purposes of the 

grassland easement program are (1) to improve and 
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 155

protect the water quality of wetlands, (2) to maintain 

upland-nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds, (3) 

to protect highly erodible soils, and (4) to provide an 

alternative to the purchase of uplands in fee title by 

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

Service buys from willing landowners. These easements prohibit any alteration of permanent grassland 

cover including cropland conversion or development 

and haying or mowing until after July 15 (when most 

upland nesting by ducks is over). Provisions under 

grassland conservation easements do not prohibit or 

regulate livestock grazing.

Funding for grassland conservation easements 

comes from a variety of sources including Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (with 

Governor approval), North American Wetland Conservation Act grants, and Land and Water Conservation Funds. Thirty-three grassland easements have 

been purchased in the Bowdoin Refuge Complex, 

covering 39,767 acres. Through effective enforcement, 

these easement lands continue to provide important 

waterfowl breeding habitat in Montana.

In addition, the refuge complex administers four 

perpetual FmHA conservation easements. The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1985 

authorized the establishment of easements for conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes on properties 

that were foreclosed on by the Federal Government 

(“inventories” properties), and the Service was designated manager of those easements worthy of inclusion into the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Wetland Habitat

Glacially created wetlands in the Prairie Pothole 

Region, in combination with the surrounding grasslands, provide breeding habitat that supports half of 

the continent’s waterfowl production (Kantrud 1983). 

More than a million acres of potholes in the prairie 

States were drained between 1943 and 1961 (Briggs 

1964). By the late 1950s, the loss of important waterfowl habitat was apparent. These two significant factors led to conservation movements by citizens and 

pressure from waterfowl hunting interests to reverse 

the loss of wetland habitat.

In response to this pressure, the Service sold Duck 

Stamps to fund a program of wetland acquisition and 

for purchase of wetland conservation easements (van 

der Valk 1989), waterfowl production areas, and national wildlife refuges. The Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act, passed in 1934 and commonly known as the Duck Stamp Act, requires the 

purchase of a Federal hunting stamp by all waterfowl 

hunters ages 16 and over. Receipts from the sale of 

the stamps are used for the acquisition of migratory 

bird refuges under the provisions of the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. Waterfowl production areas and 

wetland conservation easements are purchased from 

willing sellers through the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program (authorized by Congress in 1958 by 

an amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act) to ensure long-term protection of breeding habitat for migratory birds, primarily within the Prairie Pothole Region of the United 

States.

The Bowdoin Wetland Management District—

comprised of waterfowl production areas and conservation easements—was established in 1973 under the 

authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act to reduce waterfowl habitat loss in 

north-central Montana.

The sharp-tailed grouse is a year-round resident on the 

Bowdoin Refuge.

Mike Artmann / USFWS
156 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ The district’s first waterfowl production area was 

purchased on April 19, 1977, in Blaine County. The 

Service manages these fee-title areas to provide 

breeding waterfowl with quality wetlands for 

courtship and brood rearing, as well as suitable 

grasslands for nesting. The Bowdoin Wetland 

Management District has nine waterfowl production areas totaling 9,504 acres.

■ The first wetland conservation easement was 

purchased on April 14, 1977, in Phillips County. To 

date, 125 wetland easements have been purchased 

within the refuge complex, covering 10,635 wetland acres. Wetland conservation easements are 

perpetual and prohibit the filling, leveling, draining, or burning of wetlands under easement. These 

easements are real-property interests that the 

Service buys from willing landowners and are permanent fixtures to land titles. The land remains 

in private ownership and the landowner controls 

public access. Through effective enforcement of 

easement provisions, the lands under easement 

provide important waterfowl breeding habitat.

Habitat Protection and Acquisition 

Objective 1

Over the next 15 years, protect at least 900 acres of 

depressional wetlands and 16,000 acres of grasslands 

on private land within the refuge complex through 

the purchase of perpetual conservation easements or 

fee title from willing sellers.

Strategies

■ Work with the Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) to develop a waterfowl-pair 

density map for the counties within the wetland 

management district.

■ Implement the conceptual waterfowl habitat 

model developed by HAPET to identify and prioritize areas for protection with conservation 

easements.

■ Focus the protection of wetlands with conservation easements in areas where the Service is also 

protecting priority grasslands.

■ Use mass mailings and public meetings to provide 

prospective sellers with information about the 

conservation easement program.

■ Continue to piggyback on the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program as a way to inform prospective sellers of the conservation easement program.

■ Buy additional waterfowl production areas including “round-outs” and inholdings from willing sellers.

■ Use the Service’s strong partnership with Ducks 

Unlimited and other conservation organizations to 

generate other funding sources to buy easements 

or receive transferred lands.

■ Use funding from the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act and other grants to buy easements.

Rationale. If the Service has a constant acquisition 

budget over the next 15 years, at least 16,000 acres of 

grassland and 900 acres of wetland can be protected 

through acquisition of conservation easements (Danielle Kepford, realty specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Lewistown, Montana; personal communication, 2008). The amount of additional acres protected 

in fee title will be negligible. Priorities for acquisitions will be based on HAPET’s conceptual waterfowl 

habitat model, as described below (USFWS 2007):

“The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program (PFW) in Montana completed a 

strategic planning process to identify conservation focus areas in 2007 ... The process 

identifies priority species and guilds for conservation and uses available data and models 

to focus conservation in the best habitat on 

the landscape. Waterfowl were identified as a 

priority group for the glaciated plains portion 

or prairie pothole region of Montana. A conceptual waterfowl habitat model was developed 

by the FWS Region 6 Habitat and Population 

[Evaluation] Team office (HAPET) to identify 

and prioritize waterfowl habitat within the 

glaciated plains of Montana. Currently, an 

empirical model for waterfowl in the state does 

not exist. The conceptual model is based on the 

two primary components of waterfowl habitat, 

upland nesting cover, and wetlands.

Extensive research has focused on how 

ducks settle on the breeding grounds. A correlation between the number of wetlands and 

number of breeding ducks at different scales 

is well known (Crissey 1969, Dzubin 1969, 

Stewart and Kantrud 1974, Johnson and Grier 

1988, Batt et al. 1989, Cowardin and Blohm 

1992). The PFW waterfowl habitat model used 

FWS National Wetland Inventory delineated 

wetlands and the public land section survey 

geographical information system (GIS) layers 

to identify areas with the highest wetland densities per square mile [figure 40]. Wetland den-
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 157Figure 40. Map of wetland density per square mile in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. (Fish and Wildlife Service)
158 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

sities were categorized using levels identified 

by the HAPET office and allow the landscape 

to be divided into discrete groups for conservation prioritization. The categories include 

wetland densities of 1–3, 4–10, 11–25 and more 

than 25 per mi2.

Landscape characteristics surrounding 

wetland basins may also influence how breeding ducks use those basins. Krapu et al. (1997) 

found a negative effect of cropland on number 

of breeding pairs when temporary and seasonal pond area increased in 50.8 km2 [12,553-

acre] plots. Reynolds et al. (2007) found that 

duck pairs selected wetlands differently when 

embedded in cropland, grazed land, and 

undisturbed grass cover. Reynolds et al. (2001) 

found that nest survival was positively related 

to grassland cover within a 10.4 km2 [2,570-

acre] area site. The PFW conceptual waterfowl 

model used GIS modeling techniques with the 

statewide landcover layer developed by the 

Montana Gap Analysis Program to identify 

areas on the landscape with the highest density 

of undisturbed nesting cover (e.g., grassland). 

The upland nesting GIS layer consisted of 

90m×90m pixels and used a moving window 

analysis to identify areas on the landscape 

with the highest density of grassland [figure 

41]. A moving window incorporating an area 

of 4 square miles was used to approximate the 

home range size of a breeding mallard hen. 

Grassland density categories include 0–10%, 

10–40%, 40–80% and 80–100% grassland cover 

within the four square mile window. The final 

model combined the priority wetland density 

layer and the grassland density layer to identify areas on the landscape with high wetland 

and grassland densities [figure 42]. Future 

revision of the model will include updated 

landcover and wetland layers until an empirical model can be developed.”

Habitat Protection and Acquisition 

Objective 2

Over 15 years, use active monitoring and law enforcement to protect all refuge, flowage, FmHA, wetland, 

and grassland areas under Service easement, according to the provisions of the easement contracts and 

agreements.

Strategies

■ Following the guidelines contained in the “Administrative and Enforcement Procedures for U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Easements within the 

Prairie Pothole States” (known as the easement 

manual) and other enforcement procedures, conduct annual surveillance flights to detect potential 

conservation easement violations and promptly 

follow up with needed enforcement action.

■ Send letters to new landowners informing them of 

existing conservation easements on their property 

and associated easement provisions.

■ Review FmHA easements to ensure all wetland 

provisions are enforced.

Rationale. With an annual precipitation of less than 13 

inches, the retention of water on the land to support 

the primary land use of grazing is more desirable to 

landowners than drainage. Counties within Bowdoin 

Wetland Management District have between 20 percent and 30 percent of the land base designated as 

cropland (cereal grains or hay) or prior cropland, for 

example, as part of the Conservation Reserve Program. Annual surveillance of wetland conservation 

easements is necessary not only in croplands where 

water is drained from fields for greater crop production, but in rangelands where wetlands are drained 

to consolidate water into larger basins for livestock 

watering.

Since most of the grassland conservation easements protect native prairie, the major enforcement 

concern is conversion to cropland. While violations 

involving the conversion of native prairie to cropland 

are extremely rare, full restoration of native prairie 

in these situations is impossible. Nevertheless, landowners could plant grass in areas they had plowed, 

which would help them regain compliance with the 

easement provisions. Enforcement that ensures compliance is essential to the protection of these habitats. 

Any haying, mowing, or harvesting seed before July 

15 would be in violation of easement provisions and 

could cause direct losses to waterfowl and other 

grassland-nesting birds. While the cutting of hay on 

native prairie is not common, it is more likely to occur on grassland easements with tamegrass seeding 

such as those in the Conservation Reserve Program. 

Enforcement of haying restrictions affords another 

opportunity to meet and visit with landowners and 

operators. These contacts may serve to remind landowners and operators of the easement provisions 

and hopefully prevent more serious violations in the 

future, which would achieve the goal of voluntary 

compliance.
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 159Figure 41. Map of grassland density in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. (Fish and Wildlife Service)
160 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

orities in Bowdoin 

(Fish and Wildlife Service)

Figure 42. Map of areas with high densities of wetlands and grasslands for use as a decision matrix to determine protection priNational Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana. 
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 161

4.5 Goal for Salinity and 

Blowing Salts

Develop a water management system on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge that protects the 

environment and mitigates current and future 

blowing salt concerns for neighboring properties, while providing quality water and wildlife 

habitat for migratory birds and other wetlanddependent wildlife.

Salt and Water Management

Management of salts at Bowdoin Refuge is tied to 

water management. An understanding of the salt 

balance and the water supply at the refuge will guide 

management actions in the short term and over time 

for a functioning lake system that benefits plant and 

animal communities and does not negatively affect 

nearby landowners and water users.

Salt Management

The long-term target for salt management is to have 

enough water, at an acceptable quality, to reestablish 

a flow-through system from Lake Bowdoin into Beaver Creek. This flow-through system will allow salts 

to pass through the refuge rather than accumulating 

in Lake Bowdoin. With the current salt concentrations, a flow-through system is not possible due to the 

potential environmental impacts to primarily downstream water users along Beaver Creek. If the refuge 

was able to maintain acceptable salt concentrations 

in Lake Bowdoin as defined by State regulations, a 

flow-through system could be restored if a sufficient 

water supply was secured.

The short-term target is to use management actions to remove sufficient salts so the Service can 

release water to Beaver Creek without significantly 

increasing the salinity of the creek water or negatively affecting downstream users. This management 

will also prevent the salts in Lake Bowdoin from becoming extremely concentrated, which would negatively affect wetland habitat and wildlife. The salt 

concentration objective for this type of management 

removal will average around 7,000 mg/L at a lake 

elevation of 2,209 feet (figure 43). However, the salt 

concentration of Lake Bowdoin will vary depending 

on water levels. With increased deliveries of water, it 

is estimated that at a lake elevation of 2,212 feet, salt 

concentration may decrease to approximately 5,000 

mg/L. Conversely, if the water level were to drop to 

2,207 feet, primarily as a result of drought, salt concentrations may again increase to over 25,000 mg/L.

The objective of maintaining a TDS concentration 

of 7,000 mg/L assumes the future input of water will 

match the historical delivery rates (1990–2007). The 

modeling effort to predict future salinity concentrations assumes that in some years there will be floods 

and in other years there will be droughts. In addition, 

modeling for the short-term target assumed that additional water supplies will not be received. As a result 

of maintaining a TDS concentration of 7,000 mg/L, approximately 80,000 tons of salt will remain on the refuge, primarily stored in the water in Lake Bowdoin.

The Service does not wish to completely remove 

all salts from refuge waters; in fact, these wetlands 

are naturally brackish. The 7,000 mg/L objective was 

selected based on the relatively high number of plant 

(both emergent and submergent) and invertebrate 

communities that can be supported (Gleason et al. 

2009). These communities in turn support a wide 

range of migratory birds that visit the Bowdoin Refuge every year. However, the overriding target (longand short-term) for any salt management program is 

to improve the water quality on the refuge over time 

so that releases of water to Beaver Creek or the Milk 

River will either: (1) not require an “authorization to 

degrade” permit from the State; or (2) if an “authorization to degrade” were required, the restrictions 

would be such that the approved release rate out of 

Bowdoin Refuge provided a reliable method to maintain the salt balance.

Water Management

The desired long-term water management plan is a 

flow-through system where the refuge receives a sufficient quantity of water that could eventually spill 

into Beaver Creek, carrying with it a quantity of salts 

equal to what has entered the refuge. By reestablishing a flow-through system, blowing salt events will be 

minimized and wildlife habitat will be improved.

To reach as quickly as possible the target salinity level needed for a flow-through system, there 

may need to be a reduced amount of water delivered 

to Lake Bowdoin. This will not only minimize the 

amount of salts entering the refuge but concentrate 

the salts that are already in the water, allowing them 

to be more easily removed. Additionally, where practical, the inflow of salts could be reduced at the source 

by lining portions of irrigation canals and managing 

saline seeps and irrigation return flows.

Obstacles to Implementing a FlowThrough System

The Service needs to address several obstacles in 

developing an effective flow-through system: the lack 

of needed water supply, the potential need for State 

permits, and the removal of structures.
162 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Additional Water Supply. Modeling efforts by Service hydrologists (using models developed in large 

part by State hydrologists), show the amount of 

water currently delivered to the refuge under the 

MOA with Reclamation—up to 3,500 acre-feet under 

normal water years—is not sufficient to implement a 

flow-through system for Lake Bowdoin even if water 

quality issues were resolved.

To address this shortfall, the Service has filed for 

an additional 8,000 acre-feet of water, based on the 

maximum delivery from the Milk River on record of 

11,540 acre-feet. This historical use right is not part of 

the ongoing Federal water rights compact and will be 

litigated as part of the adjudication process for basin 

40J (Milk River watershed). The Service understands 

this water right will likely be junior to most of the 

other water rights on the canal and would only be 

taken during periods when water is available.

Additional water will provide the following benefits to the refuge:

■ Provide flushing opportunities after water quality 

issues are addressed.

■ Help offset evaporation, which can exceed 3 feet 

per year.

■ Provide the opportunity to manage Dry Lake and 

Drumbo Pond as a flow-through system.

■ Allow all units to fill periodically (whereas many 

are dry now).

■ Allow additional management options including 

more flexibility in filling Piping Plover Pond, developed to provide nesting habitat for the threatened piping plover.

Refuge staff use this outflow dropboard structure to 

release water from Drumbo Pond to control the pond’s 

water level.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Permits. Before discharging water into Beaver Creek 

or the Milk River, the discharge of refuge waters into 

State waterways must first meet the DEQ’s water 

quality standards (DEQ–7). Currently, the Lake Bowdoin water does not meet these standards. The DEQ 

water quality standards program has two levels of 

protection: (1) protection of designated uses of water; 

and (2) prevention of significant degradation of highquality waters.

Salinity standards have not been established 

for the Beaver Creek or the Milk River. The water 

discharged from Lake Bowdoin, when mixed with 

water from Beaver Creek or the Milk River, must 

not exceed the threshold determined by DEQ. As an 

example, in other rivers, a TDS concentration range 

from 960–1,600 mg/L during the irrigation season has 

been established (Bauder et al. 2007). To prevent impairment of aquatic life in Beaver Creek or the Milk 

River, the TDS concentration will have to be maintained below a threshold of 1,000 mg/L.

In addition to the salinity, elevated levels of sulfates, arsenic, and uranium are obstacles to releasing water. For example, to safely release water into 

Beaver Creek or the Milk River without harming 

aquatic life, a low calculated release rate (estimate 

of 200:1) from Lake Bowdoin would be permitted to 

avoid causing harm from sulfates. Therefore, if 200 

cubic feet per second (cfs) were the rate of flow of the 

receiving water, only 1 cfs would be permitted from 

Lake Bowdoin. This mixing ratio could decrease under scenarios where sulfates are reduced.

The pollutants arsenic and uranium are both 

carcinogens, as defined in DEQ–7. Any release from 

Lake Bowdoin where the concentrations of either arsenic or uranium were greater than the receiving water concentration would require an “authorization to 

degrade” permit from the State. It is probable, with 

the addition of ground water inputs and the history 

of evapoconcentration, that an “authorization to degrade” permit will be necessary for any surface water 

release from Lake Bowdoin.

Current Structures and Dikes. To obtain the most 

effective flow-through system, the Service ideally 

needs to remove the stoplogs (logs or beams that 

prevent water flow) in the water control structures 

to allow water to flow between Lake Bowdoin and 

Beaver Creek during flood events. However, removing stoplogs will only be possible if salinity issues 

were resolved sufficiently or extreme flooding conditions were such that releases from Lake Bowdoin and 

Dry Lake were necessary to protect infrastructure. 

These flood water releases will be conducted safely 

in coordination with downstream irrigators and in 

accordance with State guidance from DEQ. The quality of the discharged water will be monitored. Until 

that time, the refuge staff will maintain the stoplogs, 

dikes, and spillways primarily to prevent accidental 
CHAPTER 4–Management Direction 163

Figure 43. Map of the extent of Lake Bowdoin at various water elevations.

CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 165

releases. In addition, the refuge will manage water 

levels to reduce the chance of a breach in the dike.

Salt and Water Management Objectives

The objectives for the salt and water management 

program follow:

■ Achieve and maintain an average salt concentration of 7,000 mg/L at a lake elevation of 2,209 feet 

in Lake Bowdoin.

■ Limit blowing salts.

■ Obtain an additional 8,000 acre-feet of canal deliveries to allow for a flow-through system, while 

meeting all DEQ standards.

■ Use the additional 8,000 acre-feet of canal deliveries for more management options.

The salinity and blowing salts issue at Lake Bowdoin 

is a result of a complex series of factors that have 

changed the fundamental flow of water into and out 

of the lake for more than a century. Montana water 

quality laws protect receiving waters from point and 

nonpoint sources of pollution. In this case, salts and 

trace heavy metals are the concern at Lake Bowdoin. 

As a result, the lake, which once was a flow-through 

system, must be managed today as a closed basin.

Random droughts and historical floods can and 

have functioned to remove salts from the lake system. 

However, relying on these periodic events is not a viable long-term solution. The short-term solution is to 

inject the salts and heavy metals deeply and safely 

into the ground. However, in the long term, the Service’s goal is to acquire enough water to institute a 

flow-through system.

Objectives for Salinity and 

Blowing Salts

The following objectives guide the management actions for addressing the issue of salinity and blowing 

salts at Bowdoin Refuge.

Objective for Salinity and Blowing Salts 1

Before drilling the injection well, provide at least 

2,000 acres of subsaline (more than 9,600 mg/L), 

permanent, wetland habitat for migratory birds and 

associated wetland-dependent wildlife on Lake Bowdoin.

Strategies

■ Continue to receive water supplies and pursue 

available excess water from the Milk River Project to provide habitat for migratory birds.

■ Continue to work with the State of Montana during the adjudication process for the Milk River 

watershed to claim an additional 8,000 acre-feet 

historical use right.

Alkali salt blows off Dry Lake at Bowdoin Refuge, Phillips County, Montana (1988).

USFWS
166 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Continue to monitor existing surface sites, ground 

water–monitoring wells, and the lake’s water level 

elevation.

■ In the spring, transport available water to Lake 

Bowdoin in early March and end by May 15 to reduce the chance of disease outbreaks and flooding 

of overwater nesters.

■ In the fall, start transporting available water after 

September 1 to provide migratory bird habitat.

■ Continue to monitor for avian disease outbreaks 

and the use of islands by colonial-nesting birds.

Rationale. Until the injection well project starts, the 

refuge will continue to manage for quality habitat 

under the current subsaline wetland conditions. In 

the absence of a large flood event, conditions in Lake 

Bowdoin will remain in the subsaline category, because there is no means to remove salts from the lake.

Wetland habitat is highly dependent on the available water delivered by the Malta Irrigation District; 

the lake has historically provided habitat for a variety 

of waterfowl and other waterbirds. Water deliveries 

in early spring will continue to provide wetland habitat throughout summer and fall. The refuge will continue monitoring salinity and wildlife use. In addition, 

collection of baseline data will be needed to effectively 

monitor the results of the injection well project.

Objective for Salinity and Blowing Salts 2

While implementing the objectives to reduce salinity 

on Lake Bowdoin, provide valuable information on 

the process, benefits, and results of this salt reduction program to the public; local, State, and Federal 

governments; other agencies; and partners.

Strategies

■ Inform people about the salinity situation and options with news releases to the media.

■ Provide salinity information and monitoring results to the public in several ways including: presentations to community groups, distribution of 

brochures, and up-to-date Web pages.

■ Conduct tours of the saline treatment site (injection well).

Rationale. It is likely that the injection well will not 

be operational for at least 5 years. During this time, 

the Service will continue to provide information on 

the progress for getting money and starting construction. This will be accomplished through news articles 

and presentations provided at Bowdoin Refuge and 

to community groups. When the Service starts the 

injection well process, the refuge staff will develop 

a fact sheet and other outreach methods to describe 

the installation and operation plan for the injection 

well, including where the injection well will be drilled. 

Once the project was fully implemented, the Service 

will provide updates on how the project was proceeding and meeting the objectives.

Objective for Salinity and Blowing Salts 3

Within 15 years after construction of the injection 

well, reduce salt concentrations in Lake Bowdoin to an 

average TDS (salts) of 7,000 mg/L at a lake elevation 

of 2209.0 feet while accepting all salt and water inputs, 

to provide the water quality needed to improve the 

diversity and quantity of wetland plants and invertebrates that can support healthy populations of waterbirds and other wetland-dependent species.

Strategies

■ Develop a stepdown plan and required environmental analysis for the design, placement, installation, operation, and maintenance of the injection 

well in coordination with DEQ, DNRC, EPA, 

Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, irrigation 

districts, and other partners (table 13).

■ Work with the local community including landowners, the conservation district, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, and DNRC for long-term 

management to reduce saline inputs. Emphasize 

land use changes that will reduce the shallow 

ground-water levels that provide some of the salt 

load.

■ Work with the irrigation district and landowners to improve irrigation water management to 

reduce salt leaching into shallow ground water 

that eventually resurfaces when ground water 

evaporates.

■ Work with the irrigation district to line portions of 

the canal known to leak and cause salt accumulation on the refuge.

■ Acquire project funding: (1) minimum of $6.7 

million to design and construct the project; and 

(2) $100,000 to operate and maintain the system 

annually.

■ Coordinate with local oil and gas companies and 

other consultants to determine the most cost-effective methods to drill and operate the injection 

well.
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 167

Table 13. Partner agencies and expertise for the injection well project at Lake Bowdoin, Montana.

Agency Expertise and coordination

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Contaminants

Water quality standards

Regulatory standards

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation

Hydrology and technical assistance

Water quality monitoring

Water rights

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Well permit

Well operation

Well monitoring

Bureau of Reclamation Water delivery

Negotiations with irrigation districts

U.S. Geological Survey

Wetland ecology

Salinity and hydrological monitoring

Geologic formations

Milk River Basin Joint Board of Control (irrigation districts) Water quantity

Water delivery

Oil and gas companies Injection well drilling

Geologic formations 

Nongovernmental organizations Grants

Other funding sources

■ Work with the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology in determining how deep the injection well 

should be drilled to avoid potable ground water 

and the best placement location.

■ Collect baseline information on plant and wildlife 

diversity and water quality as a basis for monitoring the effects of reducing salinity concentrations 

and the effectiveness of the method.

■ Within 5 years, install the infrastructure necessary to achieve the objective including an injection 

well, intake pipes, power source, and pump house.

■ Allow the water level of Lake Bowdoin to naturally recede to achieve maximum concentrations of 

salts for efficient injection. Limit fall water deliveries to maximize winter salt concentration levels.

■ Until the salinity objective is achieved, operate 

the pump year-round to remove the maximum 

amount of salts annually. Use the pump to maintain the salinity objective as needed.

■ Using additional maintenance staff and contractors, maintain or replace the pump and associated 

infrastructure as needed.

■ Once the salinity objective is reached, determine 

the feasibility of modifying the wetland management structures to help maintain the objective’s 

conditions by allowing Beaver Creek flooding to 

flush Lake Bowdoin. If additional water supply is 

granted, use this water to create a flow-through 

system.

Rationale. Salinity concentrations in Lake Bowdoin 

have steadily increased since 2000 due to drought 

conditions and a management decision not to place 

saline water into Dry Lake during the winter. Levels 

currently exceed 10,500 mg/L with higher average 

levels on the east side of the lake. Currently, there is 

no acceptable way to remove salts from the lake, thus 

this upward trend would continue in the future until 

a major flood or accidental spill occurred that lowered 

the salt load, at least temporarily.

Salinity concentrations are a function of water 

volume and salt loads. Nearly 7,000 tons of salt are 

added to the lake every year through various input 

sources (Kendy 1999; Stan Jones, personal communication, 2009). There may be opportunities to reduce 

some of these salt inputs. This will require working 

closely with surrounding landowners and the organizations focused on salinity issues in Montana, in 

particular, the Montana Salinity Control Association. 

Extended droughts, which tend to occur on decadal 
168 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

patterns (that is, they reoccur every decade or once 

every few decades) in this area (Gleason et al. 2009), 

result in lower lake levels and elevated salt concentrations. It is estimated that, under relatively normal 

precipitation and an average water level of 2,210 feet 

in Lake Bowdoin, salinity would surpass 15,000 mg/L 

in the near future.

The salinity objective of 7,000 mg/L with normal 

water input is an aggressive target. This level was 

selected for the following reasons:

❏ It is well within the tolerances of several key invertebrate and plant communities including sago 

pondweed (Gleason et al. 2009).

❏ It is below levels considered harmful to waterfowl and other wetland-dependent birds.

❏ It provides managers with flexibility in operating the lake at higher water levels and reduced 

salinities.

Plant and invertebrate diversity is significantly lower 

in wetlands with high salinity concentrations (Euliss 

et al. 1999, Gleason et al. 2009, Swanson et al. 1984). 

Plant communities in highly saline wetlands favor a 

few species (Gleason et al. 2009). While salt-tolerant 

plants provide habitat for a suite of birds, a larger 

diversity of plant communities is more capable of 

providing for the needs of many species of wetlanddependent wildlife. Most invertebrates do not have 

the capacity to survive in water with salinity concentrations exceeding about 9,000 mg/L (Gleason et al. 

2009). The importance of invertebrates is substantial 

for a variety of bird groups; invertebrates are critical for shorebirds (Helmers 1992, Skagen and Oman 

1996), ducks (Krapu and Swanson 1975, Swanson et 

al. 1984), swans, cranes, grebes, and many others. 

Differences in how and where birds feed, as well as 

differing bill lengths and body size, allow birds to use 

invertebrates in different locations within a wetland, 

thereby reducing competition for resources. A lack of 

invertebrate diversity could result in food resources 

available for a narrower range of migratory birds that 

use the lake.

From 1990 to 2003, the refuge produced an average of 3,600 ducklings per year. Undoubtedly, many of 

these broods spent part of their development on Lake 

Bowdoin. Waterfowl broods, especially those less 

than 4 days old, are most at risk by elevated salinity 

concentrations. At salinity concentrations as low as 

3,000 mg/L, reduced growth rates throughout development can occur (Mitcham and Wobeser 1988). If 

no fresh water is available, lethargy in ducklings can 

occur at 9,000 mg/L, 10-percent mortality at 12,000 

mg/L, and near 100-percent mortality at levels higher 

than 18,000 mg/L (Moorman et al. 1991, Swanson et 

al. 1984). The influx of water into Lake Bowdoin—via 

the Black Coulee drainage and the Dodson South Canal—provides a source of fresher water for ducklings, 

thereby minimizing the threat of direct mortality.

At a water elevation of 2,208 feet, Lake Bowdoin 

is about 2,800 acres, contains nearly 5,500 acre-feet 

of water, and has an average depth of about 2 feet. 

In contrast, at an elevation of 2,210 feet, which is the 

average operating level, the lake is about 3,500 acres, 

contains 11,750 acre-feet of water, and has an average depth of 3.3 feet. If the salinity objective was met 

and maintained, the resulting salt concentrations of 

the lake with more water (higher lake level) would be 

considerably less.

This objective and the strategies for operation of 

the injection well address the EPA regulations for a 

class 1 injection well, as summarized below:

❏ Inject below the lowermost geologic formation 

containing an underground source of drinking 

water.

❏ Identify and correct any penetrations within the 

surrounding area that would allow fluid to move 

out of the injection well.

❏ Obtain approval of the construction plan.

❏ Operate the well to ensure saline water is fully 

contained in the formation.

❏ Continuously monitor the injected water, movement of fluid in the formation, and mechanical 

operations.

❏ Plug and abandon the well correctly when complete.

Three-square bulrush grows on the salt-covered shoreline 

along the southwestern edge of Lake Bowdoin.

Mike Artmann / USFWS
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 169

Working with local groups, irrigation districts, partners, and congressional members is essential to garnering support to develop and operate the injection 

well and reduce salt inputs. The small refuge staff 

needs expertise and support from partners to successfully carry out the project. The Service will seek 

expertise from public and private entities (oil and gas 

companies) to help guide the project.

Objective for Salinity Monitoring

Monitor, document, and evaluate the effects of fluctuating lake elevations and salinity concentrations on 

wetland plants, invertebrates, and associated wildlife 

to measure the effectiveness and impacts of the salt 

reduction project.

Strategies

■ Before project construction, work with partners to 

collect baseline inventory information on current 

species of wetland plants, associated migratory 

birds and other wildlife, and invertebrates.

■ Drill monitoring wells along Black Coulee drainage to monitor ground water flow and quality.

■ Install a gauging station to monitor the rate of 

surface flow at Patrol Road Pond and Black Coulee culvert.

■ Following requirements of the EPA relating to a 

class 1 injection well, monitor the containment of 

fluid in the injection zone.

■ Continue to monitor salinity at the established 

monitoring sites across Lake Bowdoin to determine the changes in salinity from the injection 

well project. Add additional monitoring sites as 

needed.

■ Design and implement a study to determine the 

effects of the injection well project on wetland 

plants, associated migratory birds and other wildlife, and invertebrates.

■ Continue to monitor for disease outbreaks and 

for effects on colonial-nesting areas in response to 

changes in lake elevation and salinity.

■ Monitor heavy metal concentrations during active 

salt removal and before releasing water into Beaver Creek.

Rationale. Refuge staff has collected a variety of water 

quality data, including salinity, for Lake Bowdoin and 

the surrounding wetlands for more than 30 years. This 

information has been critical in understanding the water and salt balance for the lake, and it is important to 

continue this data collection. The Black Coulee drainage 

is least understood in terms of water quality and water 

quantity. Additional monitoring wells are needed in this 

area to document the characteristics of source flows.

Additional biological information is needed to understand plant and animal responses to fluctuating 

salinity concentrations. To establish pre-injection well 

conditions, baseline information on plant and animal 

occurrences and their distribution throughout the 

lake is needed.

Several islands in Lake Bowdoin provide colonialnesting areas for several species of birds including 

American white pelican. An estimated 1,350 nests 

were present on two islands during 2009. Woody Island contained the largest number of nests and would 

be subject to the most disturbance if the lake level 

were consistently in the 2,208-foot range for extended 

periods during salt removal. Expanded surveys and 

monitoring will help document any effects on these 

birds. Additional coordination would be needed with 

individuals and groups conducting surveys if it was 

documented that local breeding populations had 

shifted their geographical locations.

Fluctuating water levels, both planned and unplanned, will be a part of managing salt levels in Lake 

Bowdoin. There will be times when the lake level 

needs to be low to facilitate more salt being removed 

from the system. Adaptive management will be used 

extensively throughout this process.

Glasswort plants are scattered on the salt-covered edge of 

southeastern Lake Bowdoin.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

Objective for Salinity Management 

Research

Pursue and develop research projects that provide 

information on how to better manage and monitor the 
170 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

injection well project and improve the diversity and productivity of managed subsaline and brackish wetlands.

Strategies

■ Work with partners to identify research and data 

needs.

■ Develop partnerships with universities to provide 

opportunities for graduate study projects.

■ Pursue partnerships with individuals and organizations with the required expertise to conduct this 

research.

■ Evaluate the results of research projects to determine the need and feasibility of modifying the 

management direction.

Rationale. Implementing this project will provide 

opportunities for researchers to study the effects of 

not only drilling and operating the injection well but 

also the subsequent changes to habitat and wetlandassociated wildlife.

The Service will develop partnerships with universities to provide potential projects for graduate 

students and will work with other agencies that have 

the expertise and interest in evaluating the effectiveness of the injection well. Studying the area before 

and after installing the injection well could provide 

valuable information for addressing salinity on other 

public lands and on private lands.

The results of these analyses will assist the refuge in determining how successful the project was in 

achieving the salinity objective and expected habitat 

improvement. These results will also help to determine if modifications were needed in the stepdown 

plan for installation and operation.

4.6 Goal for Visitor Services 

and Cultural Resources

Provide visitors of all abilities with wildlifedependent recreation, interpretation, and 

education opportunities that fosters an appreciation and understanding of the unique wildlife, plant communities, and cultural resources 

of the Montana Prairie Pothole Region.

Visitor Services

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

manages nearly 85,000 acres of lands and waters, 

some of which are open for wildlife-dependent and 

compatible public use (appendix B contains compatibility determinations for public uses associated with 

the CCP). Because the refuge complex is spread over 

four counties, it is impossible for Service staff to meet 

and interact with each visitor that comes to enjoy the 

habitats, fish, and wildlife found on the refuge complex. There are brochures, signage, and interpretive 

panels that visitors can use to independently explore 

and learn about the refuge complex; nevertheless, 

there are still visitors who are even unaware that 

they are on a national wildlife refuge.

Additional programs, staff, and funding are 

needed for a broad-based program that reaches the 

maximum number of visitors to achieve the goal. Current staff might be able to provide some of the additional opportunities in these objectives and strategies 

but not without sacrificing the ability to conduct other 

visitor, biological, or maintenance programs. Meeting 

the visitor services objectives is contingent on hiring 

one permanent full-time visitor services specialist, 

one permanent full-time maintenance worker, and one 

permanent full-time law enforcement officer.

Hunting Objective

Continue to provide hunters with safe, reasonable 

harvest opportunities with uncrowded conditions, 

minimal conflicts with other users, and satisfaction 

with their overall experiences.

Strategies

■ Continue to provide compatible hunting opportunities for waterfowl and upland gamebirds on 

40 percent (western portion) of Bowdoin Refuge 

(refer to figure 36 in chapter 3), according to State 

and Federal regulations.

■ Continue to require hunters to use approved nontoxic shot for hunting of migratory and upland 

gamebirds on Service lands.

■ Continue to allow trapping on designated areas 

within the wetland management district, excluding Holm WPA, according to State seasons and 

limits. Continue to allow trappers to use bodygripping traps, commonly known as Conibear® 

traps, and live traps. Continue to prohibit leg-hold 

traps.

■ Continue to issue special use permits for a limited 

number of trappers on Bowdoin Refuge to remove 

burrowing animals that threaten to damage or 

cause failure of water control structures, roads, 

dikes, and canals.
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 171

■ Continue to issue special use permits on Bowdoin 

Refuge to permit the trapping of mammalian 

predators that are negatively affecting migratory 

birds. Continue to prohibit leg-hold traps.

■ Continue to permit compatible hunting opportunities for upland gamebirds in the waterfowl sanctuary portion of Bowdoin Refuge (refer to figure 

36 in chapter 3) as late-season hunting (no sooner 

than December 1), contingent on waterfowl migrating off the refuge when the wetlands freeze. 

Restrict the first 2 days of this hunt to hunting 

only by young people.

■ Continue the hunter registry at Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge and expand the form to include 

extra columns that allows hunters to describe 

their hunting experience and satisfaction.

■ Consider conducting limited-draw hunts to address 

overcrowding if hunter satisfaction decreases.

■ Conduct random surveys on the wetland management district to determine hunter satisfaction.

■ Evaluate future acquisitions for new hunting opportunities.

■ Create a public use brochure for Bowdoin Wetland 

Management District.

■ Continue to maintain the accessible boardwalk and 

hunting blind at the Pearce WPA for hunters with 

disabilities.

■ Post changes in hunting regulations, seasons, and 

bag limits at the hunter kiosk and Bowdoin Refuge headquarters, on the refuge complex’s Web 

site, and through news releases.

■ Update the hunting regulation sections of the public use brochures as needed.

■ Use the refuge signage and brochures to provide 

hunters with information on hunting regulations 

and where to hunt on the refuge complex to ensure compliance with public use regulations.

■ Recruit one permanent, full-time, law enforcement 

officer.

■ Continue to allow the public, including hunters, to 

park in designated parking areas on the north end 

and southeast boundaries of Bowdoin Refuge and 

to walk through the refuge to access Pearce WPA 

to the north and Beaver Creek WPA to the east 

(refer to figure 36 in chapter 3).

■ Improve public access to compatible, wildlifedependent activities on Black Coulee National 

Wildlife Refuge by developing the entrance road 

and parking for the reservoir.

■ Close the eastern portion of Bowdoin Refuge to 

all foot traffic from the beginning of the waterfowl 

hunting season through at least November 30, or 

until waterfowl have left the refuge, to provide 

continued sanctuary. Although the auto tour route 

remains open through this portion of the refuge, 

require visitors to remain on the tour route outside of the hunting areas.

■ Work with the State to determine the feasibility 

of providing a limited big game hunt on portions of 

Bowdoin Refuge that are currently open to public 

use. Address the compatibility of the hunt and the 

safety of hunters and other refuge visitors.

Rationale. Habitat that normally supports healthy 

wildlife populations produces harvestable surpluses 

that are a renewable resource. As practiced on Bowdoin Refuge Complex, hunting does not pose a threat 

to the wildlife populations, and in some instances, is 

necessary for sound wildlife management. Harvesting 

wildlife on the refuge complex is carefully regulated 

to ensure equilibrium between population levels and 

wildlife habitat.

Trapping is a tool used by the Service to remove 

animals that are damaging water management structures or preying on migratory birds, particularly 

nesting birds. All lands within the Bowdoin District 

will continue to be open to some form of hunting and 

trapping with the exception of Holm WPA. Trapping 

on the district is conducted according to State seasons 

and regulations. 

Black Coulee Pond is one of several ponds that are 

overgrown with cattail.

Mike Artmann / USFWS
172 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Trapping on Bowdoin Refuge is by permit only. 

The refuge encourages the use of live traps to prevent the capture of nontarget species. The Service 

prohibits the use of leg-hold traps on Bowdoin Refuge 

but allows the use of Conibear® traps. 

Closing the eastern half of Bowdoin Refuge to 

foot traffic during the waterfowl season provides additional protection and rest for waterbirds and may 

actually improve hunting on other parts of the refuge. 

The western portion (40 percent of the refuge) is open 

to compatible hunting of waterfowl and upland gamebirds in accordance with State and Federal hunting 

regulations. The waterfowl sanctuary portion of the 

refuge (60 percent) is only open to late-season hunting (December 1–31) of upland gamebirds, contingent 

on when waterfowl migrate off the refuge due to the 

freezing of refuge wetlands. These hunting seasons 

are monitored and enforced to ensure regulations are 

followed and the provide hunters with a safe, quality 

experience.

The refuge complex currently has one wildlife 

refuge specialist with a minimum of 25 percent of 

their duties committed to collateral law enforcement patrols and enforcement. The wildlife refuge 

specialist’s remaining responsibility is managing the 

wetland management district: 158 grassland and wetland conservation easements, 1 flowage easement, 4 

FmHA easements, 9 waterfowl production areas, 

and 4 satellite refuges with 29 associated refuge and 

flowage easements. This individual is also responsible 

for conducting law enforcement activities across the 

refuge complex. Expansion of hunting and other visitor services programs is contingent on the ability to 

recruit one, permanent, full-time law enforcement 

officer to protect refuge resources and provide the 

public with a safe experience.

Fishing Objective

Following State and Federal regulations, continue 

to allow compatible recreational fishing on Beaver 

Creek and McNeil Slough WPAs.

Strategies

■ Continue to require visitors to follow State and 

Federal regulations for fishing on designated areas within the refuge complex.

■ Include information on fishing locations and regulations in the new brochure for the waterfowl production areas.

■ Continue to provide anglers information about 

other fishing opportunities on areas surrounding 

the refuge complex.

Rationale. Fishing is considered by many to be a legitimate, traditional, recreational use of renewable 

natural resources. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Act of 1966, other laws, and Fish and Wildlife 

Service policy permit fishing when it is compatible 

with the purposes for which the refuge or district was 

established and acquired. Compatible recreational 

fishing opportunities are available at McNeil Slough 

WPA (primarily on the Milk River) and Beaver Creek 

WPA (primarily on Beaver Creek). The remainder of 

the wetlands within the district have minimal habitat or do not support harvestable game fisheries or 

populations.

Anglers have many exceptional fishing opportunities within 100 miles of Bowdoin Wetland Management District including fishing at the Nelson 

Reservoir, Cole Ponds, Milk River, Missouri River, 

Fort Peck Lake, and stocked ponds and reservoirs on 

public and private lands (Montana’s Missouri River 

Country 2007).

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Objective

Provide increased opportunities for wildlife observation and photography that enhance the visitor experience and encourages an appreciation and connection 

to the northern prairie.

Strategies

■ Recruit one permanent, full-time, visitor services 

specialist.

■ Maintain year-round opportunities for wildlife observation and photography along the existing auto 

tour route on Bowdoin Refuge including the accessible nature trails. Develop an accessible wildlife 

observation site with spotting scopes and an expanded parking area at stop number 5 along the 

auto tour route (refer to figure 36 in chapter 3).

■ Maintain the refuge complex’s two accessible photography blinds at Bowdoin Refuge and Pearce 

WPA.

■ Install a remote camera for observing grouse lek 

activities.

■ Provide regularly scheduled wildlife observation 

tours.

■ Update the Bowdoin Refuge brochures for known 

mammal, reptile, and amphibian species.

■ Notify the local media of opportunities to view 

migrating birds, particularly unique species.
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 173

■ Close the east end of Bowdoin Refuge to all foot 

traffic at the start of the waterfowl-hunting season 

(at least through November 30) or until waterfowl 

depart the refuge, to provide sanctuary areas for 

migratory waterfowl and shorebirds (refer to figure 36 in chapter 3). Keep the auto tour route open 

but require visitors to remain on the auto tour 

route in designated sanctuary areas.

■ Encourage visitors to provide their observations 

and experiences at the end of a visit through contacts in the visitor contact area and during random 

field encounters, requesting they provide feedback 

in the brochures and through the refuge complex’s 

Web site.

Rationale. Most visitors that come to the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex are here to view 

and photograph wildlife and scenery. Wildlife observation and photography are among the six, wildlifedependent, recreational uses that have been found 

compatible on the refuge complex. Wildlife observation often serves as the foundation for an individual’s 

environmental ethics. This happens when people begin to appreciate and care about the wildlife they are 

able to enjoy and experience firsthand; they take this 

appreciation and awareness back to their own communities and backyards.

Enhancements to the photography and wildlifeviewing areas within the refuge complex will not only 

enhance the visitor’s experience and opportunity to view 

and photograph wildlife but also provide a connection to 

the area’s unique habitat and wildlife. This connection 

may result in a greater understanding and appreciation 

of the refuge complex and the important grassland and 

wetland habitat protected within its boundaries.

These uses have the potential to negatively affect 

resources, particularly use by visitors who are permitted to explore the refuge complex on foot. Studies have shown that individuals or groups walking 

disturb wildlife, particularly waterfowl, even more 

than vehicles. To minimize some of these effects at 

the most popular area for wildlife viewing—Bowdoin 

Refuge—the east end of the refuge will be closed 

to foot traffic during the waterfowl-hunting season. 

This provides an undisturbed resting area for waterfowl and other waterbirds until hunting season ends 

around November 30. Visitors could still view these 

birds from the auto tour route but need to remain in 

their vehicles in designated sanctuary areas.

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 1

Continue and expand environmental education programs and activities for adults and students on and 

off the refuge complex, focusing on the native prairie 

and wetland habitats and the natural, cultural, and 

historical resources of the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. Design these programs and activities to develop awareness of and promote advocacy 

for refuge resources and management activities for 

more than 500 visitors and students annually.

Strategies

■ Recruit one permanent, full-time, visitor services 

specialist.

■ Develop additional education kits specific to refuge programs and resources including field exploration kits (for example, backpacks with field 

equipment) and field activity pages.

■ Develop a series of environmental outreach programs with specific themes (such as prairie and 

wetland conservation and grassland birds) that 

can be used for on- and off-refuge programs.

■ Maintain and update a list of available environmental education kits and lending library materials for teachers.

■ Every 5 years, facilitate a workshop for local 

teachers.

■ Participate annually in at least two community 

events where the opportunity is available to educate the public about the refuge complex and its 

resources.

■ Provide programs for at least six school groups, 

or 300 students, per year onsite at the refuge complex.

■ Provide at least three onsite staff-led group programs on the refuge complex per year.

■ Conduct at least 10 offsite visits to local schools 

within the wetland management district or with 

other groups or organizations to present information on the history, purposes, and natural resources of the refuge complex.

■ Host events for International Migratory Bird Day 

and National Wildlife Refuge Week.

■ Pursue opportunities to expose middle school, high 

school, and college students to the field of natural 

resource management.

■ Work with partners to develop programs to introduce young people to safe, effective, and ethical 

hunting techniques and methods.
174 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Develop programs for introducing young people 

to the enjoyment of the outdoors and instilling 

ethical, safe, and effective skills for observation, 

identification, and photography of wildlife.

■ Work with schools and teachers within the wetland management district to develop programs 

that support their curriculum objectives.

■ Pursue grants and other funding sources to support environmental education programs.

Rationale. Environmental education is a process designed to teach citizens and visitors, children and 

adults, the history and importance of conservation 

and scientific knowledge about the Nation’s natural 

resources. Through this process, the Service can help 

develop a citizenry that has the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation, and commitment 

to work cooperatively toward the conservation of 

environmental resources. Environmental education within the Refuge System incorporates onsite, 

offsite, and distance-learning materials, activities, 

programs, and products that address the audience’s 

course of study, refuge purposes, physical attributes, 

ecosystem dynamics, conservation strategies, and the 

Refuge System mission.

Highly structured programs do not have the same 

effect as allowing students to explore on their own. 

Programs must not be so rigid so that children cannot 

learn by using their own imaginations and senses and 

yet achieve a balance that ensures the student learns 

something new and exciting about the resources they 

encounter.

Environmental education is among the six compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified 

in the Improvement Act. Due to limited staff and 

resources, the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex has been conducting minimal environmental education activities, typically only by invitation 

from local schoolteachers. Since today’s children are 

tomorrow’s land stewards, it is essential to help them 

become aware of the natural world around them and 

what they can do to help protect and restore it.

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 2

Provide additional interpretive opportunities for 

the public that focus on native prairie and wetland 

habitats, the refuge complex’s purposes, and natural, 

cultural, and historical resources. Design these opportunities to promote awareness of and advocacy for 

the National Wildlife Refuge System and the refuge 

complex’s resources, management challenges, and 

programs.

Strategies

■ Recruit one permanent, full-time, visitor services 

specialist.

■ Design and install interpretive panels at the accessible wildlife observation stop (number 5) along 

the auto tour route.

■ Work with the city of Malta to install an informational kiosk in town that provides refuge information and directional maps.

■ Develop a display at the Phillips County museum 

highlighting the history of the refuge complex.

■ Expand the visitor contact area at refuge headquarters into the conference room and add additional interpretive literature and activities.

■ Develop a portable refuge-specific display that can 

be used for programs and events.

■ Engage partners and challenge cost-share opportunities (such as the local film school) to develop a 

short refuge film for the refuge Web site and other 

outreach activities.

■ Install interpretive panels describing the uses of 

prescribed fire, grazing, and haying.

■ Install informational kiosks at the Beaver Creek 

and McNeil Slough WPAs to interpret wetland 

management in these areas.

■ Expand the visitor contact area, providing access 

to visitors of all abilities. Use this additional space 

for improved interpretive displays and more materials.

Rationale. Interpretation is the identification and 

communication of important messages about natural 

and cultural resources to diverse audiences. Interpretation is designed to reveal relationships about the 

nature, origin, and purpose of a resource, landscape, 

or site in a way that forges connections between the 

interests of the audience and meanings inherent in 

the resource (National Association for Interpretation 

(no date). As a resource management tool, interpretation is designed to develop understanding—through 

understanding, appreciation—and through appreciation, protection (National Park Service 2009).

Interpretation is one of the six compatible, wildlife-dependent, recreational uses identified in the Improvement Act. Due to limited staff and resources, 

the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex has 
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 175

been conducting minimal interpretation activities. It 

is essential to help the public become aware of the 

natural world around them and what they can do to 

help protect and restore it.

Cultural Resources

The refuge complex has some historical structures, 

including a few dams and spillways. In addition, there 

are remnants of prehistoric use—tipi rings have been 

found throughout the refuge complex.

Cultural Resources Objective 1

Through partnerships, continue to develop a comprehensive cultural resource inventory of the refuge 

complex and preserve and protect all known cultural 

resources while ensuring future activities comply 

with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Strategies

■ Work with the Service’s zone archaeologist and 

with contractors, universities, and tribal and State 

historic preservation officers and culture committees to continue developing the cultural resources 

inventory.

■ Document all cultural resource sites found during 

refuge activities.

■ Work with archaeological staffs of the Service and 

the State Historic Preservation Office to ensure 

refuge complex activities comply with section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Rationale. Ideally, a comprehensive inventory would 

help ensure the protection of cultural resources. 

Throughout the life of this 15-year plan, the refuge 

complex staff will work with partners and the regional archaeologist and staff to begin documenting 

cultural sites.

Federal laws and policies mandate the identification and protection of cultural resources on Federal 

lands. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to consider the 

effects on cultural resources before conducting any 

Federal action. Without a complete inventory, the refuge complex’s identification of all cultural resources is 

likely incomplete. Nevertheless, the law requires all 

Federal activities that have the potential to impact 

cultural resources be evaluated. Until the inventory 

is completed, the staff will continue to work with the 

regional archaeologist to evaluate projects with the 

potential to have impacts, on a case-by-case basis.

Cultural Resources Objective 2

Improve public awareness and appreciation for the 

cultural resources and history of the refuge complex 

and the northern prairies while creating a greater understanding of this history’s connection to the natural 

resources of the area.

Strategies

■ Work with the city of Malta to install a kiosk in the 

community with information on the area’s cultural 

resources and history of the refuge complex.

■ Work with interested tribes to identify and interpret the cultural history of resources within the 

refuge complex. 

■ Include cultural resource interpretation in the 

expanded visitor contact area.

Rationale. Cultural resources interpretation communicates important messages about the area’s history, 

context, and resources to diverse audiences. Refuge 

complex lands have a rich history of Native American 

and Euro-American presence. Historical structures 

include the stone pillars at the entrance into Bowdoin 

Refuge, which were built by workers in the Works 

Progress Administration.

Petroglyph

Carmen Luna / USFWS

As a resource management tool, interpretation is 

designed to develop understanding; through understanding, appreciation; and through appreciation, protection (National Park Service 2009). Working with 

the city of Malta to interpret these resources and 

create a display in the city will generate additional 

interest and understanding of these resources while 

encouraging people to visit the refuge complex to 

learn more.
176 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

4.7 Goal for Partnerships

Maintain and expand partnerships that 

preserve, restore, and enhance healthy and 

productive prairie/wetland complexes on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge and the wetland 

management district.

Public, Government, and 

Industry Partners

Partnerships are vital to achieving the Service’s mission. Present and future conservation activities conducted on Service lands and conservation easements 

have the potential to positively influence adjoining 

landowners and surrounding communities.

Partnership Objective 1

Continue to participate in and expand partnerships 

that contribute to the understanding and conservation, restoration, and enhancement of diverse, 

healthy, productive grassland and wetland systems 

and the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Strategies

■ Develop a Friends group to support the refuge 

complex’s goals and programs.

■ Continue to support the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program work on private lands.

■ Continue working with Montana Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks to conduct habitat improvement projects in 

areas open to hunting.

■ Work with other Federal land managers to determine if their infrastructure and management 

actions could be used to enhance the refuge complex’s wetland system.

■ Cooperate with the weed boards within the four 

counties covering the refuge complex.

■ Continue to cooperate with neighboring communities, counties, tribes, landowners, and nongovernmental organizations to accomplish projects of 

mutual interest.

■ Coordinate with universities to develop an ongoing program of graduate projects that could be 

used to research and resolve refuge management 

issues.

■ Continue expanding partnerships with the counties to improve roads that provide public access to 

the refuge complex.

Rationale. Regular communication with partners, 

various groups, communities, and individuals through 

meetings, local events, and activities will not only help 

garner support for refuge management activities and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, but also allow 

managers to hear and understand their concerns. This 

open dialog and involvement with partners will help 

build and maintain support for the refuge complex’s 

programs. Furthermore, many of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex’s wildlife, habitat, and 

public use programs and habitat projects could not continue without the funding and support from partners.

Partnership Objective 2

Following current and future Service policy, work 

with energy developers—who are exploring and extracting reserved and excepted mineral rights on conservation easements and fee-title lands—to reduce 

impacts by ensuring that disturbance and physical 

occupancy is kept at the minimum space compatible 

with efficient mineral operations.

Strategies

■ Work with energy developers who hold mineral 

leases below Service lands to encourage on- and 

offsite habitat improvements in exchange for disturbances caused by their exploration and development activities.

■ Evaluate future land acquisitions to determine 

the status of reserved and excepted oil, gas, and 

mineral rights to evaluate the potential impacts of 

energy development on wetland habitat.

■ Use time, place, and manner stipulations to minimize impacts to habitats and associated wildlife 

(FWS Oil and Gas handbook and 50 CFR 29.32).

■ Ensure compliance of permitted mineral exploration and extraction activities with section 106 of 

the National Historic Protection Act of 1966, as 

amended.

■ According to the Endangered Species Act, complete a section 7 evaluation for permitted mineral 

and extraction activities on lands that have the 

potential to support threatened and endangered 

species.

■ Where appropriate, use 43 CFR 3101.5 (Issuance of Leases, National Wildlife Refuge Sys-
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 177

tem Lands) to manage Federal minerals below 

Service-owned land. Work with Bureau of Land 

Management resource specialists to include stipulations on Federal permits to protect wildlife and 

habitat.

Rationale. Energy exploration and development on 

Service lands can occur when the minerals rights 

have been either severed from the surface title or 

retained by the United States Government. In the 

case of severed minerals on Service land, a prior 

owner of both surface and mineral rights, sold or 

granted by deed the mineral rights underlying his or 

her property. The landowner may have reserved or 

retained all or a portion of the mineral rights as part 

of the sale of the property to the Service. One of the 

rights included in the mineral estate is the implied 

right of the mineral estate owner (Alspach 1989) to 

use as much of the surface as reasonably necessary 

to explore for and produce minerals (Placid Oil Co.

v. Lee, 243 S.W.2d 860; Tex. App. 1951). These activities are deemed reasonable if consistent with current 

practices of the industry. Without this right, the reservation of minerals is worthless to the grantee or 

reserver.

State laws overseeing the activities of exploration 

and production of minerals give some protection to 

the surface owner, because both parties must agree 

on compensation for surface damages (State of Montana 2009). Federal law for mineral rights reserved 

and excepted on Service land requires persons holding mineral rights to the greatest extent practicable 

conduct operations in such a manner as to prevent 

damage, erosion, pollution or contamination to the 

lands, water, facilities and vegetation of the area (50 

CFR 29.32). In addition, physical occupancy of the 

area must be kept to the minimum space compatible 

with the conduct of efficient mineral operations. The 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 is the Federal law that 

authorizes the leasing of mineral rights owned by the 

United States Government. These Federal minerals 

are leased under the authority of the Bureau of Land 

Management. Regulations pertaining to the leasing 

and extraction of Federal minerals are found in 43 

CFR.

Conservation easement contracts and waterfowl 

production areas are purchased subject to all valid 

existing mineral rights. In these situations, mineral rights are the dominant estate, and the rights 

of the surface owner or easement contract are the 

servient estate. There are several instances in the 

refuge complex where the Service owns surface 

title over Federal minerals. In most of these cases, 

the Federal minerals were leased before the Service 

obtaining ownership of the surface estate. The mineral lessee as afforded in the lease has the authority 

to occupy Service land and extract the minerals. 

When the Federal minerals have not been leased, 

section 3101.5–1 of 43 CFR states that there shall 

be no oil and gas mineral leasing on lands within a 

national wildlife refuge to give complete protection 

to the wildlife populations and habitats for which 

these lands were established. The exception to this 

rule is when drainage of the Federal minerals can 

be documented. To protect Federal minerals from 

drainage the Bureau of Land Management requests 

leasing recommendations from the Service. As a 

rule, the Service recommends a stipulation of no 

surface occupancy be added to the lease. This protects the Service’s surface rights but allows for the 

Federal mineral extraction from surfaces outside the 

boundaries of a refuge or waterfowl production area.

Regardless of the circumstances, the Service will 

work closely with the mineral producer and Bureau 

of Land Management specialists to impose reasonable restrictions or conditions required to minimize 

adverse effects to wildlife and habitat resources 

(42 CFR 3101.1–2). Stipulations used to protect the 

resource will address time, place, and manner of activities. Guidance for handling mineral exploration 

and development is found in the Mountain–Prairie 

Region’s “Fish and Wildlife Service Handbook on 

Management of Oil and Gas Activities on Fish and 

Wildlife Service Lands” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a).

4.8 Goal for Operations

Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the 

protection of trust resources in the utilization 

of staff, funding, partnerships, and volunteer 

programs.

Staff

The staff of the Bowdoin Refuge Complex has a 

huge challenge in managing almost 85,000 acres of 

Service lands scattered throughout a four-county, 

17,183-square-mile area. Current staff at the refuge 

consists of five permanent full-time employees. Table 

14 shows the current staff and additional staff required to fully implement the CCP. If all positions are 

funded, refuge staff will be able to carry out all aspects of this CCP, which will provide maximum benefit to wildlife, improve facilities, and provide for public 

use. Projects that have adequate funding and staffing 

will receive priority for accomplishment. Staffing and 

funding are requested for the 15-year life of this CCP.
178 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Table 14. Current and additional staff for Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Program Current positions Position changes and additions

Management GS–485–12 refuge manager

GS–485–09 wildlife refuge specialist

GS–485–13 refuge manager 1

GS–485–12 supervisory wildlife refuge specialist 2

Biology GS–486–11 wildlife biologist GS–404–8 biological science technician1

Administration GS–303–07 administrative support assistant GS–326–5 office generalist1

Maintenance WG–4749–08 maintenance worker WG–4749–8 maintenance worker 1

WG–3502–5 laborer1 (career seasonal)

Visitor services None GS–025–9 visitor service specialist 1

GS–025–9 law enforcement officer 1

1 Added position.

2 Reclassification of current GS–12 refuge manager position.

Staff Objective

In addition to current employees, recruit additional 

staff and volunteers needed to fully carry out the actions in the CCP including maintenance, monitoring, 

inventory, and research.

Strategies

■ Retain the current refuge complex positions 

(permanent, full time): one GS–486–11 wildlife 

biologist, one GS–485–9 wildlife refuge specialist 

(wetland district manager and collateral law enforcement officer), and one WG–4749–08 maintenance worker.

■ Recruit a permanent, full-time, GS–485–13 wildlife 

refuge manager to oversee implementation of the 

CCP and direct the actions of the expanded staff.

■ Convert the current GS–485–12 refuge manager 

position to a supervisory wildlife refuge specialist 

to function as the deputy refuge manager.

■ Recruit a permanent, full-time, GS–326–5 office 

generalist.

■ Recruit a permanent, full-time, GS–025–9 visitor 

services specialist to design and carry out the expanded public use programs.

■ Recruit a permanent, full-time, GS–404–8 biological science technician.

■ Recruit a permanent, full-time, GS–025–9 law enforcement officer.

■ Recruit an additional permanent, full-time WG–

4749–8 maintenance worker.

■ Recruit a permanent, seasonal, WG–3502–5 maintenance laborer to maintain and rehabilitate current and future refuge facilities and equipment.

■ Increase outreach to recruit additional volunteers 

needed to carry out the actions for the public use, 

maintenance, and biological programs.

■ Retain at the refuge complex a biologist assigned 

to the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.

■ Reinstate the Youth Conservation Corps program 

by hiring four youths and one GS–186–5 social 

services aid (temporary seasonal) to lead the program.

■ Work with Montana universities to develop a volunteer program by providing college credits in 

exchange for volunteer work experience.

Rationale. The current staff of five, permanent, fulltime employees lacks the time and expertise needed 

to fully implement the habitat management and monitoring projects, facilities maintenance, and expanded 

public use programs. In addition, the current staffing level remains well below that prescribed by the 

minimum staffing model developed by the Service for 

all refuges (USFWS 2008c). The model recommends 

adding the equivalent of 6.5 full-time positions—a 

maintenance worker, wildlife biologist, deputy refuge 

manager, visitor services specialist, law enforcement 

officer, wildlife refuge specialist, and a seasonal biological science technician. The addition of any staff is 

fully dependent on the appropriation of funds available to the Service and the priorities for the Refuge 

System in Region 6. Even if additional staff are not 

provided, there are opportunities to change the priorities of current resources to address some of the 

issues and management actions described in this plan. 
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 179

Facilities and Equipment

The refuge complex staff is responsible for maintaining a vast system of lands, roads, trails, fences, signs, 

buildings, equipment, and other infrastructure necessary to manage habitat and public use programs.

The success of management operations throughout 

the refuge complex is dependent on having adequate 

facilities including offices, housing, and storage buildings. Additionally, the staff needs vehicles and various heavy equipment machines to conduct the work 

specified in the objectives and strategies.

Facilities and Equipment Objective 1

Maintain, expand, or enhance facilities, equipment, 

and supplies to support all biological, visitor services, 

and maintenance programs including accommodation 

of additional staff and volunteers and protection and 

storage of all needed equipment and vehicles.

Strategies

■ Maintain equipment for operations and replace as 

money becomes available.

■ Maintain the current buildings and refuge housing as needed, as well as other refuge complex facilities and infrastructure to achieve management 

objectives.

■ Acquire vehicles as needed for the added staff.

■ Replace outdated heavy equipment such as the 

road grader, scraper, farm tractor, and front-end 

loader.

■ Acquire attachments for the farm tractor (for example, a farm disc, grapple fork, and mowers) for 

habitat management.

■ Expand or enhance the refuge office facilities to 

accommodate the additional staff.

■ Construct a 10-bay parking storage facility for 

existing and future vehicles.

■ Construct a four-bay cold-storage building to 

house additional heavy equipment.

■ Expand the visitor contact area, making areas accessible to visitors with disabilities, and improve 

the interpretive displays and materials.

■ Expand the bunkhouse to accommodate up to 8 

individuals.

■ Develop one campsite with a concrete pad, septic 

system, water, and electricity for a volunteer with 

a recreational vehicle.

■ Maintain a separate ground water well for the two 

refuge complex residences.

■ Convert the office, apartment, two houses, and 

shop buildings to a solar energy system.

■ Acquire a mower and marsh master to manage 

vegetation in wet areas for control of undesirable 

plant species and to create open-water habitat.

Rationale. The current storage facilities are insufficient to store existing vehicles; most remain outside 

exposed to the harsh climates of this area. The refuge 

headquarters is sufficient for existing staff including 

seasonal employees but needs to be expanded when 

permanent staff are added. Although recently remodeled, the bunkhouse is still not adequate to provide 

housing for all seasonal and volunteer staff. Availability of this housing is critical to recruitment of 

seasonal staff, because rental housing is very limited 

in the surrounding rural communities.

Facilities and Equipment Objective 2

Identify the boundaries of all refuge complex units and 

fence the boundaries, as needed, using wildlife-friendly 

fence designs to prevent trespass cattle grazing. Adequately sign unit boundaries to identify Service lands 

and permissible public use and to better orient visitors.

Strategies

■ Evaluate fences to determine the need to replace, 

remove, add, or repair the fences needed to prevent cattle trespass and provide wildlife-friendly 

fencing.

■ Work with the State to determine the important 

migratory paths for pronghorn through Bowdoin 

Refuge. Evaluate the need for fences in these 

areas and remove, modify, or replace them using 

fencing standards that allow for wildlife passage 

while supporting the refuge’s prescriptive grazing 

program.

■ Acquire funding to replace dilapidated boundary 

fence, gates, and parking areas.

■ Continue to work with the landowner on Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge to exchange the 

fee-title lands needed to create a more manageable 

and enforceable boundary and bring awareness of 

the refuge boundary.
180 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Continue to maintain entrance signs on refuges 

with more than 40 percent of land within their 

boundaries in fee title.

■ Continue to maintain entrance signs on all waterfowl production areas.

■ Continue to work with the regional Division of 

Realty to acquire or exchange lands with willing 

sellers that would resolve issues related to trespass, boundary “round-outs,” and boundaries that 

are difficult to post and maintain due to their odd 

shape or location.

■ Appropriately identify waterfowl production 

areas within refuge boundaries.

Rationale. Most of Montana is considered open range, 

so according to State law the Service and other landowners must build a fence to keep cattle from grazing 

their lands. The existing fences are in good condition but need to be replaced with wildlife-friendly 

designs, including replacement of the bottom strand 

with smooth wire at least 18 inches off the ground. 

This will take considerable staff and resources to accomplish but is important to ensure refuge complex 

fences do not impede or harm migrating wildlife, particularly on Bowdoin Refuge, which is part of a migratory corridor for pronghorn. The refuge will work 

with the State to identify these corridors and evaluate the existing fences to determine whether they are 

needed for the prescriptive grazing program and how 

best to modify or replace them, as appropriate.

Overall, the refuge complex boundaries are well 

signed and visitors are oriented. Maintaining and replacing these signs is time-consuming but critical for 

protecting refuge habitats and preventing trespass. 

Bowdoin Refuge and Hewitt Lake Refuge have irregular boundaries that are difficult to sign or boundaries 

that are located across bodies of water. The refuge 

complex staff will continue to work with the regional 

Division of Realty and willing landowners to address 

these issues.

4.9 Stepdown Management 

Plans

The CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides 

general concepts and specific objectives for habitat, 

wildlife, public use, cultural resources, partnerships, 

and operations over the next 15 years. The purpose of 

the stepdown management plans is to provide details 

to Service staff for carrying out specific actions and 

strategies authorized by the CCP. Table 15 lists the 

stepdown plans needed for the refuge complex, status, and next revision date.

Table 15. Stepdown management plans for Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana.

Plan Completed 

(year approved)

New or revision 

(completion year)

Disease 

management 

2006 2013

Fire management 2002 2012

Habitat 

management 

— 2018

Hazard 

communication 

2007 2012

Integrated pest 

management 

2003 2014

Occupant 

emergency 

2008 Annual

Refuge safety 2007 Annual

Salt management — 2017

Sign 1984 —

Spill prevention 2007 2012

Upland 

management 

1992 2018

Visitor services 2008 2018

Wetland 

management 

— 2018

Wildlife 

management 

Marsh Wren — 2018

© Cindie Brunner
CHAPTER 4 –Management Direction 181

Pronghorn graze in the eastern uplands along Lake Bowdoin.

Mike Artmann / USFWS

4.10 Research, Monitoring, 

and Evaluation

Appendix B contains the compatibility determination for research and monitoring. Furthermore, the 

Service proposes to most efficiently deal with the 

uncertainty surrounding habitat management with 

adaptive resource management (figure 44) (Holling 

1978, Kendall 2001, Lancia et al. 1996, Walters and 

Holling 1990). This approach provides a framework 

within which objective decisions can be made and the 

uncertainty surrounding those decisions reduced. The 

key components of an adaptive resource management 

plan, such as this CCP and the stepdown plans, follow:

■ Clearly defined management goals and objectives

■ A set of management actions with associated uncertainty as to their outcomes

■ A suite of models representing various alternative 

working hypotheses describing the response of 

species or communities of interest

■ Monitoring and assessment of the response of target organisms

■ Use of monitoring and assessment information to 

direct future decisionmaking through the selection 

of a best model

Figure 44. Adaptive management process.
182 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

The first three components—goals, actions, and 

models—are largely defined before initiation of an 

adaptive resource management plan. The latter two 

components, monitoring and directed decisionmaking, 

compose a repetitive process whereby, each year, the 

predictive ability of models are tested against what 

was observed during monitoring. This may result in a 

new best model, greater support for the existing best 

model, or new models constructed from emerging 

hypotheses. In this way, management can evolve as 

more information about the refuge complex is gained 

and uncertainty is reduced.

Development of adaptive resource management 

plans for habitat management will allow the refuge 

complex staff to “learn by doing,” while focusing on 

management objectives. Knowledge gained from 

assessing management actions is as integral to the 

process as the management actions themselves. This 

emphasis on gaining knowledge about the refuge 

complex creates a situation whereby the staff can refine its habitat management with feedback between 

management and assessment.

Refuge employees record data about vegetation to measure 

conditions and response to management actions.

USFWS

4.11 Plan Amendment and 

Revision

The Service will annually review the final CCP to 

determine the need for amendment. An amendment 

would occur if significant information became available such as a change in ecological conditions. Revisions to the CCP and the stepdown management 

plans will be subject to public review and compliance 

with NEPA. At a minimum, the Service will evaluate 

the plan every 5 years and revise it after 15 years, if 

needed.
Glossary

ac—Acre.

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—The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring 

to gain information and experience necessary to 

assess and modify management activities. It is a 

process that uses feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation of management actions to 

support or modify 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 

determine 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 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.

BAER—Burned Area Emergency Response.

BAR—Burned Area Rehabilitation.

baseline—Set of critical observations, data, or information used for comparison or a control.

biological control—Organisms or viruses used to control invasive plants or other pests.

biological diversity, biodiversity—Variety of life and 

its processes including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the 

communities and ecosystems in which they occur (“Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 052 FW 

1.12B). The National Wildlife Refuge System’s 

focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, 

and ecological processes.

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms; caused, 

produced by, or comprising living organisms.

breeding habitat—Environment used by migratory 

birds or other animals during the breeding season.

canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy 

closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the 

amount of overhead vegetative cover.

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan.

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations.

cfs—Cubic feet per second.

cm—Centimeter.

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 Number 717–Bill to 

Ratify Water Rights Compact.

Compact Commission—Montana Reserved Water 

Rights Compact Commission.

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 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 ensure 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 Refuge System, and meet other relevant mandates 

(“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 

1.5).

concern—See issue.

cool-season grass—Grass that begins growth earlier in the season and often becomes 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.
184 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin 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 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.

DEQ—Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

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.

DNRC—Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation.

drawdown—Manipulating the water level in an impoundment to allow 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.

easement, flowage—Easement signed by the landowner granting the Service the right to maintain 

and operate an artificial lake or raise the water 

of a natural lake or stream—by means of dams, 

dikes, fills, ditches, spillways, and other structures—for water conservation, drought relief, 

migratory birds, and other wildlife conservation 

purposes.

easement, refuge—Easement signed by the landowner granting the Service the right to control 

hunting and trapping, to maintain a wildlife conservation demonstration unit, and to maintain a 

closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.

EC—Electrical conductivity.

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 portion 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 impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact 

statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9).

EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

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.
GLOSSARY 185

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 as a 

result of Federal acts and treaties; examples are 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, 

migratory birds protected by international treaties, and native plant or wildlife species found on a 

national wildlife refuge.

Federal trust species—Species where the Federal 

Government has primary jurisdiction including 

federally endangered or threatened species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine 

mammals.

fee title—Acquisition of most or all of the rights to a 

tract of land.

Federal land—Public land owned by the Federal Government including lands such as national wildlife 

refuges, national forests, and national parks.

flora—Plant species in an area.

FmHA—Farmers Home Administration.

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—Foot, feet, length measure.

full-time equivalent—One or more job positions with 

tours of duty that, when combined, equate to one 

person employed for the standard Government 

work-year.

FWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Geographic Information System (GIS)—Computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating spatial data; set of computer hardware and software 

for analyzing and displaying spatially referenced 

features (such as points, lines and polygons) with 

nongeographic attributes such as species and age.

GIS—See Geographic Information System.

GLO—General Land Office.

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 

pre-emergence 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, water flow.

grassland tract—Contiguous area of grassland that 

is unfragmented.

GPS—Global Positioning System.

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.

HAPET—Habitat and Population Evaluation Team.

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 of time 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—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 as a 

result 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, 
186 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition (“Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual” 602 FW 1.5).

issue remark—An industry term in the State of Montana denoting official documentation of a problem 

with a water rights claim, such as an incorrect identification of the place of water diversion or use, an 

incorrect priority date, or a claim in excess of the 

amount of water historically put to beneficial use.

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.

MBOGC—Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation.

mg/L—Milligrams per liter; measure of weight per 

volume, in this case, salts in water.

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements of 

animals between their breeding regions and wintering regions; to pass periodically from one region 

or climate to another for feeding or breeding.

migratory bird—Bird species that follows a seasonal 

movement from its breeding grounds to its wintering grounds; includes waterfowl, shorebirds, 

raptors, and songbirds.

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason for 

being.

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an 

environmental impact or to make an impact 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.

mmhos/cm—Millimhos per centimeter; measure of a 

solution’s ability to conduct electricity, in this case, 

for salinity.

MOA—Memorandum of agreement.

monitoring—Collecting information to track changes 

of selected parameters over time.

MOU—Memorandum of understanding.

mS—MilliSiemens.

MSGWG—Montana Sage Grouse Working Group.

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 
GLOSSARY 187

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 numerous Federal 

and State agencies and nongovernmental organizations; also known as the Neotropical Migratory 

Bird Conservation Program.

partnership—Contract or agreement entered into by 

two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations, or agencies in which each agrees to 

furnish a part of the capital or some in-kind service 

such as labor for a mutually beneficial enterprise.

patch—Area distinct from that around it; distinguished from its surroundings by environmental 

conditions.

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; waterbody that retains 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 or tribal partners’ wildlife agencies as 

appropriate.

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 ensures 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.

ppt—Parts per thousand.

preferred alternative—Alternative selected to become 

the final plan; it can be the proposed action, the noaction 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 

fuels 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).

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 indicated 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—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 establish-
188 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

ing 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.

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 implement approved plans and 

meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge.

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System.

refuge use—Activity on a refuge, except administrative or law enforcement activity, carried out by 

or under the direction of an authorized Service 

employee.

reserved from public domain—Public land placed into 

permanent reserved status, such as a national 

wildlife refuge, that is not held in private ownership.

resident species—Species inhabiting a given locality 

throughout the year; nonmigratory species.

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.

“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.

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 maintain existing equipment and buildings and to correct safety deficiencies for the implementation of approved plans and 

to meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and 

shrubs planted around cropland or buildings to 

block or slow down the wind.

shorebird—Suborder of birds (Charadrii) such as 

a plover or snipe that frequents the seashore or 

mudflat areas.

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the character of space.

special use permit—Special authorization from the 

refuge manager for any service, facility, privilege, 

or product of the soil provided at the Service’s expense and not usually available to the general 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 apparent 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.

TDS—Total dissolved solids (salts).

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 portion 

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.

μmhos/cm—Micromhos per centimeter; measure of a 

solution’s ability to conduct electricity, in this case, 

for salinity.
GLOSSARY 189

U.S.—United States.

μS/cm—MicroSiemens per centimeter; measure of a 

solution’s ability to conduct electricity, in this case, 

for salinity.

U.S.C.—United States Code.

USDA—United States Department of Agriculture.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, FWS)—Part of 

U.S. Department of the Interior; principal Federal 

agency responsible for conserving, protecting, 

and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats 

for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

The Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge 

System comprised of national wildlife refuges and 

waterfowl production areas. The Service operates 

national fish hatcheries and ecological service field 

stations, enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages 

migratory bird populations, restores national significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife 

habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered 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—Federal agency in the U.S. 

Department of the Interior whose mission is to 

provide reliable scientific information to describe 

and understand the earth; minimize 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).

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 dependent 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- to 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—Bowdoin 

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.

Stephen D. Guertin 

Regional Director, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, Colorado

Date

Date

W. Dean Rundle Date

Refuge Supervisor, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, Colorado

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D.

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, Colorado

Carmen Luna Date

Refuge Manager

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Malta, Montana
192 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Finding of No Significant Impact

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Three separate alternative analyses were completed 

for the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex to 

determine their effectiveness in achieving the refuge 

complex purposes and their impacts on the human 

environment. The three analyses include: 

1. Overall management of the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex

2. Divestiture of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife 

Refuge

3. Addressing the increasing salinity and resulting 

blowing salts on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge

1. Overall Refuge Complex Management

■ Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, would 

continue current management.

■ Alternative B focuses on restoring, protecting, 

and enhancing native mixed-grass prairie and 

maintaining quality wetland habitat for target 

migratory and resident birds within the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Invasive and 

nonnative plants that are causing habitat losses 

and fragmentation would be controlled or eradicated. Enhanced wetlands would be managed to 

mimic natural conditions for wetland-dependent 

migratory birds during migration and during the 

breeding and nesting season. The Service would 

pursue additional water deliveries to better manage wetland habitats. 

Visitor services programs would be enhanced, 

providing additional opportunities for staff- and 

volunteer-led programs to provide a greater understanding of the purposes of the refuge complex, 

the importance of conserving migratory birds and 

the unique mixed-grass prairie and wetlands, and 

an awareness of the mission of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The Service would work with the State 

to investigate the potential for offering a safe, 

compatible, and quality big-game hunt at Bowdoin Refuge. The refuge complex would work with 

partners to begin developing a comprehensive cultural resources inventory. 

Implementing many of these additional efforts and programs require extra staff, funding, 

research, monitoring, and new and expanded 

partnerships. Nevertheless, even with the current 

staff and funding, some of the objectives of this 

alternative can be achieved. 

■ Alternative C includes most of the elements in 

alternative B. In addition, the Service would improve the water management infrastructure (for 

example, water delivery systems, dikes, and levees to manipulate individual wetlands) to create 

a more diverse and productive wetland complex. 

Biological staff would monitor the level of sedimentation occurring in natural wetlands and plan 

for its removal to restore the biological integrity 

of these wetlands.

Through partnerships, the Service would 

increase the acres of invasive species treated annually with an emphasis on preventing further 

encroachment of crested wheatgrass and Russian 

olive trees into native grassland. The refuge complex would serve as a conservation-learning center 

for the area. Public access would be improved to 

Creedman Coulee Refuge.

2. Divestiture of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife

Refuge

The Service developed and analyzed two alternatives 

to evaluate the proposal to divest Lake Thibadeau 

from the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

■ Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, would 

continue current management and retain the refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

■ Alternative B proposes to divest Lake Thibadeau 

from the Refuge System. Using the divestiture 

model for the Mountain–Prairie Region, the Service evaluated the habitat quality and the ability 

of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge to 

meet its purposes and support the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service owns 

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

acre approved acquisition boundary; the remaining area is private land encumbered by refuge and 

flowage easements.

The easements give the Service the right to 

manage the impoundments and the uses that occur 

on the water and to control hunting and trapping, 

but these easements do not prohibit development, 
APPENDIX A–Environmental Compliance 193

grazing, or agricultural uses. Due to upstream 

development in the watershed, the impoundments 

do not receive adequate water supplies and are 

often dry enough to be farmed. The surrounding 

uplands are also farmed or heavily grazed. This 

loss or lack of habitat is the basis for the Service’s 

decision to divest this refuge.

3. Salinity and Blowing Salts

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

for Lake Bowdoin in the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge. Alternatives B through E describe different 

processes for achieving the desired salinity concentration of 7,000 mg/L.

■ Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, would 

continue current management. 

■ Alternative B proposes to remove salts from Lake 

Bowdoin during the winter by pumping highly 

concentrated saline water via underground pipelines to evaporation ponds located in Dry Lake. 

These evaporation ponds would cover approximately 300 acres. The water in these ponds would 

evaporate during the summer to the consistency 

of a concentrated sludge material. The material 

would then be moved to a drying building located 

near the railroad line, where it would be loaded 

onto railcars and properly disposed of in an approved landfill site. Modeling showed that a water 

withdrawal rate of 800 acre-feet per year would 

be required to reach the desired salinity objective, 

removing about 7,000 tons of salt per year. It is 

estimated that the cost of this alternative would 

be $44 million with an annual cost of $2 million and 

would take up to 20 years to achieve the salinity 

objective.

■ Alternative C evaluated the effectiveness of flooding by Beaver Creek as the primary means to 

remove salts from Bowdoin Refuge. Historically, 

flooding by Beaver Creek played a major role in 

removing salts from the lake system and maintaining the salt balance. Many factors have changed, 

altering the flood frequency of Beaver Creek. Six 

management options were evaluated for the effectiveness of flooding on removal of salts for modeled flood-return frequencies of 10, 25, 50, and 100 

years. For all options, there would be a temporary 

reduction in salinity due to water entering Lake 

Bowdoin during a flood. However, if no water 

were flushed out of the lake, the long-term salinity concentrations would increase once the water 

level returned to normal. The time to reach the 

salinity objective for this alternative would likely 

be more than 100 years. Only the largest floods 

(100-year) would likely remove enough salt to 

freshen the system for several years following the 

event. Some improvement in plant diversity could 

occur if the reduced salinity concentrations were 

maintained for several years; however, absent another flood, salinity concentrations would return 

to unacceptable levels. The cost of implementing 

this alternative would depend on how many water 

level management structures and roads would 

need to be removed or modified to maximize the 

effects of natural flooding. 

■ Alternative D would use an underground injection 

well to force saline water deep into the ground, 

possibly more than 6,000 feet. Once the salinity 

objective was met and water in Lake Bowdoin 

met all applicable water quality standards, modifications to the lake’s infrastructure would be 

evaluated to determine the best way to recreate 

a flow-through system that maximized the effects 

of natural flooding. The injection well might need 

periodic operation once the salinity objective was 

met, if flooding did not naturally flush salts from 

the system or if more water was not available. 

The time to reach the salinity objective would be 

10–20 years with a water withdrawal rate of 800 

acre-feet per year and accepting all sources of 

water and salt to match historical management. 

The injection well would cost at least $6.7 million, 

with an estimated annual operating cost of at least 

$100,000. Additionally, there would be a Service 

employee assigned to maintaining and operating 

the injection well and to working with the necessary contractors.

■ In alternative E, a pipeline would carry saline 

water pumped from Lake Bowdoin to the Milk 

River. There are two locations for possible water 

discharge points: one west of Bowdoin Refuge and 

one east of the refuge. The distance to the Milk 

River at the western location would be considerably less than at the eastern location (4 miles 

compared with 14 miles); however, the western 

location would require easements across private 

property (from willing landowners). The quantity 

of water pumped to the Milk River would depend 

on the quantity of water flowing in the river. During high flows, more water could be pumped to the 

Milk River because there is more water to mix 

with the lake water. Similarly, during low flows, 

less water could be pumped to the Milk River to 

meet water quality guidelines. The time to reach 

the salinity objective would vary depending on 

flow rates and water quality in the Milk River. A 

10- to 20-year period could be expected. The costs 
194 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

to construct the pipeline would vary between $3 

and $9 million, depending on the route chosen. The 

annual operating cost is estimated at $100,000 per 

year. To discharge into the Milk River, an “authorization to degrade” permit would be required due 

to water quality issues. While possible to request 

such a permit, the State has never granted one; 

moreover, the Service would not want to degrade 

any water system. Without this permit, the Service would not be able to carry out this alternative 

and could not achieve the salinity objective.

Based on this assessment and comments received, I 

have selected the following preferred alternatives:

1. Alternative B for overall refuge complex management

2. Alternative B for divestiture of Lake Thibadeau 

National Wildlife Refuge divestiture 

3. Alternative D for salinity and blowing salts

These preferred alternatives were selected because 

they best meet the purposes for which the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex was established 

and are preferable to the “no-action” alternatives in 

light of physical, biological, economic, and social factors. These preferred alternatives will continue to 

provide public access for wildlife-dependent recreation at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation).

I find that the preferred alternative 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 from implementation of these preferred alternatives:

■ The preferred alternatives will not adversely 

impact endangered or threatened species or their 

habitat.

■ The preferred alternatives will not adversely impact archaeological or historical resources.

■ The preferred alternatives will not adversely impact wetlands nor does the plan call for structures 

that could be damaged by or that would significantly influence the movement of floodwater.

■ The preferred alternatives will 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.

Stephen D. Guertin Date

Regional Director, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, Colorado
Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

B.1 Refuge Complex Name

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex:

■ Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge

■ Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge

■ Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge

■ Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge

■ Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge

■ Bowdoin Wetland Management District

B.2 Dates Established

February 14, 1936

August 1, 1958

January 28, 1938

October 25, 1941

March 7, 1938

September 23, 1937

B.3 Establishing and 

Acquisition Authorities

7 U.S.C. § 1000, 1006, 1010–13, July 22, 1937 (Bankhead–Jones Farm Act)

16 U.S.C. § 715(d), Migratory Bird Conservation Act

16 U.S.C. § 718(c), Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Executive Order 7295, February 14, 1936

Executive Order 7713, September 23, 1937

Executive Order 7801, January 28, 1938

Executive Order 7833, March 7, 1938

Executive Order 8592, November 12, 1940

Executive Order 8924, October 25, 1941

Public Law 85–585, August 1, 1958

Secretarial Order 2843, November 17, 1959

B.4 Refuge Complex Purposes

The establishing and acquisition authorities set out 

the purposes for each unit of the refuge complex, as 

described below.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge

■ “As a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife; “[...] and that such part 

of said lands as the Secretary of Agriculture may 

deem proper be reserved for use as a shooting 

area to be operated under a cooperative agreement or lease with the Montana State Game Commission or such other operating agency as may 

be approved. The reservation of these lands as a 

migratory waterfowl refuge is subject to the use 

thereof by [the Department of the Interior] for irrigation and other incidental purposes.”Executive 

Order 7295, February 14, 1936

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife [...] subject to their use 

pursuant to the reclamation laws, and for the purpose of oil and gas development [...] and for purposes incidental thereto.” Executive Order 8592, 

November 12, 1940

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

Black Coulee National Wildlife 

Refuge

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes 

[...] wildlife conservation demonstration unit and 

closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” Three refuge and flowage easements, 1937–38

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” Executive Order 7801, 

January 28, 1938
196 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Creedman Coulee National 

Wildlife Refuge

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes 

[...] wildlife conservation demonstration unit and 

closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” Eight refuge and flowage easements, 1937–39

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” Executive Order 8924, 

October 25, 1941

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, flood control, stock water, migratory waterfowl and wildlife 

conservation purposes [...] and operate and maintain a closed refuge for migratory birds and other 

wildlife.” Section 16 land; revocable easement 

signed August 30, 1938

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes 

[...] wildlife conservation demonstration unit and 

closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” Two refuge and flowage easements, 1937–38

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife [...] nothing herein shall 

affect the disposition of the oil and gas deposits 

therein.” Executive Order 7833. March 7, 1938

■ For “purposes of a land conservation and land utilization program.” Bankhead–Jones Farm Tenant 

Act

■ For “use and administration under applicable laws 

as refuges for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Secretarial Order 2843, November 17, 1959

Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuge

■ For “water conservation, drought relief, and for 

migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes 

[...] wildlife conservation demonstration unit and 

closed refuge and reservation for migratory birds 

and other wildlife.” Thirteen refuge and flowage 

easements, 1937–38

■ As “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” Executive Order 7713, 

September 23, 1937

Bowdoin Wetland Management 

District

■ As “Waterfowl Production Areas subject to [...] 

all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] [...] except the inviolate sanctuary provisions.” Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp

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

B.6 National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.

B.7 Description of Uses

The following uses are evaluated for compatibility 

within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex:

■ Recreational hunting and trapping

■ Recreational fishing

■ Wildlife observation and noncommercial 

photography

■ Environmental education and interpretation

■ Cooperative farming, haying, and grazing

■ Commercial filming, commercial audio recording, 

and commercial still photography

■ Research and monitoring
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 197

Recreational Hunting and 

Trapping

In addition to the site-specific regulations mentioned 

below, the State hunting and trapping regulations apply to all Service-owned lands in the refuge complex. 

Hunters and trappers may only possess and use Service-approved, nontoxic shot loads on Service-owned 

lands, and vehicle travel and parking is restricted to 

public roads, pullouts, and parking areas. The refuge 

complex’s Web site and public use brochures provide 

guidance on site-specific regulations. The general 

hunting and trapping regulations are available from 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.

The CCP continues the hunting and trapping uses 

described for each unit below. In addition, the Service 

will add the following to improve recreational hunting 

opportunities within the refuge complex:

■ The eastern portion of Bowdoin Refuge will be 

closed to all foot traffic from the beginning of the 

waterfowl hunting season through November 30 

to provide continued sanctuary for waterfowl and 

shorebirds. Although the auto tour route remains 

open through this portion of the refuge, visitors 

need to remain inside their vehicles outside of the 

hunting areas.

■ On Black Coulee Refuge, the Service will improve 

public access to compatible wildlife-dependent 

activities, including hunting, by developing the 

entrance road and parking for the reservoir.

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. Public hunting of 

migratory birds (ducks, geese, coot, swan, sandhill 

crane, and mourning dove) and upland gamebirds 

(ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, greater 

sage-grouse, and gray partridge) is permitted on the 

western portion (approximately 40 percent) of Bowdoin Refuge excluding the railroad right-of-way and 

around the residences, shop, and maintenance areas, 

or where otherwise posted. Upland gamebird hunters 

must wear at least one item of blaze orange clothing 

above the waist.

Limited hunting of fox and coyote will be permitted through issuance of a special use permit from 

the refuge manager on Bowdoin Refuge. Trapping 

is by permit only. No leg-hold traps are permitted. 

Only centerfire rifles, rimfire rifles, or shotguns with 

Service-approved nontoxic shot are permitted.

Big game hunting is not permitted on Bowdoin 

Refuge. The refuge may not be used to access adjoining land, except the Pearce and Beaver Creek WPAs, 

for big game hunting. Using the refuge to access 

adjoining land to retrieve a big game animal is not allowed unless approved and the hunter is accompanied 

by a refuge employee or State game warden. Shooting from roads is prohibited. If hunters must retrieve 

dead or injured gamebirds from closed areas, they 

may not carry their firearms.

An accessible boat dock, a pier, and a parking 

area are available at the west boat launch on Lake 

Bowdoin. Hunters on Bowdoin Refuge are required 

to sign in and out at the hunter registration kiosk. 

Brochures with current public use regulations will 

be available at the registration kiosk and from the 

refuge’s Web site.

Since 2002, the portion of the refuge normally 

closed to hunting (along the eastern boundary) has 

been opened to upland gamebird hunting throughout 

the month of December, with the first 2 days of the 

special opening being limited to youth hunters only. 

Since waterfowl generally remain at Bowdoin Refuge 

until the wetlands freezeup, the opening of the lateseason, upland gamebird hunt is contingent on waterfowl being gone by November 30 to avoid further 

disturbance to these migratory birds.

Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge. A portion of 

the land within the refuge boundary is private land 

and hunters and trappers wishing to gain access to 

this inholding must get permission from the landowner. 

The refuge is otherwise open to trapping of furbearers and hunting of migratory birds (duck, goose, coot, 

swan, sandhill crane, and mourning dove), upland game 

(ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, greater 

sage-grouse, gray partridge, red fox, and coyote), and 

big game according to State regulations.

Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge. Most 

of the land within the refuge boundary is private 

land encumbered by a refuge or flowage easement. 

Hunters and trappers wishing to gain access must 

get permission from the landowner. The refuge is 

otherwise open to trapping of furbearers and hunting 

of migratory birds (duck, goose, coot, swan, sandhill 

crane, and mourning dove), upland game (pheasant, 

sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge, red fox, and coyote), and big game according 

to State regulations.

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge. A portion of 

the land within the refuge boundary is private land 

encumbered by refuge and flowage easement. Hunters and trappers wishing to gain access to these areas 

must get permission from the landowner. The refuge 

is otherwise open to trapping of furbearers and 

hunting of migratory birds (duck, goose, coot, swan, 

sandhill crane, and mourning dove), upland game 

(pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, 

gray partridge, red fox, and coyote), and big game according to State regulations.

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge. Most of 

the land within the refuge boundary is private land 

encumbered by refuge and flowage easements. Hunt-
198 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

ers wishing to gain access must get permission from 

the landowner. The refuge is otherwise open to trapping of furbearers and hunting of migratory birds 

(duck, goose, coot, swan, sandhill crane, and mourning dove), upland game (ring-necked pheasant, sharptailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge, 

red fox, and coyote), and big game according to State 

regulations.

Bowdoin Wetland Management District. Except 

for the Holm WPA, all waterfowl production areas 

within Bowdoin District are open to trapping of furbearers and hunting of migratory birds, upland game, 

furbearers, and big game. Big game hunting at the 

McNeil Slough WPA is restricted to archery, muzzleloader, and shotgun only. An accessible hunting and 

photography blind and parking area are provided at 

the Pearce WPA. Unless otherwise noted, all Service 

lands open to hunting and trapping are subject to 

State hunting regulations and seasons.

Availability of Resources

Existing programs such as current refuge directional 

signs and brochures will be updated with available 

resources. Maintenance of access roads, parking, 

hunting and information kiosks, and public use signs 

is closely tied to funding through the Service Asset 

Maintenance Management System. The refuge complex’s base funding will pay for the update and printing of existing and new brochures.

Additional law enforcement staff and resources 

may be required to (1) manage significant changes 

to the hunting program to minimize disturbance to 

wildlife and habitat, and (2) monitor compliance with 

public use and hunting regulations.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

The hunting and trapping program on Service lands 

in the refuge complex provides hunters ample quality 

hunting opportunities without materially detracting 

from the mission of the Refuge System and goals or 

establishing purposes of the refuge complex lands. 

Public use brochures and the refuge complex’s Web 

site will be kept up-to-date and made readily available to hunters. Hunter success and satisfaction will 

be monitored using the hunter registration kiosk 

sign-in sheet along with random contacts with hunters in the field and in the refuge complex office.

Hunting and trapping activities are considered by 

many to be legitimate, traditional, recreational uses 

of renewable natural resources. National wildlife refuges exist primarily to safeguard wildlife populations 

through habitat preservation. The word “refuge” 

includes the idea of providing a haven of safety for 

wildlife and, as such, hunting and trapping might 

seem an inconsistent use of the National Wildlife Refuge System. However, habitat that normally supports 

healthy wildlife populations, which produce harvestable surpluses, are renewable resources. As practiced 

on the Bowdoin Refuge Complex, hunting and trapping do not pose a threat to the wildlife populations 

and, in some instances, is necessary for sound wildlife 

management. By their very nature, hunting and 

trapping create a disturbance to wildlife and directly 

impact the individual animals being hunted. However, 

it is well recognized that these activities have given 

many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a 

better understanding of the importance of conserving 

their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the 

Refuge System mission. Furthermore, despite the potential impacts of hunting and trapping, a goal of the 

refuge complex is to provide opportunities for quality 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Hunting and trapping 

will be designed and monitored to offer a safe and 

quality program and to keep adverse effects within 

acceptable limits.

Although hunting and trapping directly impact 

the hunted species and may indirectly disturb other 

species, limits on harvest and access will ensure 

that populations do not fall to unsustainable levels. 

Closed areas on the refuge complex provide sanctuary to migratory birds. In some cases, hunting and 

trapping can be used as a management tool to control 

elevated populations that are having a negative effect 

on wildlife habitat. In particular, trapping can be used 

to remove animals that are damaging water management structures such as levees. Removing animals 

such as skunks and raccoons that will hunt for and 

kill nesting grassland birds (including waterfowl and 

their young) can increase production of these species, 

some of which are imperiled. 

Additional impacts from hunting activity include 

conflicts with individuals participating in wildlife-dependent, priority public uses such as wildlife observation and photography. Closing the eastern portion of 

Bowdoin Refuge to foot traffic during the migratory 

bird hunting season could lead to more crowding and 

conflicts between hunters and nonhunters. This could 

decrease the visitors’ satisfaction during the hunting 

season if different users are restricted to the same 

portions of the refuge. Additional staff time and resources are required to manage this program.

Determination

Recreational hunting and trapping are compatible 

uses on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ Visitors participating in recreational hunting will 

be provided the Service’s public use regulations, 
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 199

including site-specific regulations and the State’s 

hunting regulations.

■ Hunters will be required to use approved nontoxic 

shot for hunting migratory birds and upland gamebirds on Service-owned lands.

■ Trappers need to acquire special use permits to 

trap on Bowdoin Refuge. No leg-hold traps are 

permitted and, if practical, trappers will use live 

traps to ensure nontarget animals are not killed.

■ Trapping in open areas in Bowdoin District will 

follow State seasons and limits. 

■ Vehicles will be restricted to county and public 

roads and parking areas in the refuge complex.

■ Signage and brochures will be used to provide 

hunters information on where and how to hunt 

on the refuge complex to ensure compliance with 

public use regulations.

Justification

One of the secondary goals of the Refuge System is to 

provide opportunities, when found compatible, for the 

public to develop an understanding and appreciation 

for wildlife. Recreational hunting and trapping 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.

The use of trapping as a management tool can reduce the damage on infrastructure caused by burrowing 

furbearers and reduce the predation on migratory birds. 

Based on anticipated biological impacts described 

above and in the EA, the Service has determined that 

recreational hunting and trapping within the refuge 

complex will not interfere with the Service’s habitat 

goals and objectives or purposes for which the refuges and district were established. Limiting access 

and monitoring the use will help limit any adverse effects. Except for the Holm WPA, all lands and waters 

within the wetland management district are open to 

hunting in accordance with the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, under which they 

were acquired. In some cases, trapping will be by 

special use permit only. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2026.

Recreational Fishing

Recreational fishing is identified as a wildlife-dependent recreational use under the Improvement Act. 

The Service does not actively manage sport fisheries 

within the Bowdoin Refuge Complex, but recreational 

fishing opportunities are available at the McNeil 

Slough WPA (primarily in the Milk River) and the 

Beaver Creek WPA (primarily in Beaver Creek). The 

remaining wetlands within Bowdoin District have 

only minimal habitat or have high salinity levels, or 

both, and do not support a game fishery. The Bowdoin, Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, 

and Lake Thibadeau Refuges are closed to all fishing 

to provide refuge for migratory birds. Regardless, 

wetlands on these refuges do not support game fish 

due to high salinity levels or minimal or no permanent 

deepwater habitat.

Anglers have plenty of fishing opportunities 

within 10–100 miles of the refuge complex including 

the nearby Nelson Reservoir, Cole Ponds, Milk River, 

Missouri River, Fort Peck Lake, and stocked ponds 

on public and private lands.

The CCP does not call for the implementation of 

any new fishing programs.

Availability of Resources

The fishing program can be administered using current resources.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance 

to wildlife and trampling of vegetation along the bank 

of rivers and streams. Littering can also become a 

problem.

Determination

Recreational fishing is not a compatible use at the 

Bowdoin, Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt 

Lake, and Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuges.

Recreational fishing is a compatible use at waterfowl production areas throughout the Bowdoin Wetland Management District in accordance with State 

regulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ Visitors participating in recreational fishing will 

be provided the Service’s public use regulations 

and State fishing regulations and limits.

■ Vehicles will be restricted to county and public 

roads and parking areas on the waterfowl production areas.

■ Use of motorized boats is prohibited.
200 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

■ Boats, fishing equipment, and all other personal 

property must be removed at the end of each day.

Justification

Fishing is listed as a priority public use in the Improvement Act. Based on the biological effects 

addressed above and in the EA, the Service has determined that recreational fishing will not interfere 

with the habitat goals and objectives or purposes 

for establishment of the waterfowl production areas 

within the refuge complex.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2026.

Wildlife Observation and 

Noncommercial Photography

Wildlife observation and photography are identified 

as wildlife-dependent recreational uses under the Improvement Act. All lands within the Bowdoin Refuge 

Complex are open to these activities although portions of the Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt 

Lake, and Lake Thibadeau Refuges are private land, 

and visitors must get permission from the landowners 

to access those areas.

Bowdoin Refuge provides a 15-mile auto tour 

route with accompanying interpretive brochure and 

observation pullouts as well as an accessible photo 

blind and observation deck on the Display Pond Trail. 

Pearce WPA provides an accessible blind with parking and a boardwalk. The refuge complex provides 

interpretive brochures and panels, which allow selfguided access to the Bowdoin Refuge, and a bird list 

that can be used throughout the refuge complex. 

Public roads, trails, and photography blinds will 

be maintained as needed. Walk-in access is allowed 

anywhere on Bowdoin Refuge and Bowdoin District 

except on the railroad right-of-way and around the 

residences, shop, and maintenance areas, or where 

otherwise posted.

Access to the privately owned portions of the 

Lake Thibadeau, Creedman Coulee, Black Coulee 

and Hewitt Lake Refuges is by landowner permission only.

The CCP will continue the above wildlife observation and noncommercial photography uses and add 

the following to improve opportunities for these uses:

❏ An accessible wildlife observation site and expanded parking area will be added at stop number 5 along the auto tour route. Two permanent 

spotting scopes and interpretive panels will be 

added. At least one spotting scope will be set at 

a level accessible to visitors in wheelchairs and 

small children. The panels will describe the natural history of the birds and the area.

❏ The Service will close the east end of Bowdoin 

Refuge to all foot traffic at the start of the waterfowl-hunting season at least through November 30, or until waterfowl depart the refuge, to 

provide sanctuary areas for primarily migratory 

waterfowl and shorebirds. The auto tour route 

will be open but visitors will remain on the auto 

tour route in designated sanctuary areas.

Availability of Resources

Implementing new facilities outlined in the CCP is 

closely tied to funding requests submitted as visitor 

facility enhancement projects through the Service 

Asset Maintenance Management System. Existing 

programs such as directional signs and brochures can 

be updated with available resources.

Additional staff and resources are required to 

manage the increased use to minimize disturbance 

to wildlife and habitat and to educate photographers 

and wildlife observers about the local resources and 

proper wildlife-viewing and photography etiquette.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Guided tours of the refuge complex could potentially 

increase wildlife disturbance, but the presence of 

Service employees will keep this impact to a minimum, and this opportunity can be used to educate all 

attendees on proper wildlife-viewing and photography etiquette. Increased visitation can also lead to 

other short-term impacts such as increased litter and 

trampled vegetation.

The added wildlife observation area along the auto 

tour will provide more opportunities to see birds and 

other wildlife but from longer distances, for minimal 

disturbance. A small concrete pad and spotting scope 

will be added to an expanded pulloff to accommodate 

additional vehicles. The expansion and additions will 

be minimal and should not cause any impacts.

Sanctuary will be provided for migrating waterfowl and other waterbirds during the waterfowlhunting season at Bowdoin Refuge. Conflicts between 

hunters and nonhunters may increase during the 

hunting season due to closure of the eastern portion 

of the refuge to foot traffic. Nonhunter satisfaction 

may decrease due to a reduction in access opportunities. Hunter satisfaction may decrease due to an increase in wildlife disturbance within the hunting zone.
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 201

Determination

Wildlife observation and noncommercial photography 

are compatible uses on the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ Visitors participating in wildlife observation and 

photography must follow all public use regulations. Guided tours will be held where minimal 

impact to habitat and wildlife would occur.

■ Non-Service vehicles will be restricted to county 

and public access roads in the refuge complex.

■ Viewing areas will be designed to minimize disturbance impacts to wildlife and all refuge resources 

while providing a good opportunity to view wildlife in their natural environments. Visitors using 

permanent or portable observation and photography blinds will be provided with information 

on proper use and etiquette of these structures to 

minimize disturbance to wildlife and their natural 

environments and other refuge complex visitors.

Justification

One of the secondary goals of the Refuge System is to 

provide opportunities, when found compatible, for the 

public to develop an understanding and appreciation for 

wildlife. Wildlife observation and photography are identified as priority public uses in the Improvement Act 

and will help meet the above secondary goal with only 

minimal conflicts. Wildlife observation and photography 

can instill, in citizens of all ages, a greater appreciation 

for wildlife and its habitat. This appreciation may extend 

to the Refuge System and other conservation agencies.

Based on anticipated biological impacts described 

above and in the EA, the Service has determined that 

wildlife observation and noncommercial photography 

within the refuge complex will not interfere with the 

Service’s habitat goals and objectives or purposes for 

which the refuges and district were established. Limiting access and monitoring the uses could help limit 

any adverse effects.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2026.

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation

Environmental education and interpretation are identified as wildlife-dependent recreational uses under 

the Improvement Act. All lands within the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex remain open to these activities. 

These programs have been opportunistic as time and 

staff allow. Interpretive panels and brochures will be 

maintained and updated to reflect changes in information or policy and to meet the Service’s graphic 

standards. Portions of the Black Coulee, Creedman 

Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau Refuges 

are private land, and visitors must get permission 

from the landowners to access these areas.

The CCP will 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 Bowdoin Refuge Complex. Additional interpretive 

panels will be developed for the refuge complex 

and an accessible observation site with spotting 

scopes will be developed along the auto tour 

route at Bowdoin Refuge. The mammal, reptile, 

and amphibian lists will be updated for the refuge complex and a brochure will be developed.

❏ The Service will develop a Friends group and 

work with the Malta Chamber of Commerce and 

Phillips County Historical Society to develop 

informational kiosks and interpretive displays 

for the refuge complex that will be placed in the 

town of Malta.

Many of these actions are contingent on recruiting 

a visitor services specialist to develop and carry out 

these additional programs.

Availability of Resources

Environmental education and interpretation activities, directional signs, and brochures will be mainly 

funded by annual operation and maintenance money. 

Funding from other sources such as grants, regional 

project proposals, challenge cost-share agreements, 

and other temporary sources will also be sought and 

used as they become available.

Funding requests for new facilities will be submitted as visitor facility enhancement projects through 

the Service Asset Maintenance Management System.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

The use of the refuge complex for onsite activities by 

groups of teachers and students for environmental 

education or interpretation may impose a short-term, 

low-level impact on the immediate and surrounding 

area. Impacts may include trampling of vegetation 
202 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

and temporary disturbance to nearby wildlife species 

during the activities.

Refuge complex brochures, interpretive panels, 

and other educational materials will be updated as 

needed to meet Service requirements. Features such 

as the auto tour route and accessible observation sites 

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 education 

programs. Working with the Friends group and other 

local groups, the Service will provide environmental 

education and interpretation onsite and off Service 

lands. Presentations will be provided to refuge visitors, school groups, and organizations, allowing the 

Service to reach a broader audience. Onsite presentations will be managed to minimize disturbance to 

wildlife, habitat, and cultural resources.

Determination

Environmental education and interpretation are 

compatible uses on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ Visitors participating in environmental education and interpretation programs must follow all 

Service regulations. Onsite activities will be held 

where minimal impact to wildlife and habitats 

would occur.

■ The Service will review new environmental education and interpretation activities to ensure activities meet program objectives and are compatible.

Justification

One of the secondary goals of the Refuge System is 

to provide opportunities, when found compatible, 

for the public to develop an understanding and appreciation for wildlife. Environmental education and 

interpretation are identified as priority public uses in 

the Improvement Act and will help meet the above 

secondary goal with only minimal conflicts. Environmental education and interpretation will be used to 

encourage an understanding in citizens of all ages to 

act responsibly in protecting wildlife and its habitat. 

These are tools used in building a land ethic, developing support of the refuge complex, and decreasing 

wildlife violations.

Environmental education is an important tool for 

the refuge complex to provide visitors with an awareness of its purposes, values, and specific issues such 

as wetland ecology, water quality, impacts of nonnative species, and migratory bird management. This 

tool will also provide visitors and students a greater 

understanding of the mission and importance of the 

Refuge System to the American people.

Based on anticipated biological impacts described 

above and in the EA, the Service has determined that 

environmental education and interpretation on the 

refuge complex will not interfere with the Service’s 

habitat goals and objectives or purposes for which the 

refuges and district were established. Limiting access 

and monitoring the uses will help reduce any adverse 

effects.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2026.

Cooperative Farming, Haying, 

and Grazing

The Service will use cooperative farming, haying, and 

prescriptive livestock grazing 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.

Farming and Haying. The Bowdoin Refuge and 

Bowdoin District currently use cooperative farming 

and haying as tools to manage upland habitats, including control of invasive plant species and cattails. 

The Service will enter into an agreement with a local 

landowner to (1) help restore cropland and poor quality habitat to quality grassland habitat for wildlife 

or (2) cut and remove DNC to rejuvenate vegetation 

growth. A farming cooperator will be issued a cooperative farming agreement or special use permit by 

the refuge manager and will be allowed to till seed, 

harvest small grain, control invasive plants, or harvest hay on Service-owned lands. The agreement 

generally will be issued for a 2- to 4-year management 

prescription.

Cooperative farming of Service lands is usually 

done on a share basis where the Service and the cooperator each receive a share of the crop. The Service 

will retain its share as standing cover for wildlife forage or in exchange for additional work from the cooperator such as invasive plant control, grass seeding, 

or provision of supplies such as herbicides and fence 

materials for habitat protection and improvement on 

the management unit. Any fees or cash income received by the Service will be deposited in the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Account.
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 203

The CCP provides for cooperative farming and 

haying to manage habitats by establishing goals and 

objectives for specific habitat types where these 

activities may be used. The Service has identified 

target wildlife species (for example, northern pintail 

and Sprague’s pipit), their habitat requirements, and 

objectives that guide management to achieve the 

habitat needs of these species.

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.

Grazing. The refuge complex currently uses prescriptive livestock grazing as a tool to manage a 

variety of uplands and seasonal wetlands. Grazing 

by livestock has been a preferred management tool 

because the effect on habitat is controllable and measurable. Livestock grazing has been used in a variety of ways including high intensity–short duration, 

rest rotation, and complete rest. Grazing may occur 

throughout the year as management needs dictate. 

Where applicable, a rotation schedule using multiple 

grazing units will be used to manage grazing intensity.

Fencing and controlling livestock is the responsibility of the cooperating rancher. The Service provides instruction and guidance within the special use 

permit for placement of fences, water tanks, and livestock supplements to ensure that sensitive habitats 

or refuge complex assets are protected. A temporary 

electrical fence can be used where there is no existing fence. Forage conditions, habitat objectives, and 

available water will determine stocking rates in each 

grazing unit. Two stockwater wells exist on the eastern part of Bowdoin Refuge but need rehabilitation 

before they can be used again by livestock.

The CCP provides for 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 Service has identified target wildlife species (for example, northern pintail and Sprague’s 

pipit), their habitat requirements, and objectives that 

guide the prescriptive grazing program to achieve the 

habitat needs of these species. 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 determine the best 

methods for meeting the habitat goals and objectives.

Availability of Resources

Existing resources are sufficient to administer the 

farming, haying, and grazing programs at current levels. These programs will be conducted through special use permits or cooperative farming agreements, 

which minimizes the need for staff time and Service 

assets to complete work. A refuge complex biologist 

will be needed to plan and oversee monitoring and 

research of to assess the impacts and effectiveness 

of these management programs. One temporary biological technician will be necessary to carry out the 

on-the-ground monitoring.

Rehabilitation of existing stockwater wells and 

drilling of additional wells in strategic locations will 

increase the effectiveness of the grazing program and 

reduce the impacts caused by livestock watering in 

wetlands and canals and by cooperators hauling water to grazing cells on a daily basis.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

The cooperative farming and haying program and 

prescriptive livestock-grazing program will be used 

to meet habitat- and species-specific goals and objectives identified in the CCP. These programs are 

intended to maintain and enhance habitat conditions 

for the benefit of a wide variety of migratory birds 

and other wildlife that use the refuge complex. Minimal negative effects are expected through the use of 

these tools. Control of invasive plant species through 

these programs will be a long-term benefit.

Some wildlife disturbance will occur during the operation of noisy farming equipment, 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 lessen the need for chemical use.

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, Burke et al. 2005). Hoof action may 

break up mats of clubmoss and allow native plant 

seeds to become established. However, cattle grazing 

will also increase the risk of invasive plants getting 

established. If fences are not maintained, it may be 

difficult to meet habitat objectives. 

The presence of livestock may be disturbing to 

some wildlife species and some public users. Some 

trampling by livestock may occur around watering 

areas or mineral licks. Grazing in the spring could 

have adverse effects on grassland bird nests due to 

trampling and loss of vegetation. However, the longterm benefits of this habitat management tool should 

outweigh the short-term negative effects.
204 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Determination

Cooperative farming, haying, and grazing as a habitat 

management tools are compatible uses on Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ To ensure 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 minimize impacts to nesting birds and other 

wildlife, the refuge manager 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 August 1 to avoid destroying bird nests on 

the management unit unless the refuge manager 

deems it necessary to hay earlier to control invasive plants or restore grasslands.

■ The cooperative farming agreement or special use 

permit will specify the type of crop to be planted. 

Farming permittees will be required to use Service-approved chemicals that are less detrimental 

to wildlife and the environment.

■ Control and confinement of livestock are the responsibility of the permittee, but the Service determines where fences, water tanks, and livestock 

supplements are placed within the management 

unit. Temporary electrical fencing will be used to 

retain livestock within grazing cells as well as to 

protect sensitive habitat areas and refuge complex 

assets such as water control structures or water 

quality–monitoring wells. Cooperators will be required to remove fences at the end of the grazing 

season.

■ Grazing fees will be based on the current-year 

USDA Statistics Board publication for “Grazing 

Fee Rates for Cattle by Selected States and Regions,” as provided annually by the regional office. 

Standard deductions for labor associated with the 

grazing permit will be included on the special use 

permit.

■ The refuge complex will carry out a vegetationmonitoring program to assess if habitat requirements of target species are being met. A minimum 

of one temporary biological technician will be necessary to monitor and document these activities. A 

biologist will be necessary to plan and oversee the 

monitoring program and assess the impacts and 

effectiveness of these management programs.

Justification

Some habitat management needs to occur to maintain 

and enhance habitat for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. When properly managed and monitored, prescriptive farming and haying are options that can be 

used to improve wildlife cover and restore disturbed 

habitats to desirable grassland cover. Prescriptive 

livestock grazing can rejuvenate native grasses and 

help control the spread of some invasive plant species. Each of these tools will be controlled and the 

results monitored (for example, vegetation monitoring) so that adjustments in the programs are made to 

meet habitat goals and objectives.

Using local cooperators to accomplish the work will 

be a cost-effective method to accomplish the habitat objectives. The long-term benefits of habitat restoration 

and management far outweigh the short-term impacts 

caused by cooperative farming, haying, and grazing.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2021.

Commercial Filming, 

Commercial Audio Recording, 

and Commercial Still 

Photography

Commercial filming is the digital or film recording of a 

visual image with or without sound. Commercial audio 

recording is the recording of sound. Commercial still 

photography is the capture of a still image on film or 

in a digital format—by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience such as for a documentary, 

television, feature film, advertisement, or similar project. It does not include news coverage or visitor use.

Bowdoin Refuge Complex provides tremendous 

opportunities for commercial filming, commercial 

audio recording, and commercial still photography 

of migratory birds and other wildlife. Each year, the 

refuge complex staff receives one to three requests to 

conduct these commercial activities on Service lands.

The staff will evaluate each request on an individual basis, and, if the use is allowed, the requesting individual or group will be issued a special use 

permit. The permit will designate what areas may be 

accessed and what activities are and are not allowed 
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 205

to minimize the possibility of damage to cultural or 

natural resources or interference with other visitors 

(refer to “Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility”). Permittees will be able to access all areas of 

the refuge complex that are open to the public and 

must abide by all public use regulations. In rare cases 

and through the special use permit process, the Service may permit access to areas closed to the public.

Availability of Resources

These commercial uses could be administered with current resources. Administrative costs for review of applications, issuance of special use permits, and staff time 

to conduct compliance checks may be offset by a fee 

system described in a proposed rule that would modify 

the commercial filming and still photography policy for 

agencies within the Department of the Interior.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Wildlife filmmakers and photographers tend to create 

the greatest disturbance of all wildlife observers (Dobb 

1998, Klein 1993, Morton 1995). While observers frequently stop to view wildlife, photographers are more 

likely to approach the animals (Klein 1993). Even a slow 

approach by photographers tends to have behavioral 

consequences to wildlife (Klein 1993). Photographers 

often remain close to wildlife for extended periods 

in an attempt to habituate the subject to their presence (Dobb 1998). Furthermore, photographers with 

low-power lenses tend to get much closer to their subjects (Morton 1995). This usually results in increased 

disturbance to wildlife as well as to habitat (trampling 

of plants). Handling of animals and disturbing vegetation (such as cutting plants and removing flowers) or 

cultural artifacts is prohibited on Service lands.

Issuance of special use permits with strict guidelines and followup by refuge complex staff for compliance could help minimize or avoid these impacts. 

Permittees who do not follow the stipulations of their 

special use permits could have their permits revoked, 

and further applications for filming or photographing 

on refuge complex lands will be denied.

Determination

Commercial filming, commercial audio recording, and 

commercial still photography are compatible uses on 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility

■ These commercial uses must (1) demonstrate a 

means to extend public appreciation and understanding of wildlife or natural habitats; (2) enhance education, appreciation, and understanding 

of the Refuge System; or (3) facilitate outreach 

and education goals of the refuge complex. Failure 

to demonstrate any of these criteria will result in 

denial of a special use permit request.

■ All commercial filming and commercial audio 

recording requires a special use permit that (1) 

identifies conditions that protect the refuge complex’s values, purposes, resources, and public 

health and safety and (2) prevents 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 is not allowed, establishing time limitations, 

and identifying routes of access. These conditions 

will be identified to prevent excessive disturbance 

to wildlife, damage to habitat or refuge complex 

infrastructure, or conflicts with other visitor services or management activities. The special use 

permit will stipulate that imagery produced on 

refuge complex lands be made available for use in 

environmental education and interpretation, outreach, internal documents, or other suitable uses. 

In addition, any commercial products must include 

appropriate credits to the Bowdoin Refuge Complex, the Refuge System, and the Service.

■ Commercial still photography requires a special 

use permit (with specific conditions as previously 

outlined for filming and audio recording) if one or 

more of the following would occur:

❏ It takes place at locations where or when members of the public are not allowed.

❏ It uses models, sets, or props that are not part 

of the location’s natural or cultural resources or 

administrative facilities.

❏ The Service incurs additional administrative 

costs to monitor the activity.

❏ The Service provides management and oversight to (1) avoid impairment of the resources 

and values of the site, (2) limit resource damage, 

or (3) minimize health and safety risks to the 

visiting public.

■ To minimize the impact on Service lands and resources, the refuge complex staff will ensure that 

commercial filmmakers, commercial audio recorders, and commercial still photographers (regardless of whether a special use permit is issued) 

comply with policies, rules, and regulations. The 

staff will monitor and assess the activities of filmmakers, audio recorders, and still photographers.
206 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Justification

Commercial filming, commercial audio recording, and 

commercial still photography are economic uses that, 

to be considered compatible uses, must contribute to 

the achievement of the refuge complex purposes, mission of the Refuge System, or the mission of the Service. Providing opportunities for these uses should 

result in an increased public awareness of the refuge 

complex’s ecological importance as well as advancing 

the public’s knowledge and support for the Refuge 

System and the Service. The stipulations outlined 

previously and conditions imposed in the special use 

permits issued to commercial filmmakers, commercial 

audio recorders, and commercial still photographers 

will ensure that these wildlife-dependent activities 

occur with minimal adverse effects to resources or 

visitors.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2021.

Research and Monitoring

The Bowdoin Refuge Complex receives one to three 

requests each year to conduct scientific research or 

monitoring on Service lands. The Service will give 

priority to studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of 

the refuge complex’s native plant, fish, and wildlife 

populations and their habitats. Non-Service applicants must submit a proposal that outlines the following:

■ Objectives of the study

■ Justification for the study

■ Detailed methodology and schedule

■ Potential impacts on wildlife and habitat including short- and long-term disturbance, injury, or 

mortality

■ Description of measures the researcher will take 

to reduce disturbance or impacts

■ Staff required and their qualifications and experience

■ Status of necessary permits such as scientific collection permits and endangered species permits

■ Costs to the Service including staff time requested, if any

■ Anticipated progress reports and end products 

such as reports or publications

Refuge complex staff or others, as appropriate, will 

review research proposals case-by-case and issue special use permits if approved. Criteria for evaluation 

includes, but is not be limited to, the following:

■ Research that would contribute to specific refuge 

complex management issues will be given priority 

over other requests.

■ Research that would conflict with other ongoing 

research, monitoring, or management programs 

will not be approved.

■ Research that would cause undue disturbance 

or be intrusive will likely not be approved. The 

degree and type of disturbance will be carefully 

weighed when evaluating a research request.

Proposals will be evaluated to determine if any effort 

was made to minimize disturbance through study 

design including adjusting location, timing, number 

of permittees, study methods, and number of study 

sites. The length of the project will be considered and 

agreed on before approval.

Availability of Resources

Current resources are adequate to administer the research and monitoring on a very limited basis. A refuge 

complex biologist will be necessary to administer large 

and long-term projects, which generally require more 

indepth evaluation of applications, management of permits, and to provide oversight of research projects. The 

biologist will identify research and monitoring needs 

and work with other Service staff, universities, and scientists to develop studies that benefit the refuge complex and address the goals and objectives in the CCP.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Some degree of disturbance is expected with all research activities, since researchers may use Service 

roads or enter areas that are closed to the public. 

In addition, some research may require collection 

of samples or handling of wildlife. However, minimal impact on wildlife and habitats is expected with 

research studies, because special use permits will 

include conditions to ensure that impacts to wildlife 

and habitats are kept to a minimum.

Determination

Research and monitoring are compatible uses on 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
APPENDIX B–Compatibility Determinations 207

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

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 managers. Projects will be reviewed annually.

■ Refuge complex staff will use the previous criteria 

for evaluating and determining whether to approve a proposed study. If research methods are 

determined to have potential impacts on habitat 

or wildlife, it must be demonstrated that the research is necessary for conservation of resources 

on the refuge complex. Measures to minimize potential impacts will be developed and included as 

part of the study design; these measures will be 

conditions on the special use permit.

■ Refuge complex staff will monitor research activities for compliance with conditions of the special 

use permit. At any time, refuge complex staff may 

accompany the researchers to determine potential impacts. Staff may determine that previously 

approved research and special use permits be 

terminated due to observed impacts. The refuge 

manager can cancel a special use permit if the researcher is out of compliance or to ensure wildlife 

and habitat protection.

Justification

Potential impacts of research activities on refuge 

complex resources will be minimized through restrictions included as part of the study design, and 

research activities will be monitored by the refuge 

complex staff. Results of research projects will contribute to the understanding, enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of the refuge 

complex’s wildlife populations and their habitats.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2021.

B.8 Signatures

Submitted by:

Carmen Luna, Project Leader Date

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Malta, Montana

Reviewed by:

W. Dean Rundle, Refuge Supervisor Date

 Date

August 30, 2011

August 30, 2011

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mountain–Prairie Region

National Wildlife Refuge System

Lakewood, Colorado

Approved by:

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. 

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: Carmen Luna Date Submitted: July 29, 2011 

Telephone Number: 406-654-2863 

I. Service Program and Geographic Area or Station Name: Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge (Phillips County)

Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge (Blaine County)

Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge (Hill County)

Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Phillips County)

Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge (Hill County)

Bowdoin Wetland Management District (Blaine, Hill, Phillips, and Valley counties)

II. Flexible Funding Program (e.g., Joint Venture, etc.) if applicable: N/A

III. Location: Location of the project including county, State and TSR (township, section and range):

See attached map (page 3) in accompanying comprehensive conservation plan (CCP).

IV. Species/Critical Habitat: List federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species or 

designated or proposed critical habitat that may occur within the action area. 

Species Status Relevance Critical Habitat

Sprague’s pipit Candidate Documented on 

Bowdoin Refuge

None

Piping plover Threatened Has been known to migrate 

through Bowdoin Refuge 

(last nested in 1999)

Bowdoin Refuge

Whooping crane Endangered Never documented None

Black-footed ferret Endangered and 

experimental nonessential population

Never documented None

Pallid sturgeon Endangered Never documented None

Greater sage-grouse Candidate Hewitt and Bowdoin Refuges, 

Bowdoin District

None

Interior least tern Endangered Never documented None

V. Project Description: Describe proposed project or action or, if referencing other documents, prepare 

 an executive summary (attach additional pages as needed)

This proposed action is to implement the goals, objectives, and strategies of the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the next 15 years, while fulfilling the 

goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The CCP proposes to conserve natural resources by restoring, protecting, and enhancing native 

mixed-grass prairie and maintaining quality wetland habitat for target migratory and resident birds 
210 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

within the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex (refuge complex). The Sprague’s pipit, piping 

plover, and greater sage-grouse have each been selected as target species for management and 

monitoring. 

Although not abundant, greater sage-grouse has been documented on Bowdoin Refuge and Beaver 

Creek, McNeil Slough, Hewitt Lake, and Korsbeck Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs). The 

Service would monitor greater sage-grouse population levels and trends. Sage-grouse habitat would 

be identified throughout the refuge complex and maintained or enhanced. Silver sagebrush would 

be planted on the Korsbeck and Beaver Creek WPAs to provide additional breeding, nesting, and 

feeding habitat for sage-grouse. Public hunting of upland game birds (ring-necked pheasant, sharptailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, gray partridge), would continue throughout the refuge complex in 

designated areas and according to state seasons and limits. 

Sprague’s pipits arrive at Bowdoin Refuge in late April and begin nesting in mid-May. The CCP 

is proposing to enhance breeding and nesting habitat for the pipit and other target grassland 

nesting birds including restoring large blocks of contiguous grassland habitat by removing Russian 

olive trees and non-native and invasive shrubs. These trees have not only fragmented habitat 

but increased predation of ground nesting birds. Research would be conducted to control crested 

wheatgrass and clubmoss that unnaturally dominate grassland areas, primarily due to overgrazing, 

historically. In all cases, treated areas would be restored and monitored, including the response of 

target species. The Service would use prescriptive grazing, fire, and haying to control invasive and 

noxious species and restore and enhance grassland habitat. Bird use and climate history would be 

monitored prior to implementing any of these actions; particularly when using prescribed fire in this 

arid climate. 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge (Bowdoin Refuge) is located on the extreme western edge of the 

breeding range for the northern Great Plains population of the piping plover. Bowdoin Refuge has 

3,325 acres of designated critical habitat. The piping plover has not nested on the refuge since 1999, 

when 9 nests were documented. There has been migrating piping plover documented on Bowdoin 

Refuge in some years, most recently in 2011. It is suspected that a lack of water to manage the 

preferred nesting area and the presence of trees, particularly Russian olive trees, have discouraged 

plovers from nesting on the refuge. The CCP is proposing to address these and other habitat 

management concerns including removing trees from around Piping Plover Pond. In addition, the 

Service would work with other agencies to acquire additional water resources and improve the 

current water delivery system, primarily to Piping Plover Pond. This should allow the Service to 

better manage or increase piping plover habitat on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge.

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

or eradicated throughout the refuge complex. In particular, the Service would expand efforts to 

remove Russian olive trees to restore contiguous, treeless, grassland areas. In addition, the control of 

invasive grass and forb species would improve habitat quality by restoring native plant diversity and 

structure. 

Divest Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge

The Service owns less than 1 percent of the lands within the 3,868-acre approved acquisition 

boundary; the remaining area is private land encumbered by refuge and flowage easements. The 

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

water and to control hunting and trapping. These easements do not prohibit development, grazing, or 

agricultural uses. These rights were retained by the landowner. These listed species have never been 

documented using this refuge. 

Due to upstream development in the watershed, the impoundments do not receive adequate water 

supplies and are often dry enough to be farmed. The surrounding uplands are also farmed or heavily 
APPENDIX C –Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 211

grazed. Using the divestiture model for the Mountain–Prairie Region, the Service evaluated the 

habitat quality and ability of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge to meet its purposes and 

support the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Due to this lack of habitat and current land 

uses, the model recommended this refuge be considered for divestiture. 

Salinity and Blowing Salts

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

from Beaver Creek, ground water seepage, water deliveries from the Milk River Project, and 

irrigation return flows. The last three sources of water add dissolved solids (salinity) to the refuge. 

In addition, the refuge is underlain by glacial till and shale containing high concentrations of soluble 

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

wetland water quality. As water evaporates from Lake Bowdoin’s closed system, salts have become 

concentrated and water salinity has increased. If no action is taken to improve water quality on the 

refuge, the progressively increasing salinity levels in Lake Bowdoin and the blowing salts out of Dry 

Lake will continue to threaten migratory birds, other wildlife, wetland habitats, and, potentially, 

neighboring landowners and downstream irrigators.

The Service evaluated five alternatives to address this issue. The proposed action is to construct an 

injection well and recreate a flow through system. An underground injection well would be used to 

force saline water deep into the ground, between 3,500–6,000 feet. Once the salinity objective was met 

and water in Lake Bowdoin met all applicable water quality standards, as determined by Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality, modifications to the lake’s infrastructure would be evaluated 

to determine the best way to recreate a flow-through system that maximized the effects of natural 

flooding. If natural flooding did not occur or more water to be supplied from the Milk River was not 

granted, the injection well could be used periodically to maintain salinity at an acceptable level. 

VI. Determination of Effects: 

A. Description of Effects: Describe the action(s) that may affect the species and critical habitats 

listed in item IV. Your rationale for the Section 7 determinations made below (B) should be 

fully described here.

The proposals to restore and enhance grassland and wetland habitat, including acquiring 

additional deliveries of water, should increase desirable habitat for the Sprague’s pipit, 

piping plover, and greater sage-grouse, all of which have or did occur on the refuge complex. 

Recreating large, contiguous blocks of grassland habitat on Bowdoin Refuge should increase 

the nesting success and brood survival of these species. 

Restoring silver sagebrush habitat to waterfowl production areas, where greater sage-grouse 

occur, should provide expanded areas of nesting and feeding habitat, increasing the survival 

of this candidate species. 

Divesting Lake Thibadeau Refuge should not have any impact on any of these listed species. 

Not only is there no suitable habitat for these species, but they have never been documented 

on this refuge. 

The proposed injection well site on Bowdoin Refuge will be placed in an area that will have 

the least impact. In addition, except for the initial construction, there should be minimal 

disturbance to any wildlife as a result of operating the injection well. Any noise from the 

pump would be reduced using a silencing device. The reduced salinity levels will improve 

habitat and survival of wetland dependent wildlife species. 
212 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

B. Determination: Determine the anticipated effects of the proposed project on species and 

critical habitats listed in item IV. 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. (pallid sturgeon, interior least 

tern, whooping crane, black-footed ferret)

X

May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect: This determination is 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. (Piping plover, Sprague’s pipit, greater sagegrouse)

X

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 

 Carmen Luna, Refuge Manager

 Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

 Malta, MT
APPENDIX C –Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 213

Signature Date 

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

Ecological Services

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Helena, MT

 R. Mark Wilson, Ecological Services Supervisor, 

 Ecological Services

 Helena, MT

Appendix D

Divestiture Model Results for 

Lake Thibadeau Refuge

During the CCP process, the Service identified Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge as a candidate for 

removal from the National Wildlife Refuge System 

through divestiture (the selling or release of Service 

interests). The refuge was evaluated by the planning 

team, regional office, and the refuge manager to determine whether it warranted continued status as a 

national wildlife refuge. Based on the analysis, the 

Service is recommending that Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge be considered for divestiture.

This 3,840-acre limited-interest refuge is primarily private land encumbered by flowage and refuge 

easements acquired by the Government in the 1930s. 

The Service has the right to impound water, control 

uses that occur on that water, and control hunting and 

trapping. The Service does not have rights to control 

uses of the uplands or natural wetland basins; these 

rights would require additional easements or purchase of the land from a willing seller. The 19.4-acre 

fee-title area is land reserved from public domain by 

the Bureau of Land Management.

The analysis of Lake Thibadeau Refuge used the 

Service’s Mountain–Prairie Region evaluation model 

to determine whether to recommend the refuge for 

divestiture. The divestiture model is a set of criteria 

for measuring the value of a refuge based primarily 

on its purposes and the goals of the Refuge System. 

Designed as a pre-planning tool, the model allows 

planners and refuge managers to determine whether 

a refuge or easement refuge should be considered 

for divestiture. Since use of the model indicated that 

Lake Thibadeau Refuge should be considered for 

divestiture, the process and consequences of divestiture were analyzed further during the CCP process 

and documented in chapter 3 of the draft CCP and 

EA.

D.1 The Divestiture Model

Mountain–Prairie Region staff developed the divestiture model during a 2-day workshop held December 14–15, 2004, at the regional office in Lakewood, 

Colorado. The model standardizes policy in the Mountain–Prairie Region for identifying which refuges to 

consider for divestiture.

The divestiture model comprises primary criteria 

(five questions), secondary criteria (three questions), 

additional considerations, and five rules (to organize 

answers to criteria questions for determination of 

whether to consider divestiture). For each criteria 

question, the answer related to Lake Thibadeau 

National Wildlife Refuge is stated and followed by a 

justification.

Primary Criteria

The following five questions compose the primary 

criteria for evaluating a national wildlife refuge for 

divestiture.

1. Does the refuge achieve one or more 

of the goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System?

Answer: No. According to the rules of this model, if 

the refuge does not achieve one or more goals of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, it should automatically be recommended for divestiture.

Justification: Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge does not meet the goals of the Refuge System as 

set by Service policy—National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals and Refuge Purposes (June 20, 

2006):

A. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

B. Develop and maintain a network of habitats for 

migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is 

strategically distributed and carefully managed to 

meet important life history needs of these species 

across their ranges.

C. Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, 

wetlands of national or international significance, 

and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, 
216 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing 

protection efforts.

D. Provide and enhance opportunities to participate 

in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation).

E. Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

The refuge is a reservoir created by a dam in the 

middle of an arid landscape. It provides little migratory bird habitat, because the watersheds up stream 

of the reservoir have been heavily developed since its 

establishment, capturing most of the water. With the 

absence of permanent vegetative cover around the 

wetlands, erosion occurs and sediment continues to 

be added to the wetland basins.

The refuge’s ability to function as a water source 

and habitat for migrating waterbirds is almost gone. 

In the last 10 years, there has only been one occasion when there was sufficient water collected in the 

spring to provide habitat; this event provided about 

30 acres of water for about 3 months. The historical 

lakebeds of the refuge provide this seasonal habitat 

any time moisture is made available and will continue 

to function in this capacity whether or not the area is 

a refuge. In addition, the lakebeds are natural sumps, 

being the lowest points for the surrounding area. 

Runoff from surrounding farm land finds its way to 

these locations. Draining or removing this water from 

these locations is highly unlikely.

The impoundment Lake Thibadeau Refuge is functioning as any other livestock pond in the area (figure 

45). Within 10 miles of the refuge are more than 6,500 

acres of wetlands including more than 3,000 acres 

of seasonal or temporarily flooded wetlands in more 

than 1,300 basins. The impoundment on the refuge 

does provide some loafing areas for waterfowl, but 

not of any quality. The mere presence of seasonal water does not make it a refuge.

Conservation implies action, and the Service has 

no authority to do anything other than impound water when it is available. Hunting is allowed by landowner permission. There are no other opportunities 

to provide wildlife-dependent recreation or to foster 

an understanding or appreciation of the diversity and 

interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and 

their habitats.

2. Does the refuge meet its purpose 

(fulfill the refuge’s intent and statutory 

purpose)?

Answer: No.

Justification: The refuge was established in 1937 “as 

a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and 

other wildlife” (Executive Order 7713). The lands and 

waters of this area cannot provide the habitat necessary to provide a refuge and breeding ground as 

found on other Refuge System lands. As described 

previously, there is a lack of water due to upstream 

development. The uplands, over which the Service 

has no authority to manage, are used for agriculture. 

Only about 8 percent of the upland habitat (about 340 

acres) is unbroken ground with the potential to retain 

some native prairie species. However, 95 percent of 

this area is in one block and is heavily grazed. The 

Service has no authority or ability within the easement to control the uses and management of this upland habitat. The remaining uplands of the refuge are 

intensively farmed.

3. Does the refuge provide substantial 

support for migratory bird species, important sheltering habitat for threatened and 

endangered species, or support for species 

identified in authorizing legislation?

Answer: No.

Justification: The past 30 years of wildlife observations show there has never been substantial use of 

this refuge by migratory birds.

4a. Does the refuge have biological 

integrity; if it does not, is it feasible to 

restore the biological integrity of the 

converted or degraded habitat?

Answer: No.

Justification: Due to alteration of the natural hydrologic processes in the watershed and the conversion 

of native grasslands to cropland, the refuge has lost 

most of the historical biotic composition, structure, 

and function that define its biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. Certainly, migratory birds will make use of open-water habitat, and 

the refuge will at times provide a remnant amount 

of what historically was present, but this amount of 

use alone will not bring the biological diversity of the 

refuge to a level that meets the purpose of a migratory bird refuge.

Since the refuge has no authority over the uplands, it is unrealistic to expect that this area would 

be restored to grassland cover by the current landowners. Further, acquisition of this land in either fee 

title or conservation easement is unlikely given the 

limited money for these activities and the fact that 

this location is not a high priority for either type of 

acquisition.
APPENDIX D– Divestiture Model Results for Lake Thibadeau Refuge 217

Figure 45. Map of wetlands within 10 miles of Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service)
218 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

4b. Does the Service have or can it reasonably acquire the right to restore the 

habitat?

Answer: No.

Justification: The upland habitat is more than 90-percent cropland. Acquiring this land for restoration 

would not only be expensive, but biological restoration of native prairie in a mixed-grass prairie ecosystem is very difficult. The moisture regime that defines 

the prairie is arid, so establishing a full complement of 

prairie species is not likely. Native vegetation exists, 

but the value has been reduced due to the introduction of invasive plants and the loss of ecological functions.

The Service’s water right for the refuge may be 

enough to provide open-water habitat for migratory 

birds, given several consecutive good water years. 

The process to exercise these rights would require 

an evaluation to determine the extent of retained 

Service water by dams or diversions in the upstream 

watersheds. Water rights in north-central Montana 

are not only very valuable but a necessity for the 

ranching lifestyle. If the Service were to spend the 

time and resources trying to pursue this water right, 

the results would not be worth the effort and would 

most likely create a legal water rights debate with 

the upstream landowners. Moreover, restoration of 

the wetland habitat alone will not raise the level of 

the biological diversity to achieve the purpose of this 

refuge.

Expenditure of money to restore biological diversity of critical migratory bird habitat is not be a 

priority in this location of the refuge complex. There 

are other areas of higher priority that still have some 

elements of biological diversity.

5. Does the refuge contribute to landscape conservation, provide a stepping 

stone for migratory birds, or serve as a 

unique habitat patch important to the 

conservation of a trust species?

Answer: No.

Justification: Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge is not the only water source in the area (refer 

to figure 14 in chapter 2). It does not contribute to 

landscape conservation and is not important for trust 

species, because it is identical to the surrounding 

landscape. If the refuge did not exist, migratory birds 

would not be affected. Creedman Coulee National 

Wildlife Refuge and other wetlands and stock ponds 

in the vicinity provide for migrating birds.

Secondary Criteria

These last three questions, although secondary criteria, are also part of the divestiture evaluation.

6. Politics/Community—Is there such 

significant community interest in and 

support for the refuge that divestiture 

would result in unacceptable long-term 

public relations?

Answer: No.

Justification: All of the landowners holding title to 

land within the refuge boundary are active ranchers 

or farmers. It is unlikely that they would be willing to 

sell the land to the Service as they rely on it to make 

their living.

7. Jurisdiction—Does the Service have 

or can it acquire the jurisdiction to meet 

the refuge’s purpose and Refuge System 

mission and goals and also prevent incompatible uses?

Answer: No.

Justification: Refer to the above justifications for 

answers to 4a and 4b.

8. Other Land Manager—Could some 

other party achieve most or all of the purposes of the refuge without the Service 

having to incur costs?

Answer: No.

Justification: Refer to the above justifications for 

answers to 4a and 4b.

Additional Considerations

Justification: The dam and water control devises 

were last inspected in 2007. The diversion dam, which 

has been designated as a low-hazard dam, received a 

good evaluation with minor deficiencies. The remaining dams and water control structures would require 

extensive repair and replacement to bring the system 

to a functioning level. This repair would be costly to 

the Service for minimal benefit.
APPENDIX D– Divestiture Model Results for Lake Thibadeau Refuge 219

Rules

Five rules organize the answers to the criteria questions and are for determining whether to consider a 

national wildlife refuge for divestiture.

Rule 1: IF the refuge cannot meet one or 

more Refuge System goals, the refuge 

should be considered for divestiture.

This is the rule that applies to Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge. 

Since rule 1 is definitive for Lake Thibadeau Refuge, there is no need to apply the other four rules. If 

rule 1 did not apply, a refuge would be further evaluated using rules 2–5, which address how well a refuge 

meets the Refuge System goals and refuge purposes, 

how well a refuge supports trust species, if a refuge 

possesses biological integrity and connectivity, and if 

the Service has jurisdiction.

D.2 Justification

Based on the Service’s evaluation using the Mountain–Prairie Region’s divestiture model, Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge should be considered for divestiture. Specifically, under rule 1, 

the refuge did not meet one or more of the Refuge 

System goals and, therefore, should be considered for 

divestiture. The refuge does not meet or minimally 

meets the refuge purpose. Furthermore, the refuge 

does not substantially support trust species and does 

not possess biological integrity.

Appendix E

Public Involvement

This appendix describes how the Service conducted 

public involvement and considered the resulting information for developing the CCP for the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex. The appendix is organized by the 

following topics:

■ E.1 Public Involvement Activities

■ E.2 Public Mailing List

■ E.3 Public Comments on the Draft Plan

E.1 Public Involvement 

Activities

A notice of intent to prepare a CCP for the Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex was published in 

the Federal Register on May 14, 2007.

The Service prepared to involve the public by 

compiling a mailing list of more than 170 names during pre-planning. The list includes private citizens; 

local, regional, and State government representatives 

and legislators; other Federal agencies; and interested organizations.

Public Scoping

Public scoping began immediately after publication 

of the notice of intent and was announced in May 

2007 through news releases and issuance of the first 

planning update to the mailing list. Information was 

provided on the history of the refuge complex and 

the CCP process, along with an invitation to a public 

scoping meeting. Each planning update included a 

comment form to give the public an opportunity to 

provide written comments. Emails were also accepted 

at the refuge complex’s email address: bowdoin@fws.

gov.

One public scoping meeting was held in Malta, 

Montana, on May 22, 2007. There were more than 25 

attendees, primarily local citizens and surrounding 

ranchers. Following a presentation about the refuge 

complex and an overview of the CCP and NEPA processes, attendees were encouraged to ask questions 

and offer comments. Verbal comments were recorded 

and each attendee was given a comment form to submit additional thoughts or questions in writing.

All written comments were due June 14, 2007; 15 

emails and letters were received in addition to the 

verbal comments recorded at the scoping meeting. All 

comments were shared with the planning team and 

considered throughout the planning process.

Briefing on Salinity and 

Blowing Salts

As part of the CCP process, the planning team set 

up a salinity team to address the most critical issue 

to both the refuge complex and the public—increased 

salinity and blowing salts on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. The salinity team worked for almost 2 

years on the issue, which included a yearlong study 

by a contractor to develop alternatives for addressing 

this problem.

On October 22, 2009, the planning team held a public meeting to provide information about the results of 

this effort and resulting alternatives. The public had 

an opportunity to ask questions and offer suggestions 

about the various aspects of the alternatives. To notify 

the public about this meeting, more than 170 meeting announcements were mailed out to the planning 

mailing list on September 24, 2009. Media outlets were 

sent a news release, and staff provided interviews to 

statewide newspapers. Several people helped prepare 

for the meeting and were there to answer questions: 

(1) Service staff from the Bowdoin Refuge, the regional Division of Refuge Planning, and the regional 

Division of Water Resources; and (2) the Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

and Department of Environmental Quality, including members of the Montana Reserved Water Rights 

Compact Commission. Thirty individuals attended 

this meeting and provided comments, which were 

recorded. These comments were considered by the 

planning team in the preparation of the draft CCP and 

EA, particularly chapter 6 of that document, which addressed the salinity and blowing salts problem.

Review of the Draft Plan

The draft CCP and final EA was released to the public on June 22, 2011, though a notice of availability 

published in the Federal Register. Copies of either 
222 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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 

refuge complex’s Web site. The public was offered 34 

days to review this document and provide comments.

On June 29, 2011, the Service held a public meeting attended by more than 20 participants in Malta, 

Montana. Two weeks before the meeting, a news release was issued and planning updates were mailed 

providing details on where and when this meeting 

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 meeting, 24 emails 

and letters were received. All comments needed to be 

received or postmarked by July 25, 2011.

E.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 using the mailing list and additional requests. 

Federal Officials

U.S. Representative Dennis Rehberg, Washington, DC

U.S. Senator John Tester, Washington, DC

U.S. Senator Max Baucus, Washington, DC

Federal Agencies

Bureau of Land Management, Malta, Montana

Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, Montana

National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska

Natural Resource Conservation Service, Malta, Montana

U.S. Geological Service, Fort Collins Science Center, 

Fort Collins, Colorado

U.S. Geological Service, Jamestown, North Dakota

Tribal Officials

Blackfeet Nation, Browning, Montana

Chippewa Cree Tribe, Box Elder, Montana

Crow Tribe of Indians, Crow Agency, Montana

Fort Belknap Tribal Council, Harlem, Montana

Fort Peck Tribal Council, Poplar, Montana

Montana State Officials

Attorney General’s Office, Helena

Governor Brian Schweitzer, Helena

Representative Tony Belcourt, Box Elder

Representative Kristin Hansen, Havre

Representative John Musgrove, Havre

Representative Wayne Stahl, Saco

Representative Wendy Warburton, Havre

Senator John Brenden, Scobey

Senator Rowlie Hutton, Havre

Senator Jonathan Windy Boy, Box Elder

Montana State Agencies

Farm Services Agency, Malta

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 

Helena

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Glasgow

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Great Falls 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Havre

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Helena

Montana Department of Tourism, Helena

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commissioner, District 4, Scobey

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Director, Helena

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Glasgow

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Malta

Montana Historical Society and Preservation Office, 

Helena

Local Government

Blaine County Commissioners, Chinook 

Glasgow Irrigation District, Glasgow

Hill County Commissioners, Havre

Malta Irrigation District, Malta

Mayor of Malta, Malta

Phillips County Commissioners, Malta

Valley County Commissioners, Glasgow

Montana Salinity Control Association, Conrad

Organizations

American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia

American Prairie Foundation, Malta, Montana

American Rivers, Washington, DC

American Wildlands, Bozeman, Montana

Audubon Society, Helena, Montana
APPENDIX E– Public Involvement 223

Audubon Society, New York, New York

Audubon Society, Washington, DC

Beyond Pesticides, Washington, DC

Blue Goose Alliance, Tallahassee, Florida

Burlington Northern Railway, Havre, Montana

CARE Group, Washington, DC

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC

Ducks Unlimited, Clancy, Lewistown, Montana

Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, Tennessee

Fund for Animals, New York, New York

Gallatin Valley Pheasants Forever, Bozeman, Montana

The Humane Society, Washington, DC

Isaac Walton League, Gaithersburg, Maryland

Malta Area Chamber of Commerce, Malta, Montana

Montana Department of Tourism, Helena

Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena

Montana National Wildlife Federation, Helena

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, 

West Virginia

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, Virginia 

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC

The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado

The Nature Conservancy, Helena, Montana

North American Nature Photography Association, 

Wheat Ridge, Colorado

Phillips County Historical Society, Malta, Montana

St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group, Glasgow, 

Montana

Sierra Club, San Francisco, California

The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC

Wildlife Management Institute, Bend, Oregon

Wildlife Management Institute, Fort Collins, Colorado

Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC

The Wildlife Society, Townsend, Montana

World Wildlife Fund, Bozeman, Montana

Universities and Schools

Colorado State University Libraries, Fort Collins

Malta Elementary School, Malta, Montana

Malta High School, Malta, Montana

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

Montana Media

Billings Gazette Online, Billings

The Billings Outpost, Billings

Fort Belknap News, Harlem

The Glasgow Courier, Glasgow

Great Falls Tribune, Great Falls

Havre Daily News, Havre

KLAN Radio, Glasgow

KLTZ Radio, Glasgow

KMMR Radio, Malta

Montana Public Radio, Missoula

News Media Broadcasters, Havre

Phillips County News, Malta

Yellowstone Public Radio, Billings

Individuals

81 private individuals

E.3 Public Comments on the 

Draft Plan

The public provided many comments during the 

public review period for the draft CCP and EA. The 

Service read all comments and found the following 

comments to be substantive. The Service developed 

responses to each of these comments after grouping 

them in the following topics:

■ Salinity and blowing salts (comments 1–12)

■ Russian olive (13–34)

■ Divesting Lake Thibadeau Refuge (35–36)

■ Upland habitat (37–38)

■ Wetland habitat (39–43)

■ Predator management (44–45)

■ Prescriptive grazing (46–51)

■ Climate change (52–53)

■ Public use (54–58)

■ General (59–63)

Salinity and Blowing Salts

Comment 1. “The scope, complexity and longevity of 

this plan, most especially the Salinity and Blowing Salts Plan, seem to argue for completion of 

not just an Environmental Assessment, but instead of a comprehensive Environmental Impact 

Statement.”

Response 1. The preferred alternative is not a major 

federal action that will 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 

is not warranted. The issues identified in the CCP, 

including the salinity and blowing salts issue, are 

not significant and neither are the changes to the 

management of the Bowdoin Refuge Complex.
224 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Comment 2. Reduce or stop adding saline water to the 

Bowdoin system.

Response 2. The Service wants to control salinity 

inputs; however, this can be challenging since 

irrigation return flows, which the Service does 

not control, are significant contributors of salts. 

The Service will work with the Montana Salinity 

Control Association, surrounding landowners, 

and other partners to implement strategies that 

reduce salt inputs, where possible. Some new 

strategies have been added to the final plan based 

on this and other saline input comments.

Comment 3. “Allow the lake’s footprint to flux and notably shrink back toward historic acreage, rather 

than managing for artificially inflated lake levels 

during dry seasons and dry years.”

Response 3. During the salt removal process, Lake 

Bowdoin will be kept at a lower level to better 

concentrate salts for removal using an injection 

well. Once the salinity objective is achieved and 

can be maintained, the Service will recreate a 

flow-through system to allow for more natural 

water fluctuations.

Comment 4. Allow technology time to advance in hopes 

of future development of a low-risk, affordable solution. Hold additional consultations on this matter before deciding on a preferred alternative.

Response 4. The Service, State, and other partners 

have spent significant time, effort, and money 

to develop a range of viable alternatives including the preferred alternative. The analysis, 

documented in the draft CCP and EA, supports 

the chosen direction as the most viable method 

to address the salinity and blowing salts issue. 

Nevertheless, as the plan is implemented, the 

Service will continue to seek and evaluate proven 

technologies that may increase the effectiveness 

of removing salts, while reducing costs and time 

to achieve the salinity objective.

Comment 5. “I believe we need to quit managing the 

Bowdoin refuge to have certain elevated salt levels 

for those species that prefer it.”

Response 5. The Service is not managing for elevated 

salt concentrations. All the alternatives evaluated 

were developed to reduce the current, unnaturally 

high salinity concentrations.

Comment 6. “It is essential to keep the Malta Irrigation District informed of any plans that may affect the irrigation system Bowdoin uses for water 

conveyance.”

Response 6. The Service will work closely with the 

Malta Irrigation District on any needs related to 

the irrigation system.

Comment 7. “Salinity control and abatement of blowing salts are major concerns, and we recommend 

that Bowdoin staff consult soon and frequently 

with Jane Holzer and the Montana Salinity Control Association on these issues.”

Response 7. The Service will continue to work with 

the Montana Salinity Control Association and 

other partners to address this issue. Many of the 

suggestions provided by Jane Holzer, primarily 

to address salinity inputs, have been added to the 

final CCP.

Comment 8. “The Bowdoin Refuge is a saline sink. If 

the Russian Olives are no longer drawing salty 

water away from the surface, the Refuge shorelines will become more saline.”

Response 8. The Service does not agree with this 

statement. Russian olive trees are a salt-tolerant 

tree that grows well in wet, saline soils. However, 

they have little effect on drawing salty water 

away from the surface especially when considering the tons of salt added to the system annually.

Comment 9. “Lake Bowdoin is within the Beaver Total 

Maximum Daily Load Planning Area. A Total 

Maximum Daily Load will need to be prepared by 

the MDEQ to improve water quality and restore 

full support for designated beneficial uses in Lake 

Bowdoin. We encourage the Service to coordinate 

its efforts to address Lake Bowdoin water quality 

impairments with MDEQ staff involved in this 

planning area and water quality planning.”

Response 9. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has served as a key member on 

the planning team since the beginning of this process and has been instrumental in developing the 

alternatives. The Service will continue this close 

coordination during implementation of the CCP.

Comment 10. “Let the Bowdoin wetland function the 

same as all other wetlands in this area. When 

there is an abundance of water the wetland may 

have standing water during the spring and summer depending on weather. But if there is limited 

moisture then the wetland may only have standing water during the early spring. The only reason 

this may not work is if there is a saline seep situation occurring. But this can be dealt with also and 

is frequently by the Montana Salinity Association. They identify and treat the recharge areas 

and I’ve seen some great success with their work.”

Response 10. Lake Bowdoin functions as a sump for 

irrigation return flows and does receive subirrigation. There will likely always be some water in this 

area, regardless of weather or canal deliveries. 

One of the long-term goals of reducing salinity to 

acceptable concentrations is to be able to recre-
APPENDIX E– Public Involvement 225

ate a more natural flow-through system for Lake 

Bowdoin. Recreating this system should restore 

the appropriate concentration of salts in the lake. 

The Service will continue to work with the Montana Salinity Control Association, particularly on 

strategies to reduce salt inputs.

Comment 11. “I believe we need to quit managing the 

Bowdoin refuge to have certain elevated salt levels for those species that prefer it. We obviously 

cannot control this when salts and other contaminants reach toxic levels and begin killing the inhabitants.”

Response 11. The Service does not purposely manage 

for elevated saline concentrations. The species the 

Service is managing habitat for are negatively affected by unnaturally elevated saline concentrations. The goal for this issue is to reduce saline 

concentrations and blowing salts.

Comment 12. “Be certain to work with MT Bureau of 

Mines and Geology in determining how deep the 

injection well should be drilled to avoid potable water and where the best placement should be located. 

USFWS should work with the local community 

including landowners, conservation district, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and MT Dept 

Natural Resources and Conservation for long term 

management to reduce saline inputs. Work with local irrigation district to line portions of canal known 

to leak and cause salt accumulations on the Refuge.”

Response 12. The final CCP incorporates these suggestions.

Russian Olive

Comment 13. “Pheasant hunter economic input to the 

local community will drop significantly due to the 

decline in the pheasant population (as a result of 

controlling Russian olive trees).”

Response 13. The primary purpose and resulting 

management actions performed on the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex are for migratory birds. The 

Service does not manage for pheasants; however, 

pheasants do benefit from management actions 

designed to benefit migratory birds. The Service 

does not believe that the removal of Russian olive 

trees, particularly those that are scattered, will 

significantly affect the pheasant population on or 

surrounding the refuge complex. The refuge complex and surrounding landscape will continue to 

provide winter cover, food, and nesting habitat for 

pheasants.

Comment 14. “Will the Service replace shelter belts 

with shrubs that provide cover and a winter food 

source for sharp-tail grouse and ring neck pheasants? If not, will Service plant food plots of either 

native perennials and/or annuals such as wheat 

and/or barley to compensate for the loss of the Russian olive, which is the primary winter food source 

for upland birds, both native and nonnative.”

Response 14. Upland gamebirds including sharptailed grouse and pheasants should benefit from 

the grassland and native shrubland restoration 

projects. The Service will not plant food plots.

Comment 15. “On those areas outside the Refuge 

(WPAs and adjacent Bureau of Reclamation 

lands along the canal), would BNWR consider not 

removing Russian olive shelterbelts that are not 

within the riparian area? We would recommend 

that specific shelterbelts be removed only when 

they directly expand blocks of grassland habitat. 

Our preference would be to maintain some shelterbelts for wintering habitat, mainly for upland 

game birds.”

Response 15. The Bowdoin Refuge Complex was established for migratory birds, species that rely on 

large blocks of unfragmented grassland habitat 

for survival. In addition, the Service requires the 

refuge complex to treat any nonnative or invasive species that impede the biological integrity 

or health of the lands and waters on which these 

birds depend. Grassland birds, such as Sprague’s 

pipit, are the most imperiled birds in North America primarily due to habitat loss and fragmentation. The Service will not commit to protecting any 

Russian olive trees, because they are a nonnative 

species that affects the Service’s ability to achieve 

the purpose for which the refuge complex was 

established. Nevertheless, the removal of Russian 

olive trees will be challenging and systematic. The 

objective is to remove at least 25 acres of Russian 

olive trees over the next 15 years; most of these 

trees will be removed from Bowdoin Refuge and 

Pearce WPA. Initially, scattered trees will be 

removed where their removal will result in an 

enhancement and restoration of large, contiguous 

blocks of grassland. In addition, trees that are 

impeding water conveyance systems will be targeted. Other larger, contiguous blocks of trees 

will be a lower priority unless proven treatment 

methods improve. The Service has no jurisdiction 

or management rights on adjacent Reclamation 

lands along the canal.

Comment 16. “Would Bowdoin Refuge consider not 

removing other shrub shelterbelts, such as Caragana even though it is in the riparian areas?”

Response 16. No, the Service will not guarantee the 

protection of any shelterbelts, particularly those 

that contains nonnative species. Caragana and 
226 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

other nonnative trees and shrubs may be removed 

but could be replaced by native species such as 

silver buffaloberry, if they occurred historically in 

the same area including riparian areas.

Comment 17. “We recommend that if Bowdoin Refuge 

chooses to remove Russian olive, that they be replaced with native shrubs such as buffalo berry, 

hawthorn, or chokecherry in areas where Russian 

olive are being eradicated.”

Response 17. The CCP calls for restoring native 

shrubs to portions of the refuge complex where 

they historically occurred; however, not all areas 

where Russian olive trees occur today had native 

shrubs. Most areas were native mixed-grass prairie and will be restored to this habitat.

Comment 18. “The misguided attempt to eradicate 

Russian olive trees from the Bowdoin refuge will 

have irreparable damage to the sharp-tail grouse 

and pheasant populations.”

Response 18. The Service disagrees with this statement. Pheasants will adapt and continue to exist 

on Bowdoin Refuge. The refuge has lost all of its 

sharp-tailed grouse leks. Research shows that 

grouse will not establish or use leks or nesting 

sites near trees. The removal of these nonnative 

trees may allow sharp-tailed grouse to reestablish 

leks and nesting areas on the refuge. The contiguous grasslands will also provide more-protected 

areas for nesting pheasants, which are vulnerable 

to the same predators of upland-nesting migratory 

birds. Nevertheless, the Service will not manage 

for pheasants on the refuge, but pheasants will 

continue to benefit from the Service’s management 

actions designed to protect migratory birds.

Comment 19. “The plan will result in fewer hunters 

due to the eradication of the Russian olive trees 

which will result in fewer game birds.”

Response 19. The Service does not agree. Pheasants 

will adapt and continue to exist on the refuge complex.

Comment 20. “The direction, in the CCP, is to remove 

all nonnative shelterbelts and grasses and replace 

them with native species. What are the native species that will tolerate high salinity soils?”

Response 20. Species such as western wheatgrass, 

saltwort, and saltgrass are native to this area. The 

Bowdoin Refuge naturally has somewhat saline 

soils. The native vegetation that remains throughout the refuge persists in naturally saline soils.

Comment 21. “Continue the systematic removal of 

shelterbelts. The goal of this work should be to 

enhance and restore large blocks of native prairie 

grasslands. No additional shelterbelts should be 

permitted.”

Response 21. The Service agrees with this comment. 

Native shrubs will be reestablished only where 

they historically occurred.

Comment 22. “Eradicate the Russian olives completely. Let the non-native pheasant adapt and 

thrive in areas without the Russian olive, as most 

surely will do.”

Response 22. The Service does not disagree with this 

concept; however, the eradication of Russian olive 

trees from an area that is heavily infested, such 

as Bowdoin Refuge, will be time-consuming and 

costly. The CCP directs the systematic removal 

of Russian olive trees from the refuge complex, 

focusing on those areas where contiguous grassland habitat can be restored by removing trees, 

both scattered and in large blocks. These areas 

will then be retreated as needed and restored to 

native species. The tremendous seed source from 

trees both on and off the refuge complex will make 

the success of this program very challenging. The 

Service agrees that restored grassland will benefit 

pheasants and other upland gamebirds.

Comment 23. “I believe the plan to increase efforts to 

control and eradicate Russian olive trees is not 

consistent with the established purpose of the 

refuge, federal law, and its basis is scientifically 

questionable and perhaps motivated by a ‘nativist’ 

prejudice against non-native species and even by 

a prejudice by some at FWS against hunting on 

National Wildlife Refuges.”

Response 23. The establishment purposes, laws, and 

policies that guide management of the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex and the Refuge System prohibit 

the protection of nonnative species, particularly 

those that prevent the refuge complex from meeting its purposes. There is no prejudice against 

hunting on national wildlife refuges or the refuge 

complex—the refuge complex commits significant 

resources and efforts to provide hunting opportunities and provide for the safety of hunters and 

other visitors while enforcing game laws.

Comment 24. “There is no reference in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

to ‘native’ birds and wildlife or ‘native’ plants and 

there is no mandate that refuges be managed for 

the benefit of ‘native’ species only.”

Response 24. The Improvement Act states that in 

administering the Refuge System, “the Secretary 

shall ... ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are 

maintained.” Secondarily, the Service will restore 

lost or severely degraded elements of integrity, 
APPENDIX E– Public Involvement 227

diversity, environmental health at the refuge 

scale and other appropriate landscape scales where 

it is feasible and supports achievement of refuge 

purposes and Refuge System mission. Biological 

integrity is the biotic composition, structure, and 

functioning at genetic, organism, and community 

levels comparable with historical conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape 

genomes, organisms, and communities. Russian 

olive is a nonnative species that threatens the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the Bowdoin Refuge Complex. By law 

and policy, the Service must manage this nonnative 

species to achieve the purposes of the refuge complex and to maintain and restore native habitats.

Comment 25. “The CCP authors should review and 

consider ‘Relationships between Olive and Duck 

Nest Success in Southeastern Idaho’ (Gazda et 

al. 2002). While this reference supports many of 

the same findings that are cited in the CCP, it is 

not conclusive on the impact to duck nest success 

from birds using Russian olive trees as nesting 

and brooding sites.”

Response 25. The Service reviewed this study and 

used it as a reference in the CCP. While the study 

was inconclusive due to the limited number of data 

sets, it did show a trend that the success of duck 

nests decreased as the presence of Russian olive 

trees increased and recommended against introducing trees into historically treeless areas. This 

document references many credible studies on the 

negative effects of introducing trees into grassland habitat on waterfowl and other grasslandnesting birds.

Comment 26. “A study by Pietz et al 2009 found that 

‘parasitism of grassland passerine nests was 

lower in landscapes with trees than in those without trees’.”

Response 26. The Pietz study looked at parasitism 

by only brown-headed cowbirds. Cowbirds prefer 

woodland habitat, particularly edge habitat. Parasitism of grassland birds increases along the woodland edges, a preferred habitat of the cowbird. 

The key to discouraging cowbird parasitism or 

controlling populations of brown-headed cowbirds 

in the Great Plains is maintaining large expanses 

of grassland, eliminating foraging areas (such as 

feedlots) and perch sites, and reducing the extent 

of overgrazed pastures. Cowbird parasitism is 

present on the refuge complex and increases in 

areas where trees have been introduced. A much 

greater threat of nonnative Russian olive trees 

is the opportunity for increased predation and 

the avoidance of these fragmented grasslands by 

grassland-nesting birds. The Pietz report supports 

this, stating, “Finally, our results should not be 

viewed as a rationale for enhancing tree cover in 

grassland landscapes. Many grassland bird species 

exhibit area sensitivity and may avoid nesting in 

areas with too much tree cover.”

Comment 27. “I agree with the removal of the Russian Olives and a return to natural species. I am 

concerned the many birds that use these trees as 

winter cover and as a winter food source will be 

negatively impacted.”

Response 27. We do not disagree that pheasants and 

other birds use Russian olive trees, particularly in 

the winter. However, many of these bird species 

have come to this area or expanded their territories since these nonnative trees were introduced. 

Many of these birds are avian predators including 

magpies and hawks. The plan to remove Russian 

olive trees may cause pheasants and other bird 

species to shift to other Russian olive trees on and 

off the refuge or into other types of thermal cover 

found throughout the refuge complex, particularly 

cattails. The Service feels that these birds will 

adapt and survive. Grassland-nesting birds are the 

fastest declining group of birds, and they do not 

and will not adapt to the invasion of trees in their 

nesting areas. Habitat loss, particularly from the 

fragmentation of grassland habitats or conversion 

of lands for agriculture or other developments, is 

the major cause of this decline.

Comment 28. “The plan states attempts would be 

made to replace lost Russian olive trees with some 

native shrubs. In reality, funds will be provided to 

remove trees, but funds will not be found to provide for the replanting of other native wildlife food 

or cover producing shrubs.”

Response 28. If the Service does not conduct some 

sort of restoration when a Russian olive tree is 

removed, the tree will return or some other opportunistic invasive species will become established. 

This would be counterproductive. This is one of 

the greatest challenges of the treatment process 

but is crucial to its long-term success. Removal of 

trees, particularly larger blocks of trees, requires 

that money for restoration back to native grasses 

and shrubs is available.

Comment 29. “Although Russian olive is not designated as an ‘invasive species’ in Montana, as of 

September 2010, Russian olive can no longer be 

sold in the state of Montana. It is now classified 

as a Priority 3 regulated plant, which prohibits 

its sale but does not require removal. Because of 

this development, we do not believe that the Refuge 

Complex needs to spend precious resources educating the public about this issue.”
228 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Response 29. Based on the response to the Service’s 

proposal to remove and treat Russian olive trees, 

there is a clear misconception about the benefits 

and impacts of these trees on native wildlife, particularly grassland birds. Even though this tree 

species may someday be designated as a noxious 

weed in Montana, the treatment and restoration 

of the large areas infested by these trees may 

take decades, if not lifetimes, to convert back to 

grassland. These are very prolific and successful 

invaders in this part of Montana. An effective 

education and outreach program may benefit the 

efforts called for in the final CCP.

Comment 30. “To the extent that the biological opinion 

has changed at FWS, I believe it is due to a ‘nativist’ prejudice against ‘invasive’ species. A number 

of biologists are challenging the orthodoxy that 

alien species are inherently bad and believe many 

introduced species have increased the diversity 

and resiliency of native ecosystems.”

Response 30. Restoring an area back to historical 

communities is difficult and may not be possible. 

However, no invasive or nonnative species or artificial process can ever function or benefit wildlife 

as well as the native habitats and their supporting 

processes, such as fire and flooding. Sustaining 

biological diversity and integrity, where possible, 

is the focus for the refuge complex and the Refuge 

System.

Comment 31. “The CCP is flawed in that a discussion 

on the effects of converting vegetation within the 

Bowdoin Refuge to native species does not include 

impacts on the production and harvest of upland 

game birds.”

Response 31. This was not included, because the Service feels the removal of Russian olive trees will 

not have significant impacts on the production of 

and subsequent harvest of upland gamebirds. Restoring fragmented grasslands will benefit upland 

gamebirds, particularly sharp-tailed grouse, which 

depend on these areas for breeding and nesting.

Comment 32. “Management direction for upland 

game birds on the Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks strategic plan for managing both native 

and non-native upland game birds on Montana 

encourages the planting of shelterbelts.”

Response 32. The State completed a document in 

2004 titled, “Literature Review of Montana Upland Game Bird Biology and Habitat Relationships as Related to Montana Fish, Wildlife, and 

Parks’ Upland Game bird Habitat Enhancement 

Program.” This review states that the planting of trees and shrubs for upland gamebirds in 

agricultural landscapes is a habitat management 

strategy intended to provide shelter from extreme 

weather and predators. Tree and shrub cover, 

however, appears to be unrelated to survival of 

pheasants in some regions. Pheasants in Illinois 

experienced high mortality during two severe 

winters regardless of the amount, configuration, 

or structure of woody cover present. In South 

Dakota, however, researchers noticed increased 

use of shelterbelts by pheasants during a severe 

winter and concluded that this type of cover was 

important during unusually cold periods accompanied by deep snow. Nonetheless, the majority of 

the radio-marked pheasants in the study died from 

predation rather than exposure. Some researchers have speculated that plantings of mature trees 

may provide habitat for avian predators such as 

owls and, when gamebirds move into these areas 

during periods of severe weather, their mortality 

rates may increase considerably due to predation. 

The Service agrees that planting trees in treeless 

areas increases predation of grassland-dependent 

birds, even upland gamebirds.

omment 33. “The plan should be revised to restrict 

attempts to eradicate Russian olive trees and restore the native prairie to Big Island and the nonhunting eastern part of Bowdoin Refuge where 

the refuge has ‘relatively pristine, native prairie.’ 

I understand the need to control Russian olive 

trees when they interfere with irrigation canals, 

the maintenance of boundary fences and when 

they are encroaching upon open water.”

esponse 33. The Service will focus its initial efforts to remove Russian olive trees in the areas 

described in addition to scattered trees in grassland habitat throughout the Bowdoin Refuge. 

However, the remaining Russian olive areas will 

be treated once these higher priority areas have 

been effectively treated and restored.

C

R

Comment 34. “A large section of Russian olive trees 

has already been removed along the refuge’s 

northern border, north of old highway #2 in order 

to gain access to the border fence. The hillside 

north of old highway #2 has been an excellent 

hunting area and further attempted eradication of 

Russian olive trees there will destroy the area for 

pheasant hunting. The area is far enough away 

from Lake Bowdoin to not cause harm to migratory birds.”

Response 34. The Service will not protect any Russian 

olive tree stands.
APPENDIX E– Public Involvement 229

Divesting Lake Thibadeau 

Refuge

Comment 35. “We support divesting of Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge. From the 

description in the Draft Plan, it appears that the 

wildlife values for this refuge are minimal. It 

would be helpful to know what would happen to 

any funds from the divesture.”

Response 35. This Service will no longer maintain 

structures associated with these private lands. 

Also, the refuge staff will no longer need to monitor the Lake Thibadeau Refuge, which will free 

the staff to work on other units of the refuge 

complex that have greater potential to benefit 

migratory birds and other wildlife. There is no 

specific annual budget associated with the refuge; 

however, not having to use special project money 

to maintain structures on the refuge will free this 

money for use on other units within the Bowdoin 

Refuge Complex or other refuges in the Mountain–Prairie Region.

Comment 36. Could the water right for Lake 

Thibadeau be traded for a water right that would 

benefit one of the other wetlands within the Bowdoin Refuge Complex rather than voluntarily 

relinquishing the water right to the State?

Response 36. Service policy is to relinquish voluntarily the water rights associated with a divested 

refuge back to the State.

Upland Habitat

Comment 37. “Will there be modification made to the 

Native grass/forbs mixes that will allow for native 

grass to be planted with a combination of tall and 

intermediate wheat grass, great basin rye along 

with native and nonnative forbs?”

Response 37. The Service will strive to use a native 

mixed-grass and forb mix in all grassland habitat 

restoration.

Comment 38. “Roads deemed inappropriate or unnecessary should be not only closed but also reclaimed.”

Response 38. The Service agrees. Roads deemed unnecessary for management, maintenance, and adequate visitor access will be targeted for removal 

and reclamation. Before completion of this CCP, 

the Service had already decommissioned some 

roads that did not meet these criteria.

Wetland Habitat

Comment 39. “Why are cattails and bulrush considered an undesirable emergent? Both plants 

provide winter cover for pheasants and nesting 

habitat for several native migratory birds.”

Response 39. Native cattail and bulrush species are 

not undesirable unless they become unnaturally 

dominant to the point of reducing or eliminating 

open-water areas and the diversity and productivity of wetland habitat.

Comment 40. “The target species of birds for wetlands 

is missing two important species: American White 

Pelicans and Black-crowned Night-Herons. Both 

are species of concern in the state of Montana, and 

for both species, the Bowdoin Refuge Complex 

plays an essential role.”

Response 40. Although the target species list does 

not include these two species, the Service feels 

they will benefit from the actions in the CCP. 

These species will be monitored as Lake Bowdoin 

is lowered to concentrate salts for removal. In 

addition, the Service will continue to conduct an 

annual over-water and colonial bird nest survey. 

Ultimately, the Service’s management actions 

will protect and support any species of concern, 

regardless of their status as a target species in the 

plan.

Comment 41. “According to current records from the 

Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, there 

are only four colonies of Franklin’s gull in the 

state of Montana. These gulls have not been found 

breeding at Freezout Lake for several years. Numbers used in the Draft Plan should be updated 

from the 1994-95 numbers—the breeding pair 

numbers are dramatically lower in recent years. 

These facts should be corrected.”

Response 41. The Service researched these numbers 

and made this correction in the final CCP.

Comment 42. “We do not think it would be a wise use 

of resources to identify wetland creation projects. 

The Refuge Complex has a long history of not being able to deliver water to the wetlands that are 

currently on-site. It is more important to secure 

long-term consistent water for current wetlands—

rather than creating new ones.”

Response 42. The Service will restore natural wetland 

basins that were drained, primarily for agricultural use. Many of these wetlands are completely 

dependent on runoff and rainfall and function as 

temporary or seasonal wetlands. These types of 

wetlands are very beneficial during migration 

periods and for amphibians. The strategies have 
230 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

been corrected in the final CCP to clarify that the 

Service will not create wetlands in areas where 

they did not historically exist.

Comment 43. “The Conservation District would like 

to see inclusion of grassland management techniques to bolster competitive advantages of native 

vegetation.”

Response 43. The actions for managing grassland and 

wetland habitats, including controlling invasive 

species, will assist native species in competing 

against invasive species; however, the Service welcomes additional suggestions. The stepdown plan 

for habitat management, which is revised every 

5 years, will provide more details on actions and 

techniques.

Predator Management

Comment 44. “Gulls have major impacts on the nests 

of ground nesting birds, which have been reported 

in many studies. Will the Bowdoin Refuge remove 

gull nesting sites to reduce impacts to ground 

nesting bird populations?”

Response 44. Gulls and other avian predators can 

have an impact on ground-nesting birds. The removal of trees and the restoration of contiguous 

grassland habitat will significantly reduce the vulnerability of ground-nesting birds to being located 

and depredated by gulls and other nest predators. 

The Service may investigate the potential to 

control specific gull species if monitoring shows 

significant impacts to imperiled grassland-nesting 

species.

Comment 45. “The CCP needs to address the impact to 

ground nesting birds from other predators.”

Response 45. The Service will continue to allow limited harvesting of other predators such as skunks 

and coyotes. An even greater effect on reducing 

the success of these predators will occur through 

restoring contiguous blocks of native grassland 

habitat by reducing the fragmentation caused 

by nonnative trees. Contiguous grassland makes 

it more difficult for these and other predators to 

locate ground-nesting birds.

Prescriptive Grazing

Comment 46. “Whether in the CCP or in subsequent 

step-down plans, the details of grazing lease administration need to be geared to assuring the 

best possible outcomes for both the lessor and the 

lessee, which in turn guarantees the best possible 

outcome for the long-term health of the land.”

Response 46. Any grazing will be prescriptive, based 

on specific objectives designed to enhance habitat 

for migratory birds and at the same time benefit 

the lessee. Grazing operations will be monitored to 

ensure objectives are met. The stepdown plan for 

habitat management will describe these objectives 

and techniques in detail.

Comment 47. “We strongly encourage Bowdoin NWR 

to network extensively with leading range, fire 

and soil scientists in the exploration of grassland 

management alternatives, including the strategic 

use of cattle, sheep or goats to control undesirable 

vegetation and boost vigor of desirable plants.”

Response 47. The wildlife biologist and other refuge 

complex staff will work with many partners to ensure that the most effective and proven techniques 

are used to boost the vigor of desirable plant species and restore and manage habitats for target 

wildlife species.

Comment 48. “We ask that Bowdoin staff consider 

development of stewardship contracts with local 

ranchers to use their livestock as tools to meet 

Bowdoin’s vegetation management objectives.”

Response 48. Habitat management objectives and 

subsequent monitoring will be the determining 

factors for where and when to use prescriptive 

grazing and the duration of grazing activities. The 

Service will work with cattle ranchers to meet 

specific habitat objectives when using prescriptive 

grazing as a habitat management tool.

Comment 49. “The grasslands evolved under disturbance. Disturbance being events that altered the 

vegetation and this included drought/floods, extreme temperatures, snow pack, disease, grazing by 

mammals and insects, trampling, and fire. Of all 

those natural disturbances grazing is probably the 

most manageable and should be used as a management tool also. Haying could also be a vegetative 

manipulation tool and is very manageable.”

Response 49. The CCP describes the use of prescriptive grazing, haying, fire, invasive species management, and native vegetation restoration to meet 

habitat objectives by attempting to mimic natural 

processes.

Comment 50. “Get all cattle ranchers grazing cows 

and cattle out of this site.”

Response 50. Prescriptive cattle grazing is a management tool for enhancing, maintaining, and restoring native grassland habitat and for meeting other 

habitat objectives. Bison historically grazed these 

grasslands; since the bison have been extirpated, 

proper cattle grazing can be used to mimic the 

natural (bison grazing) process.
APPENDIX E– Public Involvement 231

Comment 51. Boundary fences need to be evaluated 

and replaced with wildlife-friendly fences as 

needed. “Interior fencing such as riparian fencing 

should be similarly evaluated to allow for wildlife 

passage. This is especially pertinent to facilitated 

antelope migration.”

Response 51. There is no fencing of riparian areas or 

other internal areas in the refuge complex. If areas adjacent to riparian habitat are grazed, a temporary electrical fence will be used to keep cattle 

out of this important habitat.

Climate Change

Comment 52. “We recommend that the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan include a process to 

work on climate change in a systematic and scientific way that benefits wildlife—and enhances 

wildlife adaptation—by first identifying (1) species of plants that are likely to be first to decline; 

(2) animals that are associated with these plant 

species including insects, birds, and mammals; 

and (3) species of plants and animals that could 

increase.”

Response 52. The Service agrees that this information is important for understanding the long-term 

health of the refuge complex. This type of monitoring will be incorporated into more broad-scale 

management plans currently being developed by 

the landscape conservation cooperative. Landscape conservation cooperatives are management–science partnerships that guide integrated 

resource management actions addressing climate 

change and other stressors within and across 

landscapes. The cooperative’s recommendations, 

including monitoring programs, will be incorporated as appropriate into the stepdown for habitat 

management at the Bowdoin Refuge Complex.

Comment 53. “In order to better address climate 

change, we recommend that the USFWS consider 

the following actions: (1) replacing all vehicles 

with more fuel-efficient vehicles; (2) upgrading 

all refuge buildings to “green” standards; (3) 

installing solar panels for refuge buildings; (4) 

making buildings more energy efficient; (5) providing more recycling bins; (6) using more teleconferencing instead of traveling for meetings; (7) 

encouraging staff to be more energy efficient (and 

providing incentives for those behavior changes); 

(8) and studying and promoting the carbon sequestration benefits of the refuge.”

Response 53. The Service agrees and does much of 

this on the refuge complex today, some due to 

Service policy (such as vehicle purchases) and 

some voluntarily as conservationists. In fact, the 

Service conducted most of the planning process 

for the CCP using online meetings and conference calls. Bowdoin Refuge uses a wind turbine to 

provide electricity to building facilities. Any new 

construction on the refuge complex will use the 

“green” technologies described in this comment. 

Public Use

Comment 54. “Ban all hunting and trapping. The 

wildlife and birds deserve a site to live their lives.”

Response 54. Hunting is a compatible, traditional, 

public use of the Bowdoin Refuge Complex, excluding Holm WPA. 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.

Comment 55. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks recommends that big game diseases be recognized 

and suggests that white-tailed deer populations 

be managed at lower densities to prevent disease 

transmission.

Response 55. The CCP describes known big game 

diseases in the wildlife disease section (chapter 4 

in the draft plan and chapter 3 in this final plan). 

The refuge complex completed a chronic wasting disease plan in 2006. The Service agrees that 

higher density big game populations are more 

susceptible to disease. Service and State biologists will collaborate to determine the feasibility 

and compatibility of offering a big game hunt on 

Bowdoin Refuge.

Comment 56. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks suggests that, if a big game hunt is allowed on Bowdoin Refuge, the permitted weapons be expanded 

beyond archery to increase harvest. Nearby State 

wildlife management areas allow archery equipment, shotgun, traditional handgun, muzzleloader, or crossbow. These weapons still provide 
232 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

for safety, but expand the hunting opportunity 

and harvest potential. Furthermore, maintaining 

consistency between Bowdoin Refuge and Statemanaged wildlife management areas would be 

less confusing to hunters.

Response 56. The final CCP incorporates the consideration of other types of weapons when evaluating the potential for offering big game hunting on 

Bowdoin Refuge. As this new hunting program is 

evaluated with assistance from the State, it will 

be determined which weapons are be appropriate 

and safe.

Comment 57. “The proposal to close the east end of 

Bowdoin Refuge to all foot traffic during the waterfowl hunting season will have unknown effects 

to hunting opportunity and will limit other recreational opportunities, such as hiking, photography and wildlife viewing. MFWP recommends 

that this be considered experimental by nature 

and we do not recommend this action. At a minimum MFWP recommends that it be reversible 

should it not provide the intended sanctuary that 

increases waterfowl numbers in the area during 

hunting season.”

Response 57. The east half of Bowdoin Refuge is 

designated as a waterfowl sanctuary area during 

waterfowl hunting season. The purpose of this closure is to provide an undisturbed resting area for 

waterbirds, particularly during waterfowl hunting 

(October through November or until freezeup). 

Currently, the Service allows visitors to walk 

throughout this area, which does cause waterfowl 

to flush and expend energy. As a sanctuary area, 

waterfowl should be permitted to rest and feed 

with minimal disturbance. Other areas currently 

open to foot traffic and the auto tour route (that 

travels through the sanctuary area) will remain 

open, providing many opportunities for wildlife 

viewing and hiking. The Service predicts that the 

sanctuary may encourage waterfowl to remain in 

the overall area during hunting season, thereby 

creating greater opportunities for harvest in nonsanctuary areas. Nevertheless, these plans are 

adaptable. If the closure does not result in less 

disturbance, the Service will decide at that time 

whether to reopen the area to foot traffic.

Comment 58. “The contention that there are 25,000 

visitors per year is not backed up by a statistically 

valid survey. I find it hard to believe that there is 

an average of 68 visitors per day.”

Response 58. This is the Service’s best estimate of 

visitors throughout the refuge complex, which 

spreads across a four-county area. This number 

does not represent just visitors to the Bowdoin 

Refuge.

General 

Comment 59. “Wherever possible, the USFWS should 

work to ban mining and mineral leasing within the 

refuge complex. Plans should be made to institute a 

permanent withdraw of all Refuge Complex lands 

from mining and mineral leasing, particularly 

where the U.S. government owns the mineral rights.”

Response 59. The Service has not permitted mining 

or fluid mineral (natural gas or oil) extractions on 

areas where the Government owns the mineral 

rights. Natural gas extractions occur throughout 

the Bowdoin Refuge Complex where the Government has not bought the mineral rights or the private-land easements do not restrict this activity. 

By law, the Service is required to provide access 

to the owners of mineral rights, even on Federal 

lands. In the future, the Service will evaluate the 

effects of not being able to acquire mineral rights 

on lands proposed for easement or acquisition.

Comment 60. “None of the management alternatives 

evaluated in this plan are inexpensive. Given 

substantial differences in cost of proposed actions 

among the three alternatives, and the perilous 

state of our national economy, the CCP should include a rigorous economic cost-benefit analysis.”

Response 60. The CCP is a 15-year management plan. 

It is difficult to predict what a project will cost 

over that time, particularly since costs will change. 

Some of the objectives and strategies in the CCP 

can be accomplished with current resources, but it 

will require a change in priorities. That is a benefit 

of long-term planning. Even if the refuge complex 

does not receive additional resources, particularly 

given the current economic realities, the plan 

helps the refuge complex staff ensure they are 

using resources (such as staff and money) on the 

highest priority habitats, species, and issues. More 

money and staff to carry out the CCP will depend 

on available funds and regional priorities for the 

Service, as stated in beginning of this plan and 

repeated here:

“Comprehensive conservation plans provide 

long-term guidance for management decisions and 

set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed 

to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimate of 

future needs. These plans detail program planning 

levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily 

for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute 

a commitment for staffing increases, operational 

and maintenance increases, or funding for future 

land acquisition.”
APPENDIX E– Public Involvement 233

Comment 61. “In regard to overall CCP/EA refuge 

management, the EPA supports Alternative C 

that would improve refuge water management 

infrastructure (water delivery systems, dikes, and 

levees to manipulate individual wetlands) to create 

a more diverse and productive wetland complex. 

With Alternative C biological staff would also monitor the level of sedimentation occurring in natural 

wetlands and plan for its removal to restore the 

biological integrity of these wetlands; and Alternative C would also restore grasslands to provide the 

diverse habitats needed for target species of resident 

and migratory birds, and increase the acreage of 

invasive and nonnative species treated annually. 

The Bowdoin Refuge would serve as a conservation 

learning center for the local area, and public access 

would be improved to Creedman Coulee National 

Wildlife Refuge. We believe Alternative C provides 

greater potential for fish and wildlife habitat and 

environmental improvements than no action (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B).”

Response 61. The Service does not disagree. However, given the 15-year timeframe of the plan, 

the Service feels the objectives and strategies in 

alternative B are more achievable. It is possible 

that the focus and actions of alternative C could be 

incorporated into a followup CCP once the Service 

achieves the goals and objectives in this plan.

Comment 62. “I think eradication of invasive species 

is not a reasonable expectation, and I would prefer management to maintain less harmful levels 

of these species.”

Response 62. The Service agrees with this statement 

especially for well-established invasive plant species. It is very time-consuming and costly to treat 

established infestations, which makes early detection and rapid response critical. The invasive 

species focus of the CCP is to eradicate these species where possible but, at a minimum, to manage 

invasive plants at less harmful concentrations.

Comment 63. “The Conservation District endorses 

voluntary, incentive-based conservation of private lands. Toward that end, we concur that it is 

important to retain a staff person to administer 

the private lands Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program.”

Response 63. The CCP specifies retention of this position at the refuge complex headquarters.

Appendix F

Key Legislation and Policy

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and other key legislation and policies that guide management of the 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

F.1 National Wildlife Refuge 

System

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

Goals

A. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

B. Develop and maintain a network of habitats for 

migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is 

strategically distributed and carefully managed to 

meet important life history needs of these species 

across their ranges.

C. Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, 

wetlands of national or international significance, 

and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, 

rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing 

protection efforts.

D. Provide and enhance opportunities to participate 

in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fish, wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation).

E. Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

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, photography, 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.

F.2 Legal and Policy Guidance

Management actions on national wildlife refuges and 

wetland management districts are circumscribed by 

many mandates including laws and Executive orders.
236 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—Directed agencies to consult with native traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes 

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibited 

discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorized the scientific 

investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects 

taken or collected without a permit.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974)—

Directed the preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as 

amended—Protected materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction, 

and requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Required federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be 

accessible to persons with disabilities.

Clean Water Act (1977)—Required consultation with 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for 

major wetland modifications.

Dingell–Johnson Act (1950)—Authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance 

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 Land and Water Conservation 

Fund 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 the Environmental Protection Agency 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 7295 (1936)—Established Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and breeding 

ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

Executive Order 7713 (1937)—Established Lake 

Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and 

breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

Executive Order 7801 (1938)—Established Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

Executive Order 7833 (1938)—Established Hewitt 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and 

breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

Executive Order 8924 (1941)—Established Creedman 

Coulee National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and 

breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

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, minimize 

the impact 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 minimize the impact 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) minimize 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and (2) 
APPENDIX F– Key Legislation and Policy 237

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)—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, maintain 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.

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 Environmental Protection Agency 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.

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.
238 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

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 nonFederal, 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.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—Required 

all agencies including the Service to examine the 

environmental impacts 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 permit 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 are 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 ensure that any person can participate 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.
APPENDIX F– Key Legislation and Policy 239

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 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 G

Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination

This document is the result of extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the planning 

team shown below.

Team member Position Work unit

Mike Artmann Wildlife biologist and GIS specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Mike Dailey Hydrologist, planner Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Glasgow, Montana

Paula Gouse Wildlife refuge specialist Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Fort Peck, Montana

James Graham Former wetland district manager

(Current supervisory wildlife 

refuge specialist)

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Malta, 

Montana 

(Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge, Middle River, 

Minnesota)

Stan Jones Hydrologist Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Helena, Montana

Laura King Planning team leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Division of Refuge Planning, Moiese, Montana

Carmen Luna Refuge manager Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Malta, 

Montana

Jana Mohrman Hydrologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Division of Water Resources, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Deb Parker Writer-editor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, 

Colorado

John Simpson Hydrologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Division of Water Resources, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Kathy Tribby Former refuge operations specialist

(Current outdoor recreation 

planner)

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Malta, 

Montana

(Bureau of Land Management, Malta, Montana)

Dean Yashan Watershed management section 

supervisor

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 

Helena, Montana

Many organizations, agencies, and individuals provided invaluable assistance with the preparation of this CCP. 

The Service acknowledges the efforts of the following individuals and groups toward the completion of the 

plan. The diversity, talent, and knowledge contributed dramatically improved the vision and completeness of 

this document.
242 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Contributor Position Work unit

Bruce Barbour Former private lands biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Malta, Montana

Rick Coleman Assistant regional director, 

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Lakewood, Colorado

Jack Cunningham Hydraulic engineer Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado

John Esperance Former branch chief of Comprehensive 

and Land Protection Planning

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Lakewood, Colorado

Ned Euliss Research biologist U.S. Geological Survey, Jamestown, North Dakota

Sheri Fetherman Chief, Division of Education and 

Visitor Services

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Lakewood, Colorado

Vanessa Fields Wildlife biologist Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great Falls, 

Montana

Robert Gleason Director U.S. Geological Survey, Jamestown, North Dakota

Bill Greiman Agricultural engineer Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Helena, Montana

Steve Guertin Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Lakewood, Colorado

Ann Harrie Fish standards specialist Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 

Helena, Montana

Shannon Heath Outdoor recreation planner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana

Jeff King Project leader National Bison Range, Moiese, Montana

Wayne King Wildlife biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Lakewood, Colorado

Lisa Kusnierz Water quality planner Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 

Helena, Montana

Rachel Laubhan Wildlife biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Stafford, Kansas

Brant Loflin Zone archaeologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Spearfish, South 

Dakota

David Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Lakewood, Colorado

Rod McNeil Environmental science specialist, 

aquatic ecologist

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 

Helena, Montana

Karen Nelson Toxicologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Helena, Montana

David Redhorse Former Native American liaison U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Lakewood, Colorado

Mark Rodney Hydrologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, Colorado

Richard Roy Wildlife biologist Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Princeton, Oregon

Dean Rundle Refuge supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Lakewood, Colorado

Rick Schroeder Former wildlife biologist U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, Colorado
APPENDIX G– Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination 243

Contributor Position Work unit

Bob Skinner Wildlife biologist Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lewistown, Montana

Michael Spratt Former chief, Division of Refuge 

Planning

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Lakewood, Colorado

Mark Sullivan Wildlife management biologist Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Glasgow, Montana 

Brian Tangen Research biologist U.S. Geological Survey, Jamestown, North Dakota

Kate Thompson Former biological science technician 

(wildlife)

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Malta, 

Montana

Meg Van Ness Regional archaeologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie 

Region, Lakewood, Colorado

Matthew Walker Area biologist Natural Resources Conservation Service, Great Falls, 

Montana 

Jay Weiner Legal counsel Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact 

Commission, Helena, Montana

Harold Wentland Wildlife biologist Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks; Glasgow, Montana

Appendix H 

Species Lists

This appendix contains the common and scientific 

names of animals and plants of the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. The amphibians, reptiles, 

and mammals have ranges that encompass the refuge complex. The bird and plant lists are from actual sightings and surveys at the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge. Species of concern were determined 

from global, Federal, and State of Montana listings 

(Montana Natural Heritage Program 2009a, 2009b).

H.1 List of Amphibian and Reptile Species

The following amphibian and reptile list is based on refuge complex files and listings on the Montana Natural 

Heritage Program Web site for Phillips, Blaine, and Hill Counties. The taxonomic order follows Werner et al. 

(2004).

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

SALAMANDERS

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum —

FROGS and TOADS

Plains spadefoot toad Spea bombifrons Species of concern

Great Plains toad Bufo cognatus Species of concern

Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhousii —

Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris maculata —

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Species of concern

TURTLES

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta —

Spiny softshell Apalone spinifera Species of concern

LIZARDS

Greater short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi Species of concern

Common sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus Species of concern

SNAKES

Eastern racer Coluber constrictor —

Western hognose snake Heterodon nasicus Species of concern

Milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum Species of concern

Gopher snake or bullsnake Pituophis catenifer —

Terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans —

Plains garter snake Thamnophis radix —

Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis —

Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis —
246 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

H.2 List of Fish Species

The following fish list is based on surveys of Beaver Creek and the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge intake 

canal (2000–2003) and staff observations.

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides —

Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni Potential species of concern

Common carp Cyprinus carpio Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas —

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio —

White sucker Catostomus commersoni —

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans Potential species of concern

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Iowa darter Etheostoma exile Potential species of concern

Yellow perch Perca flavescens Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus —

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Northern pike Esox lucius —

H.3 List of Bird Species

The following bird list is based on the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge bird list (July 2008); all species have 

been observed on the refuge. Species names are in accordance with the Montana Natural Heritage Program 

Web site (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2009a, 2009b). A “B” indicates local breeders, and focal bird 

species were determined from the focal species strategy of the 2005 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory 

Bird Program.

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

LOONS

Common loon Gavia immer Species of concern

GREBES

Pied-billed grebe

Horned grebe

Red-necked grebe

Eared grebe

Western grebe

Clark’s grebe

Podylimbus podiceps

Podiceps auritus

Podiceps grisegena

Podiceps nigricollis

Aechmophorus occidentalis

Aechmophorus clarkii

B

Species of concern, B

—

B

B

Species of concern, B

PELICANS

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Species of concern, B

CORMORANTS

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Focal species, B
APPENDIX H– Species Lists 247

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

HERONS

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Species of concern, B

Great blue heron Ardea herodias Species of concern, B

Great egret Ardea alba —

Snowy egret Egretta thula —

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis —

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax Species of concern, B

IBIS

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Species of concern, B

GEESE

Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons —

Snow goose Chen caerulescens —

Ross’ goose Chen rossii —

Canada goose Branta canadensis B

SWANS

Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus —

DUCKS

Wood duck Aix sponsa Focal species, B

Gadwall Anas strepera B

Eurasian wigeon Anas penelope —

American wigeon Anas americana Focal species, B

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Focal species, B

Blue-winged teal Anas discors B

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera B

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata B

Northern pintail Anas acuta Focal species, B

Green-winged teal Anas crecca B

Canvasback Aythya valisineria B

Redhead Aythya americana B

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris —

Greater scaup Aythya marila Focal species

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis Focal species, B

White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca Focal species

Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis —

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola B

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula B

Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica Potential species of concern

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Potential species of concern

Common merganser Mergus merganser —

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator —

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis B

NEW WORLD VULTURES

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura —
248 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

HAWKS and EAGLES

Osprey Pandion haliaetus —

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Species of concern

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus B

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus —

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii —

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Species of concern

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus —

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Species of concern, B

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis B

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Species of concern, focal species, B

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus —

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Species of concern

FALCONS

American kestrel Falco sparverius B

Merlin Falco columbarius —

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Species of concern, focal species

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus —

GALLINACEOUS BIRDS

Gray partridge Perdix perdix Exotic (not native to Montana, introduced) 

species, B

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus Exotic (not native to Montana, introduced) 

species, B

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Species of concern, B

Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Species of concern, B

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Exotic (not native to Montana) species

RAILS

Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Species of concern, focal species

Virginia rail Rallus limicola B

Sora Porzana carolina B

American coot Fulica americana B

CRANES

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis B

PLOVERS

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola —

American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica —

Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus Focal species

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus —

Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened species, species of concern, focal 

species, B

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous B

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Species of concern. focal species

STILTS and AVOCETS

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Species of concern, B
APPENDIX H– Species Lists 249

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

American avocet Recurvirostra americana B

SANDPIPERS

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca —

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes —

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria —

Willet Tringa semipalmatus B

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia B

Upland sandpiper Bartamia longicauda Focal species, B

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus —

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Species of concern. focal species, B

Hudsonian godwit Limosa haemastica Focal species

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa Focal species, B

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres —

Red knot Calidris canutus —

Sanderling Calidris alba —

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla —

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri —

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla —

White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis —

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii —

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos —

Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus —

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus —

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus —

Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata B

PHALAROPES

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Focal species, B

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus —

GULLS

Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan Species of concern, B

Bonaparte’s gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia —

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis B

California gull Larus californicus B

Herring gull Larus argentatus —

TERNS

Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia Species of concern. focal species, B

Common tern Sterna hirundo Species of concern, focal species, B

Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea Focal species, B

Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri Species of concern

Black tern Chlidonias niger Species of concern. focal species, B

DOVES

Rock pigeon Columba livia Exotic (not native to Montana, introduced) 

species
250 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Exotic (not native to Montana, introduced) 

species, B

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Focal species, B

CUCKOOS

Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Species of concern, focal species, B

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Species of concern, focal species

OWLS

Eastern screech-owl Megascops asio Species of concern, B

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus B

Snowy owl Bubo scandiaca —

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Species of concern. focal species, B

Long-eared owl Asio otus B

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Potential species of concern, focal species, B

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus Focal species

NIGHTJARS

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor B

HUMMINGBIRDS

Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris B

KINGFISHERS

Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon —

WOODPECKERS

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Species of concern, focal species, B

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Focal species

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens B

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus B

Northern flicker (yellowshafted)

Colaptes auratus auratus B

Northern flicker (redshafted)Colaptes auratus cafer B

FLYCATCHERS

Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus B

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii B

Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus B

Say’s phoebe Saynoris saya B

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis B

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus B

SHRIKES

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Species of concern. focal species, B

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor —

VIREOS

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus —

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus —
APPENDIX H– Species Lists 251

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

JAYS, MAGPIES, and CROWS

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata —

Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia B

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos —

Common raven Corvus corax —

LARKS

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris B

SWALLOWS

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor B

Northern rough-winged 

swallow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis B

Bank swallow Riparia riparia B

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota B

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica B

CHICKADEES

Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus B

Mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli —

NUTHATCHES

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis —

CREEPERS

Brown creeper Certhia americana Species of concern

WRENS

Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus —

House wren Troglodytes aedon B

Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes Species of concern

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris B

KINGLETS

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa —

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula —

THRUSHES

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides —

Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi —

Veery Catharus fuscescens Species of concern

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus —

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus —

American robin Turdus migratorius B

Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius —

THRASHERS

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis —

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum B

Northern mockingbird Mimus carolinensis —
252 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

STARLINGS

European starling Sturnus vulgaris Exotic (not native to Montana) species, B

PIPITS

American (water) pipit Anthus rubescens —

Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii Species of concern. focal species, B

WAXWINGS

Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulous —

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum B

WARBLERS

Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina Potential species of concern

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata —

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia B

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata —

Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi —

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata —

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla —

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Species of concern

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis —

Mourning warbler Oporornis philadelphia —

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei —

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas B

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla —

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens —

TANAGERS

Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea —

Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana —

SPARROWS

Spotted towhee Pipilo maculates B

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea —

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina B

Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida B

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Species of concern, B

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus B

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus B

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys B

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis B

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Species of concern. focal species, B

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii Species of concern. focal species, B

Le Conte’s sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Species of concern. focal species

Fox sparrow Passerelia iliaca —

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia B

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii —

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis —
APPENDIX H– Species Lists 253

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

Harris’ sparrow Zonotrichia querula —

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys —

Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla —

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis subspp. —

McCown’s longspur Calcarius mccownii Species of concern, B

Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus —

Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Species of concern. focal species, B

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis —

GROSBEAKS and BUNTINGS

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus —

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus —

Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena —

BLACKBIRDS and ORIOLES

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Species of concern. focal species

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus B

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta B

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus B

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Focal species

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus B

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula B

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater B

Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula B

Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii B

FINCHES

Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator —

Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii Species of concern

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus B

Common redpoll Acanthis flammea —

Hoary redpoll Acanthis hornemanni —

Pine siskin Spinus pinus —

American goldfinch Spinus tristis B

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus —

OLD WORLD SPARROWS

House sparrow Passer domesticus Exotic (not native to Montana) species, B

H.4 List of Mammal Species

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

SHREWS

Masked shrew Sorex cinereus —

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami Species of concern
254 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

Preble’s shrew Sorex preblei Species of concern

BATS

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus —

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Potential species of concern

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus —

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Species of concern

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Species of concern

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum —

Western long-eared myotis Myotis evotis —

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Species of concern

Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis Species of concern

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Species of concern

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans —

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis Potential species of concern

HARES and RABBITS

Mountain cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii —

White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii —

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus —

SQUIRRELS

Richardson’s ground squirrel Spermophilus richardsonii —

POCKET GOPHERS

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides —

BEAVERS

Beaver Castor canadensis —

MICE, RATS, and VOLES

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis —

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus —

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus —

House mouse Mus musculus Exotic species (not native to Montana)

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus —

Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster —

Western jumping mouse Zapus princeps —

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius Species of concern

Bushytail woodrat Neotoma cinerea —

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus —

NEW WORLD PORCUPINES

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum —

CANIDS

Coyote Canis latrans —

Red fox Vulpes vulpes —

Swift fox Vulpes velox Species of concern
APPENDIX H– Species Lists 255

Common Name Scientific Name Designation

FELIDS

Bobcat 

Mountain lion

Lynx rufus

Felis concolor

—

—

PROCYONIDS

Raccoon

MUSTELIDS

Procyon lotor —

Long-tailed weasel

Least weasel

Mustela frenata

Mustela nivalis

—

—

Mink Mustela vison —

Badger

MEPHITIDS

Taxidea taxus —

Striped skunk

CERVIDS

Mephitis mephitis —

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus —

White-tailed deer

Elk

Odocoileus virginianus

Cervus canadensis

—

—

Moose Alces alces —

PRONGHORN

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana —

H.5 List of Plant Species

Common Name Scientific Name

Alfalfa Medicago sativa

Alkali bulrush Scirpus maritimus

Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides

American sloughgrass Beckmania syzigachne

American vetch Vicia americana

Arum-leaved arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata

Baby’s breath Gypsophila paniculata

Balkan catchfly Silene csereii 

Barnyard grass Echinochloa crusgalli

Beaked sedge Carex rostrata

Bigbract verbena Verbena bracteata

Birch Betula papyrifera

Black bindweed Polygonum convovulus

Black medick Medicago lupulina

Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis

Blue lettuce Lactuca pulchella

Bottlebrush grass Elymus hystrix 

Common Name Scientific Name

Boxelder Acer negundo

Box knotweed Polygonum buxiforme

Broad-leaf arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia

broom snakeweed Gutierrezia serothrae

Buffaloberry Shepherdia argentea 

Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare

Bushy knotweed Polygonum ramosissimum

Butter and eggs Linaria vulgaris

Canadian waterweed Elodea canadensis

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Canada wild rye Elymus canadensis

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Clasping pepperweed Lepidium perfoliatum 

Common bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris

Common cattail Typha latifolia

Common mallow Malva neglecta
256 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Common Name Scientific Name

Common plantain Plantago major

Common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum

Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa

Cutleaf goldenweed Haplopappus spinulosus

Dandelion Taraxacum officianale

Dewey sedge Carex deweyana

Dotted blazingstar Liatris punctata

Eaton’s aster Symphyotrichum eatonii

English plantain Plantago lanceolata

European bur-reed Sparganium emersum

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Field chickweed Cerastium arvense

Field horsetail Equisetum arvense

Field pennycress Thlaspi arvense

Fireweed Chamerion angustifolium

Flatspine stickseed Lappula occidentalis

Foothill arnica Arnica fulgens

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum

Fries’ pondweed Potamogeton friesii

Fringed loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata

Fringed sagewort Artemisia frigida

Giant goldenrod Solidago gigantea

Giant red Indian paint- Castilleja miniata

brush

Golden currant Ribes odoratum

Golden dock Rumex maritimus

Goosefoot Chenopodium spp.

Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Green foxtail Setaria viridis

Green needlegrass Stipa viridula

Green sagewort Artemesia dracunculus

Hairy evening-primrose Oenothera strigosa

Hairy golden-aster Chrysopsis villosa

Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus

Heliotrope Heliotropium curassavicum

Hoary alyssum Berteroa incana

Horsemint Monarda stricta

Horsetail Equisetum fluviatile

Inland saltgrass Distichlis spicata

Jacob’s ladder Polemonium pulcherrimum

Japanese brome Bromus japonicus

Common Name Scientific Name

Juniper Juniperus communis

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

Kochia Kochia scoparia

Lambstongue ragwort Senecio integerrimus

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Lupine Lupinus flexuosus

Macoun’s buttercup Ranunculus macounii

Many-flowered aster Symphyotrichum ericoides

Maximilian sunflower Helianthus maximilianii

Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis

Musk mallow Malva moschata

Narrow-leaf water plantain Alisma gramineum

Narrow-leaved collomia Collomia linearis

Narrow-leaved milkvetch Astragalus pectinatus

Needle and thread Stipa comata

Needle spikerush Eleocharis acicularis

Nodding brome Bromus anomalus

Nodding chickweed Cerastium nutans

Nodding smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium

Northern bedstraw Galium boreale

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata

Pale spikerush Eleocharis macrostachya

Pasqueflower Pulsatilla patens

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis

Pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus

Plains cottonwood Populus deltoides

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa

Povertyweed Iva axillaris 

Prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera

Prairie Junegrass Koeleria macrantha

Prairie rose Rosa arkansana

Prickly pear Opuntia polycantha

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola

Proso millet Panicum miliaceum

Prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare

Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea

Purplestem aster Symphyotrichum puniceum

Quackgrass Agropyron repens

Redtop Agrostis stolonifera

Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea

Richardson’s pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii

Ridgeseed spurge Chamaesyce glyptosperma

Rocky Mountain beeplant Cleome serrulata
APPENDIX H– Species Lists 257

Common Name Scientific Name

Rubber rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus

Rush skeletonweed Lygodesmia juncea

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

Russian thistle Salsola iberica

Sago pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus

Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima

Saltgrass Distichlis spicata

Sandbar willow Salix interior

Sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda

Scarlet gaura Gaura coccinea

Scarlet globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea

Scratchgrass Muhlenbergia asperifolia

Seaside arrowgrass Triglochin maritima

Shortbeak sedge Carex brevior

Showy milkweed Asclepias speciosa

Silver sage Artemisia cana

Silverweed cinquefoil Argentina anserina

Silver cinquefoil Potentilla argentea

Slender lip fern Cheilanthes feei

Slender pondweed Potamogeton filiformis

Silverleaf scurfpea Psoralea argophylla

Small pondweed Potamogeton pusilus

Smartweed Polygonum persicaria

Smooth brome Bromus inermis

Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe

Spreading dogbane Apocynum 

androsaemifolium

Stiff goldenrod Oligoneuron rigidum

Stiff sunflower Helianthus pauciflorus

Stinkgrass Eragrostis cilianensis

Threadleaf crowfoot Ranunculus trichophyllus

Three-square bulrush Schoenoplectus pungens

Timothy Phleum pretense

Common Name Scientific Name

Tufted phlox Phlox caespitosa

Tumblemustard Sisymbrium altissimum

Watermilfoil Myriophyllum exalbescena

Water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica

Water starwort Collitriche hermadroditica

Wavyleaf thistle Cirsium undulatum

Western clamy weed Polanisia trachysperma

Western snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis

Western waterweed Anacharis occidentalis

Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii

Western white clematis Clematis ligusticifolia

Western wild rose Rosa woodsii

Western wild-rye Elymus glavcus

Western yarrow Achillea millefolium

White cinquefoil Potentilla arguta

White prairie aster Aster ericoides

White sage Artemesia ludoviciana

Whitetop Cardaria draba

Widgeongrass Ruppia maitima

Wild asparagus Asparagus officianalis

Wild buckwheat Polygonum convolvulus

Wild daisy, fleabane Erigeron glabellus

Wild licorice Glyzerhiza lepidata

Wild mint Nemtha arvensis

Wild mustard Brassica kaber

Wild oats Averia fatua

Wild onion Allium textile

Willow Salix spp.

Wire rush Juncus balticus

Wolf berry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus

Woolly plantain Plantago patagonica

Yellow sweetclover Melilotus officinalis

Yellow umbrella plant Eriogonum flavum

Appendix I

Fire Management Program

The Service has administrative responsibility for fire 

management at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

and Bowdoin Wetland Management District, which 

covers 24,915 acres. Additional fire responsibilities 

cover the satellite refuges—Black Coulee, Creedman 

Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau National 

Wildlife Refuges—which total 1,458 fee-title acres.

I.1 The Role of Fire

In ecosystems of the Great Plains, vegetation has 

evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation 

from grazing, fire, drought, and floods. This periodic 

disturbance is what kept the ecosystem diverse and 

healthy while maintaining significant biodiversity for 

thousands of years.

Historically, natural fire and fires started by Native Americans have played an important disturbance 

role in many ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, decreasing the impact of insects and diseases, 

stimulating regeneration, recycling nutrients, and providing a diversity of habitats for plants and wildlife.

When fire or grazing is excluded from prairie 

landscapes, the fuel load increases due to the buildup 

of thatch and expansion of woody vegetation. This 

increase in fuel loading leads to an increase in a fire’s 

resistance to control, which threatens firefighter and 

public safety as well as Federal and private lands and 

facilities. However, fire when properly used can do 

the following:

■ Reduce hazardous fuel buildup in both wildlandurban interface and non–wildland-urban interface 

areas

■ Improve wildlife habitats by reducing the density 

of vegetation or changing the plant species composition, or both

■ Sustain or increase biological diversity

■ Improve woodland and shrubland by reducing 

plant density

■ Reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and disease outbreaks

■ Improve the quality and quantity of livestock forage

■ Increase the quantity of water available for municipalities and activities dependent on water supplies from wildlands

I.2 Wildland Fire Management 

Policy and Guidance

Based on Federal interagency policy (Fire Executive 

Council 2009), wildland fire is defined as any nonstructure fire that occurs in the wildland including 

wildfire and prescribed fire. Response to wildland 

fire is based on consideration of a full range of fire 

management actions—allowing the fire to benefit the 

resource where possible or taking suppression action 

when those benefits are not attainable or there is a 

likely risk to important resources or adjacent lands.

Considerations, guidance, and direction for wildland fire management should be addressed in the 

land use resource plans (for example, this CCP). Fire 

management plans are stepdown processes from the 

land use plans and habitat plans and provide details 

about fire suppression, fire use, and fire management 

activities.

The 1995 Federal Fire Policy Wildland Fire Management Policy was updated in 2001. This revised 

policy directs Federal agencies to achieve a balance 

between fire suppression to protect life, property, and 

resources and fire use to regulate fuels and maintain 

healthy ecosystems. The following guiding principles 

and policy statements are excerpted from this document titled Review and Update of the 1995 Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy; these are the 

foundational principles for Federal wildland fire management policy.

Guiding Principles

1. Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in 

every fire management activity.
260 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin 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.

I.3 Management Direction

The Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex and 

the Eastern Montana Fire District will protect life, 

property, and other resources by safely suppressing 

all wildfires.

Prescribed fire, as well as manual and mechanical 

fuel treatments, will be used in an ecosystem context 

to protect both Federal and private property and for 

habitat management purposes. Fuel reduction activities will be applied in collaboration with Federal, 

State, private, and nongovernmental partners. In addition, the Service will 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 wildlandurban interface treatments, areas with community 

wildfire protection plans and designated “communities 

at risk” will be the primary focus. The only community 

at risk near the refuge complex, as identified in the 

Federal Register, is the town of Malta. The development of the community wildfire-protection plan for 

Malta is a current, ongoing process.

All aspects of the fire management program will 

be conducted consistent with applicable laws, policies, 

and regulations. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex will maintain a fire management plan to 

accomplish the fire management goals described below. Prescribed fire and manual and mechanical fuel 

treatments will 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.
APPENDIX I– Fire Management Program 261

National Fire Management Goals

The goals and strategies of the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland Fire Management Program Strategic Plan” are 

consistent with the following guidance:

■ Policies of the Department of the Interior and the 

Service

■ National Fire Plan direction

■ The President’s Healthy Forest Initiative

■ The 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan

■ National Wildfire Coordinating Group Guidelines

■ Initiatives of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council

■ Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations

Regional Fire Management Goals

The “Region 6 Refuges Regional Priorities FY07–11” 

are consistent with the refuges’ vision statement for 

the Mountain–Prairie Region, “to maintain and improve the biological integrity of the region, ensure 

the ecological condition of the region’s public and 

private lands are better understood, and endorse sustainable use of habitats that support native wildlife 

and people’s livelihoods.”

Refuge Complex Fire Management Goals

The fire management goal for the Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex is to use prescribed fire and 

manual and mechanical treatments to (1) reduce the 

threat to life and property through 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 and wetland 

ecosystems, as well as tamegrasses planted for wildlife, 

such as dense nesting cover. The primary objective of 

the prescribed fire management program is to reduce 

fuel loads while restoring and maintaining native prairie and wetland habitats. Prescribed fire will be used to 

recycle nutrients, reduce or eliminate invasive plants, 

increase the growth and production of native plants, 

improve wildlife habitat and nesting cover for migratory birds, and reduce the risk of wildfire.

Achieving this objective will require burning 

between 500 and 2,000 acres of upland and wetland 

habitats annually, until every acre has been burned 

at least once. However, according to the literature, 

fire must be used cautiously in this arid climate. It 

is uncertain how often this area historically burned, 

particularly since the arid climate makes it slow to recover. To determine the need and frequency of using 

prescribed fire, the Service will review the historical 

weather patterns; the quality, diversity, and species 

of vegetation; the presence of invasive species; the 

habitat needs of target species; and the results of 

monitoring prior-treatment sites. It is possible that 

other habitat manipulations would be more appropriate to achieve desired objectives.

Strategies

Strategies and tactics that consider public and firefighter safety, as well as resource values at risk, will 

be used. Wildfire suppression, prescribed fire methods, manual and mechanical means, timing, and monitoring will be described in detail within the stepdown 

fire management plans for the refuge complex.

All fire management actions will use prescribed 

fire and manual or mechanical means to reduce hazardous fuels, restore and maintain desired habitat 

conditions, control nonnative vegetation, and control 

the spread of woody vegetation within the diverse 

ecosystem habitats. The fuel treatment program 

will 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 

will meet the Clean Air Act emission standards by 

adhering to the Montana requirements during all prescribed fire activities.

I.4 Fire Management 

Organization, Contacts, and 

Cooperation

Using the fire management district approach, the 

Mountain–Prairie Region of the Service will establish 

qualified technical oversight of fire management for 

the refuge complex. Under this approach, the level 

of fire management staffing will be determined by established modeling systems and be based on the fire 

management workload of a group of refuges and pos-
262 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

sibly that of interagency partners. Workload is based 

on historical wildfire suppression activities as well as 

historical and planned fuel treatments.

Depending on budgets, fire management staff and 

support equipment may be located at the headquarters 

of the refuge complex or at other refuges within the district and shared between all units. Fire management 

activities will 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 will be developed for the refuge complex. 

The fire management plans may be prepared as (1) 

plans that cover each individual refuge and wetland 

management district, (2) a plan that covers the area 

identified within this CCP, (3) a plan that covers the 

fire management district, or (4) an interagency fire 

management plan.
Bibliography

Adair, S.E. 2003. America’s vanishing wetlands. In: 

Butcher, Russell; editor. America’s national wildlife refuges, a complete guide. Lahnam, Maryland: 

Roberts Rinehart. 1–11.

Alden, W.C. 1932. Physiography and glacial geology 

of eastern Montana and adjacent areas. United 

State Geological Survey Professional Paper. 174 p.

Allen, J.N. 1980. The ecology and behavior of the 

long-billed curlew in southeastern Washington. 

Wildlife Monographs 73:1–67.

Alspach C.M. 1989. Surface use by the mineral 

owner: how much accommodation is required 

under current oil and gas law? In: 55 Oklahoma 

Law Review. Rev. 89–Bergen Ditch & Reservoir 

Co. v. Barnes. Norman, Oklahoma: University of 

Oklahoma College of Law. 683 p.

Ambrose, L.G.; Wilson, S.D. 2003. Emergence of the 

introduced grass Agropyron cristatum and the native grass Boutleoua gracilis in a mixed-grass prairie restoration. Restoration Ecology 11(1):110–5.

Arnold, T.W. [and others]. 2007. Waterfowl use of 

dense nesting cover in the Canadian Parklands. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2542–9.

Askins, R.A.; Chavez-Ramirez, F.; Dale, B.C.; [and 

others]. 2007. Conservation of grassland birds in 

North America: understanding ecological processes in different regions. Ornithological Monographs 64:1–46.

Atkinson, S.J.; Dood, A.R. 2006. Montana piping plover management plan. Bozeman, Montana: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 78 p.

Bakker, K.K. 2003. A synthesis of the effect of woody 

vegetation on grassland-nesting birds. In: Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science; 

[Date of meeting unknown]; [City and State of 

meeting unknown]. [City and State of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 82:119–41.

Bakker, K.K.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F. 2002. Incorporating landscape attributes into models for 

migratory grassland bird conservation. Conservation Biology 16:1,638–46.

Baldassarre G.A.; Bolen, E.G. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management. 2nd edition. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company. 576 p.

Ball, I.J.; Eng, Robert L.; Ball, Susan Kraft. 1995. 

Population density and productivity of ducks on 

large grassland tracts in northcentral Montana. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(4):767–73.

Batt, B.D.J.; Anderson, M.G.; Anderson, C.D.; Caswell, F.D. 1989. The use of prairie potholes by 

North American ducks. In: van der Valk, A., editor. Northern Prairie Wetlands. Ames, Iowa: Iowa 

State University Press. 204–27.

Bauder, J.W.; Hershberger, K.; Seesoms, H. 2007. 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge salt mitigation 

impact review. Open-file report to Montana Reserve Water Rights Compact Commission, Technical Advisory Team, April 2007. 81 p.

BBC Consulting. 2010. Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex socioeconomic impact analysis. 

On file at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, 

Malta, Montana. 17 p.

Bedunah, D.J. 1992. The complex ecology of weeds, 

grazing, and wildlife. Western Wildlands 18:6–11.

Belrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North 

America. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole 

Books. 540 p.

Belrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, geese and swans of North 

America. 3rd edition. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: 

Stackpole Books. 540 p.

Bent, A.C. 1962. Life histories of North American 

shorebirds. Part 1. New York: Dover Publications, 

Inc. 602 p.

Berger, R.P.; Baydack, R.K. 1992. Effects of aspen 

succession on sharp-tailed grouse, Tympanuchus 

phasianellus, in the Interlake Region of Manitoba. 

The Canadian Field-Naturalist 106:185–91.

Bergman, R.D.; Swain, P.; Weller, M.W. 1970. A 

comparative study of nesting Forster’s and black 

terns. Wilson Bulletin 82:435–44.

Bicak, T.K.; Redmond, R.L.; Jenni, D.A. 1982. Effects 

of grazing on long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) breeding behavior and ecology in southwestern Idaho. In: Peek, J.M.; Dalke, P.D.; editors. 

Proceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships 

symposium; [Date of symposium unknown]; [City 

and State of symposium unknown]. Moscow, 

Idaho: University of Idaho; Forest, Wildlife and 

Range Experiment Station. 74–85.

Bock, C.E.; Saab, V.A.; Rich, T.D.; Dobkin, D.S. 

1993. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical 

migratory landbirds in western North America. 

In: Finch, D.M.; Stangel, P.W.; editors. Status 

and management of neotropical migratory birds. 

USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report 

RM–229:296–309.
264 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Bomberger, M.L. 1984. Quantitative assessment of 

the nesting habitat of Wilson’s phalarope. Wilson 

Bulletin 96:126–28.

Brewer, T.K. 2003. [Dense clubmoss]. University of 

Idaho. <www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range454/2003_pet_

weeds/club_moss.html> Accessed April 5, 2007.

Briggs, F.P. 1964. Waterfowl in a changing continent. 

In: Linduska, J.P.; editor. Waterfowl tomorrow. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 3–11.

Brown, M.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1986. Implications of 

marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:392–97.

Brumley, J. 2006. Nemont Telephone Cooperative’s 

2006 Dagmar, Glentanna and Larslan exchanges: 

cultural resources inventory. [City and State of 

publication unknown]: Ethos Consultants, Inc. 

8–47.

Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Bowdoin natural gas development project environmental assessment, MT–92234–07–59, December 2008. 

Great Falls, Montana: U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Bureau of Land Management. <www

.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/malta_field_office/bowdoin_

ea.html> Accessed February 2009.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1973. Wilderness study summary, Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge, Malta, Montana. [City and State of publication unknown]: U.S. Government Printing Office 

849–921. 14 p.

Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M. 1994. Franklin’s gull (Larus 

pipixcan). In: Poole, A; Gill, F.; editors. The birds 

of North America, No. 116. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Academy of Natural Sciences. Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists Union. 28 p.

Campbell, R.W.; Dawe, N.K.; McTaggart-Cowan, J.; 

[and others]. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia: Nonpasserines. Volume 2. Victoria, British 

Columbia: Royal British Columbia Museum and 

Canadian Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

Carson, S.; Messer, A.; Jakes, A.; Rauscher, R. 2004. 

Milk River Wildlife Management Area 2004 small 

mammal trapping and species inventory report. 

[City and State of publication unknown]: Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 8 p.

Casey, Daniel. 2000. Partners in Flight Draft Bird 

Conservation Plan Montana. Version 1.0. Kalispell, 

Montana: Montana Partners in Flight. 288 p.

Caudill, James; Henderson, E. 2005. Banking on 

nature 2004: the economic benefits to local communities of national wildlife refuge visitation. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[Pages unknown].

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [No 

date]. Avian influenza (bird flu). Atlanta, Georgia: Department of Health and Human Services. 

<www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/> Accessed April 2008.

Christian, J.M.; Wilson, S.D. 1999. Long-term ecosystem impacts of an introduced grass in the northern 

Great Plains. Ecology 80(7):2,397–407.

Cochrane, J.F.; Anderson, S.H. 1987. Comparison of 

habitat attributes at sites of stable and declining 

long-billed curlew populations. Great Basin Naturalist 47:459–66.

Cogswell, H.L. 1977. Water birds of California. 

Berkeley, California: University of California 

Press. 399 p.

Colberg, T.J.; Romo, J.T. 2003. Clubmoss effects on 

plant water status and standing crop. Journal of 

Range Management 56(5):489–95.

Colwell, M.A. 1987. Breeding biology, intrasexual 

competition, and philopatry in Wilson’s phalarope 

[Ph.D. dissertation]. Grand Forks, North Dakota: 

University of North Dakota. 123 p.

Colwell, M.A.; Jehl, J.R., Jr. 1994. Wilson’s phalarope 

(Phalaropus tricolor). From: Poole, A.; editor. The 

Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, New York: 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/083> Accessed January 2011.

Colwell, M.A.; Oring, L.W. 1988a. Breeding biology of 

Wilson’s phalarope in southcentral Saskatchewan. 

Wilson Bulletin 100:567–82.

Colwell, M.A.; Oring, L.W. 1988b. Habitat use by 

breeding and migrating shorebirds in southcentral 

Saskatchewan. Wilson Bulletin 100:554–66.

Colwell, M.A.; Oring, L.W. 1988c. Return rates of 

prairie shorebirds: sex and species differences. 

Wader Study Group Bulletin 55:21–24.

Colwell, M.A.; Oring, L.W. 1990. Nest site characteristics of prairie shorebirds. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 68:297–302.

Cook, H.H.; Powers, C.F. 1958. Early biochemical 

changes in the soils and waters of artificially created marshes in New York. New York Game and 

Fish Journal 5:9–65.

Cooper, S.V.; Jean, C.; Hendricks, P. 2001. Biological 

survey of a prairie landscape in Montana’s glaciated plains [report to the Bureau of Land Management]. Helena, Montana: Montana Natural 

Heritage Program. 24 p.

Corn, J.G.; Armbruster, M.J. 1993. Prey availability 

for foraging piping plovers along the Platte River in 

Nebraska. In: Higgins, K.F.; Brashier, M.R.; editors. 

Proceedings of the Missouri River and its tributaries: piping plover and least tern symposium–workshop; [Date of symposium unknown]; [City and 

State of symposium unknown]. Brookings, South 

Dakota: South Dakota State University, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences. 143–49.

Cosens, B. 2006. The role of hydrology in the resolution of water disputes. Journal of Contemporary 

Water Research & Education. 33:17–25.

Cowardin, Lewis M.; Carter, Virginia; Golet, Francis C.; LaRoe, Edward T. 1979. Classification of 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 265

wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United 

States. FWS/OBS–79/31. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 131 p.

Cowardin, L.M.; Blohm, R. 1992. Breeding population inventories and measures of recruitment. 

In: B.D.J.B.; [and others]; editors. Ecology and 

management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis, 

Minnesota: University of Minnesota. 423–45.

Crissey, W.F. 1969. Prairie potholes from a continental viewpoint. In: Canadian Wildlife Service 

Report Series 6. Saskatoon Wetlands Seminar; 

[Date of seminar unknown]; [City and State of 

seminar unknown]. [City and State of publication 

unknown]: Canadian Wildlife Service. 161–71.

Custer, C.M. 1993. Waterfowl management handbook—life history traits and habitat needs of the 

redhead. Fish and Wildlife leaflet 13.1.11. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 7 p.

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M.; [and others]. 

2006. Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in response 

to fire in a temperate mixed-grass savanna. Journal of Environmental Quality 35:1,620–28.

Davis, J.W.; Anderson, R.C.; Karstad, L.; Trainer, 

D.O. 1971. Infectious and parasitic diseases of wild 

birds. [City and State of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 344 p.

Davis, S.K. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape, and 

vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. Auk 121:1,130–45.

Davis, S.K.; Duncan, D.C. 1999. Grassland songbird 

occurrence in native and crested wheatgrass pastures of southern Saskatchewan. Studies in Avian 

Biology 19:211–18.

Dechant, J.A.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D.; [and others]. 2003a. Effects of management practices 

on grassland birds: Wilson’s phalarope. From: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/

resource/literatr/grasbird/wiph/wiph.htm> (Version 12DEC2003) Accessed February 2011.

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; [and 

others]. 1999 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: long-billed curlew. Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. 19 p.

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; [and 

others]. 2003b. Effects of management practices 

on grassland birds: chestnut-collared longspur. 

Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Online. <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/

resource/literatr/grasbird/cclo/cclo.htm> (Version 

28MAY2004). Accessed April 2011.

DeGraaf, Richard M.; Scott, Virgil E.; Hamre, R.H. 

[and others]. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of 

the United States: natural history and habitat use. 

Agriculture Handbook 688. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 625 p.

Delisle J.M.; Savidge, J.A. 1996. Reproductive success of grasshopper sparrows in relation to edge. 

Prairie Naturalist 28:107–13.

DeVoto, B.; editor. 1953. The journals of Lewis and 

Clark. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside 

Press. 504 p.

Dieni, J.S.; Jones, S.L. 2003. Grassland songbird nest 

site selection patterns in northcentral Montana. 

Wilson Bulletin 115(4):388–96.

Dinsmore, J.J.; Schuster, W. 1997. Wilson’s phalarope 

nest in Boone County. Iowa Bird Life 67:67.

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the 

lens. Audubon: January–February. [Pages unknown].

Dolan, J.J.; Taylor, J.E. 1972. Residual effects of 

range renovation on dense clubmoss and associated vegetation. Journal of Range Management 

25:32–37.

Drilling, N.; Titman, R.; McKinney, F. 2002. Mallard 

(Anas platyrhynchos). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F.; editors. The birds of North America, No. 658. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Academy of Natural 

Sciences. [Pages unknown].

DuBois, K. 1989. Arising, alighting ibis. Montana 

Outdoors 20(6):30–33.

DuBois, K. 1996. Black tern nest monitoring at 

Freezout Lake WMA. Unpublished report. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 7 p.

Ducks Unlimited. 2003. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 

2003. [City and State of publication unknown]: 

Ducks Unlimited. 30 p.

Duebbert, H.F. 1969. High nest density and hatching success of ducks on South Dakota CAP land. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

Natural Resource Conference; [Date of conference unknown]; [City and State of conference unknown]. [City and State of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 34:18–228.

Duebbert, H.F.; Frank, A.M. 1984. Value of prairie 

wetlands to duck broods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

12:27–34.

Duebbert, H.F.; Jacobson, E.T.; Higgins, K.F.; Podoll, 

E.B. 1981. Establishment of seeded grasslands 

for wildlife habitat in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Special Scientific Report–Wildlife No. 234, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

Duebbert, H.F.; Lokemoen, J.T. 1976. Duck nesting in 

fields of undisturbed grass-legume cover. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 40:39–49.

Dugger, Bruce D.; Dugger, Katie M. 2002. Longbilled curlew (Numenius americanus). In: Poole, 
266 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

A.; editor. The Birds of North America Online. 

Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

<http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/628> [Access date unknown].

Dunn, E.H. 1979. Nesting biology and development 

of young in Ontario black terns. Canadian FieldNaturalist 93:276–81.

Dunn, E.H.; Agro, D.J. 1995. Black tern (Chlidonias 

niger). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F.; editors. The Birds of 

North America. No. 147. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences. Washington, DC: The 

American Ornithologists Union. 24 p.

Dunne, T.; Leopold, L.B. 1978. Water in environmental planning. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and 

Company. 95–121.

Dwyer, T.J.; Krapu, G.L.; Janke, D.M. 1979. Use of 

prairie pothole habitat by breeding mallards. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:526–31.

Dzubin, A. 1969. Comments in carrying capacity of 

small ponds for ducks and possible effects of density on mallard production. In: Canadian Wildlife 

Service Report Series 6. Saskatoon Wetlands 

Seminar; [Date of seminar unknown]; [City and 

State of seminar unknown]. [City and State of 

publication unknown]: Canadian Wildlife Service. 

138–60.

Earnst, S.L. 1994. Tundra swan habitat preferences 

during migration in North Dakota. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:546–51.

Einemann, L. 1991. A nesting report of a Wilson’s 

phalarope in Lancaster County. Nebraska Bird 

Review 59:59–61.

Eldridge, Jan. 1992. Waterfowl management handbook—management of habitat for breeding and 

migrating shorebirds in the Midwest. Fish and 

Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.14. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 6 p.

Espie, R.H.M.; Brigham, R.M.; James, P.C. 1996. 

Habitat selection and clutch fate of piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) breeding at Lake Diefenbaker, Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

74:1,069–75.

Euliss, N.H., Jr.; Wrubleski, D.A.; Mushet, D.M. 1999. 

Wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region—invertebrate species composition, ecology, and management. In: Batzer, D.; Rader, R.B.; Wissinger, S.A.; 

editors. Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of 

North America—ecology and management. New 

York: John Wiley and Sons. 471–514.

Faanes A.; Lingle, G.R. 1995. Breeding birds of the 

Platte River Valley of Nebraska. From: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center. <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/

distr/birds/platte/platte.htm> (Version 16JUL97) 

[Access date unknown].

Fire Executive Council. 2009. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 20 p. 

<www.nifc.gov/policies/guidance/GIFWFMP.pdf> 

Accessed February 3, 2010.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations. [No date]. Chapter 7–salty soils. In: Irrigation water management. <www.fao.org/docrep/

R4082E/r4082e08.htm> Accessed June 8, 2010.

Fredrickson, L.H. 1991. Waterfowl management 

handbook—strategies for water level manipulations in moist-soil systems. Fish and Wildlife 

Leaflet 13.4.6. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 p.

Fredrickson, L.H.; Reid, F.A. 1988a. Waterfowl 

management handbook—invertebrate response 

to wetland management. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 

13.3.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 6 p.

Fredrickson, L.H.; Reid, F.A. 1988b. Waterfowl management handbook—waterfowl use of wetland complexes. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.1. 6 p.

Fredrickson, L.H.; Taylor, T.S. 1982. Management of 

seasonally flooded impoundments for wildlife. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 148. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 29 p.

Friend, Milton; Franson, J. Christian; editors. 1999. 

Field manual of wildlife diseases—general field 

procedures and diseases of birds. Biological Resources Division, Information and Technology 

Report 1999–001. Madison, Wisconsin: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, National Wildlife 

Health Center. 438 p.

Frost, C.C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States—a first approximation. 

In: Pruden, T.L.; Brennan, L.A.; editors. Fire in 

ecosystem management—shifting the paradigm 

from suppression to prescription. Tall Timbers 

Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 20; 

May 7–10, 1996; Boise, Idaho. Tallahassee, Florida: 

Tall Timbers Research Station. 70–81.

Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Harrell, W.C.; Engle, D.M.; [and 

others]. 2006. Should heterogeneity be the basis 

for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire 

and grazing. Ecological Applications 16(5):1,706–16.

Gazda, R.J.; Meidinger, R.R.; Ball, I.J.; Connelly, J.W. 

2002. Relationships between Russian olive and 

duck nest success in southeastern Idaho. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 30(2):337–44.

Geist, V.; Mahoney, S.P.; Organ, J.F. 2001. Why 

hunting has defined the North American model 

of wildlife conservation. In: Transactions of the 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference; March 20, 2001; Washington, DC. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 267

Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute. 

66:175–85.

Geist, V.; Organ, J.F. 2004. The public trust foundation of the North American model of wildlife conservation. Northeast Wildlife 58:49–56.

Gillihan, S.W.; Hutchings, S.W. 2000. Best management practices for shortgrass prairie birds: a 

landowner’s guide. [City and State of publication 

unknown]: Colorado Bird Observatory. 32 p.

General Accounting Office. 2001. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service—information on oil and gas activities in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Letter to Representative Edward J. Markey, October 31, 2001. <www.gao.gov/new.items/d0264r

.pdf> Accessed January 2010.

Gleason, R.A.; Tangen, B.A.; Laubhan, M.K.; Finocchiaro, R.G.; Stamm, J.F. 2009. Literature review 

and database of relations between salinity and 

aquatic biota—applications to Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Scientific Investigations 

Report 2009–5098. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 76 p.

Goodwin, R.E. 1960. A study of the ethology of the 

black tern, Chlidonias niger surinamensis (Gmelin) [Ph.D. dissertation]. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. [Pages unknown].

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.; Berkey, G.B. 2004. Tree and 

shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie—

implications for breeding grassland birds. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 32:807–18.

Gratto-Trevor, C.L. 2000. Marbled godwit (Limosa 

fedoa). In: Poole, A; Gill, F.; editors. The birds 

of North America, No. 492. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Academy of Natural Sciences. 

<www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Marbled_Godwit/

lifehistory> Accessed December 14, 2009.

Green, M.T.; Lowther, P.E.; Jones, S.L.; [and others]. 2002. Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus 

bairdii). In: Poole, A.; editor. The Birds of North 

America Online. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab 

of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/

species/638> [Access date unknown].

Greenwalt, L.A. A brief history of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In: Butcher, Russell; editor. 

Lanham, Maryland: Roberts Rinehart. 12–23.

Gregg, L. 1987: Recommendations for a program of 

sharp-tail habitat preservation in Wisconsin. Research Report 141. Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Natural Resources. 24 p.

Grinnell, G.B. 1913. Brief history of the Boone and 

Crockett Club. In: Grinnell, G.B.; editor. Hunting 

at high altitudes. New York: Harper & Brothers. 

422–91.

Haig, S.M.; Plissner, J.H. 1993. Distribution and 

abundance of piping plovers—results and implications of the 1991 international census. The Condor 

95:145–56.

Hamilton, D.B.; Roelle, J.E.; Schafer, W.M. 1989. 

A simulation model of water and salt balance at 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center Report NERC–89/08. Fort Collins, Colorado: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey. 69 p.

Hanowski, J.M.; Christina, D.P.; Niemi, G.J. 2000. 

Landscape requirements of prairie sharp-tailed 

grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus campestri in 

Minnesota, USA. Wildlife Biology 6:257–63.

Harmon, K.W. 1970. Prairie potholes. National Parks 

& Conservation Magazine 45:25–28.

Hatch, D.R.M. 1971. Brown-headed cowbird parasitism on spotted sandpiper and Wilson’s phalarope. 

Blue Jay 29:17–18.

Hauer, F.R.; Spencer, C.N. 1998. Phosphorous and nitrogen dynamics in streams associated with wildfire—a study of immediate and long-term effects. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 8:183–98.

Hawkins, A.S. 1984. The U.S. response. In: Flyways 

—pioneering waterfowl management in North 

America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2–9.

Heady, H.F. 1952. Reseeding, fertilizing, and renovating in an ungrazed mixed-prairie. Journal of 

Range Management 5:144–49.

Heath, Shane R.; Dunn, Erica H.; Agro, David J. 

2009. Black tern (Chlidonias niger). In: Poole, A.; 

editor. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, 

New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://

bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/147> [Access 

date unknown].

Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. 

Manomet, Massachusetts: Western Hemispheric 

Shorebird Reserve Network. 58 p.

Helzer, C.J. 1996. The effects of wet meadow fragmentation on grassland birds [master’s thesis]. 

Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska. 65 p.

Henderson, R. 1982. Vegetation—fire ecology of tallgrass prairie. Natural Areas Journal 2:17–26.

Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. 

Ecological Applications 4:461–71.

Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium 

of historical fire accounts in the northern Great 

Plains. Resource Publication 161. Washington, 

DC: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 41 p.

Higgins, K.F.; Barker, W.T. 1982. Changes in vegetation structure in seeded nesting cover in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. Fish and Wildlife Special 

Science Report–Wildlife 242. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 26 p.

Hill, Dorothy P.; Gould, Lorne K. 1997. Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus). In: Poole, A.; 
268 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

editor. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, 

New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://

bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/288doi:10.2173/

bna.288> Accessed April 2011.

Hohn, E.O. 1967. Observations on the breeding biology of Wilson’s phalaropes in central Alberta. Auk 

84:220–44.

Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. London: John Wiley and 

Sons. 377 p.

Howe, M.A. 1972. Pair bond formation and maintenance in Wilson’s phalarope, Phalaropus tricolor 

[Ph.D. dissertation]. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota. 169 p.

Hulbert, L.C. 1986. Fire effects on tallgrass prairie. 

In: Clambey, G.K.; Pemble, R.H.; editors. Proceedings, Ninth North American Prairie Conference; 

[Date of conference unknown]; [City and State of 

conference unknown]. [City and State of publisher 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 138–142.

Hutchinson, M. 1992. Vegetation management guideline—Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense [L.] Scop.) 

Natural Areas Journal 12:160–61.

Ingelfinger, F. 2001. The effects of natural gas development on sagebrush steppe passerines in Sublette County, Wyoming [master’s thesis]. Laramie, 

Wyoming: University of Wyoming, Department of 

Zoology and Physiology. [Pages unknown].

Jenni, D.A.; Redmond, R.L.; Bicak, T.K. 1981. Behavioral ecology and habitat relationships of 

long-billed curlew in western Idaho. Boise, Idaho: 

Bureau of Land Management. Boise District. 

[Pages unknown].

Johns, J.E. 1969. Field studies of Wilson’s phalarope. 

The Auk 86(4):660–70.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1980. A preliminary list of the birds 

of Nebraska and adjacent plains states. Lincoln, 

Nebraska: University of Nebraska. 156 p.

Johnsgard, P.A. 2002. Dawn dancers on dun grass— 

the sharp-tailed grouse and the northern prairies 

and shrublands. In: Johnsgard, P.A. Grassland 

Grouse. Washington D.C.:Smithsonian Institution 

Press. 81–103.

Johnsgard, Paul A. 1979. A guide to North American 

waterfowl. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University 

Press. 274 p.

Johnson, D.H.; Grier, J.W. 1988. Determinants of 

breeding distributions of ducks. Wildlife Monographs:1–37.

Johnson, J. 2004. Restoring native species to crested 

wheatgrass dominated rangelands [master’s thesis]. 

Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 11 p.

Johnson, K.M. 1990. Aquatic vegetation, salinity, 

aquatic invertebrates and duck brood use at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana [master’s 

thesis]. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. [Pages unknown].

Johnson, R.G.; Temple, S.A. 1990. Assessing habitat 

quality for birds nesting in fragmented tallgrass 

prairies. In: Verner, J.; Morrison, M.L.; Ralph, 

C.J.; editors. Wildlife 2000—modeling habitat 

relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Madison, 

Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. 245–49.

Jones, S.L. 2010. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) 

conservation plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[Pages unknown].

Jones, S.L.; Dieni, J.S.; Gouse, P.J. 2010. Reproductive biology of a grassland songbird community 

in northcentral Montana. The Wilson Journal of 

Ornithology 122(3):455–64. 

Jones, Stan. 2005. Review of salt balance model and 

alternative water management practices, Bowdoin 

National Wildlife Refuge [Unpublished report]. 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Reserved Water Rights Compact 

Commission. 43 p.

Jordan, N.R.; Larson, D.L.; Huerd, S.C. 2008. Soil 

modification by invasive plants—effects on native 

and invasive species of mixed-grass prairies. In: 

Biological invasions; Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Publication. [City and State of 

publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 10(2):177–90.

Kadlec, J.A.; Smith, L.M. 1992. Habitat management 

for breeding areas. In: Batt, B.D.J.; Afton, A.D.; 

Anderson, M.G. [and others]; editors. Ecology and 

management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis, 

Minnesota: University of Minnesota. 590–610.

Kaiser, P.H.; Berlinger, S.S.; Fredrickson, L.H. 

1979, Response of blue-winged teal to range management on waterfowl production areas in southeastern South Dakota. Journal of Range Management (32)4:[Pages unknown].

Kaminski, R.M.; Murkin, H.R.; Smith, C.E. 1985. 

Control of cattail and bulrush by cutting and flooding. In: Prince, H.H.; D’Itri, F.M.; editors. Coastal 

wetlands. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers. 

253–62.

Kantrud, H.A. 1983. An environmental overview of 

North Dakota—past and present. Ver. July 16, 

1997. Jamestown, North Dakota: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/

habitat/envovrvw/envovrvw.htm> Accessed 

December 2009.

Kantrud, H.A.; Higgins, K.F. 1992. Nest and nest 

site characteristics of some ground-nesting, nonpasserine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie 

Naturalist 24:67–84.

Kantrud, H.A.; Kologiski, R.L. 1982. Effects of soils 

and grazing on breeding birds of uncultivated upland grasslands of the northern Great Plains. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Research Report No. 15. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 269

[City and State of publication unknown]: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[Pages unknown].

Kantrud, H.A.; Krapu, G.L.; Swanson, G.A. 1989. 

Prairie basin wetlands of the Dakotas—a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Biological Report 85 (7.28). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 111 p.

Kantrud, H.A; Stewart, R.E. 1977. Use of natural 

basin-wetlands by breeding waterfowl in North 

Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 41:243–53.

Kantrud, H.A.; Stewart, R.E. 1984. Ecological distribution and crude density of breeding birds on 

prairie wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 

48:426–37.

Kelsey, K.W.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Bakker, 

K.K. 2006. Planting trees in prairie landscapes: do 

the ecological costs outweigh the benefits? Natural 

Areas Journal 26(3):254–60.

Kendall, W.L. 2001. Using models to facilitate complex decisions. In: Shenk, T.M.; Franklin, A.B., 

editors. Modeling in natural resource management—development, interpretation, and application. Washington, DC: Island Press. 223 p.

Kendy, E. 1999. Simulation of water and salt budgets 

and effects of proposed management strategies for 

Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, northeastern 

Montana. Water-Resources Investigations Report 

98–4260. [City and State of publication unknown]: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey. 86 p.

King, R. 1978. Habitat use and related behaviors 

of breeding long-billed curlews [master’s thesis]. 

Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado State University. 

[Pages unknown].

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses 

to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31–39. 

Krapu, G.L.; Greenwood, R.J.; Dwyer, C.P.; Kraft, 

K.M.; Cowardin, L.M. 1997. Wetland use, settling 

patterns, and recruitment in mallards. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 61:736–46.

Krapu, G.L.; Swanson, G.A. 1975. Some nutritional 

aspects of reproduction in prairie nesting pintails. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 39:156–62.

Kushlan, James A.; Steinkamp, Melanie J.; Parsons, Katharine C.; [and others]. 2002. Waterbird 

conservation for the Americas—the North 

American waterbird conservation plan, version 1. 

Washington, DC: Waterbird Conservation for the 

Americas. 78 p.

LaBough, J.W.; Swanson, G.A. 1993. Spatial and temporal variability in chemical characteristics and 

water-column biota in the Cottonwood Lake area 

wetlands, North Dakota. In: Wetland symposium 

on prairie ecosystems—wetland ecology, management and restoration; [Date of symposium unknown]; [City and State of symposium unknown]. 

Jamestown, North Dakota: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 25–26.

LaBough, J.W.; Swanson, G.A. 2004. Spatial and 

temporal variability in specific conductance and 

chemical characteristics of wetland water and in 

water column biota in the wetlands in the Cottonwood Lake area. In: Winter, T.C.; editor. Hydrological, chemical, and biological characteristics 

of a prairie pothole wetland complex under highly 

variable climate conditions—the Cottonwood Lake 

area, east-central North Dakota. U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1675. 35–53.

Lacey, J.; Rasmussen, M.; SiddowayLimpert, J.; 

Bandy, R.; Snell, J.; Snell, G. 2005. Ecological site 

description for silty 10 to 14 inch precipitation 

zone. [City and State of publication unknown]: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. [Pages unknown].

Lake Access. 1991. Electrical conductivity—measuring salts in water. <http://lakeaccess.org/russ/

conductivity.htm> Accessed June 8, 2010.

Lambing, J.H.; Jones, W.E.; Sutphin, J.W. 1988. Reconnaissance investigation of water quality, bottom sediment, and biota associated with irrigation 

drainage in Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge 

and adjacent areas of the Milk River basin, in 

northeastern Montana, 1986–87. Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 87–4243. [City and State 

of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 71 p.

Lancia, R.A.; Braun, C.E.; Collopy, M.W.; [and others]. 1996. ARM! For the future—adaptive resource management in the wildlife profession. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:436–42.

Langbein, W.B. 1961. Salinity and hydrology of closed 

lakes. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

412. [City and State of publication unknown]: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 20 p.

Larson, M.A.; Ryan, M.R.; Murphy, R.K. 2002. Population viability of piping plovers—effects of predator exclusion. Journal of Wildlife Management 

66:361–71.

Lenard, S.; Carlson, J.; Ellis, J.; Jones, C.; Tilly, C. 

2003. P.D. Skaar’s Montana bird distribution list. 

6th edition. Helena, Montana: Montana Audubon. 

156 p.

Lesica, P.; DeLuca, T.H. 1996. Long-term harmful 

effects of crested wheatgrass on Great Plains 

grassland ecosystems. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation 51(5):408–409.

Licht, D.S. 2001. Relationship of hydrological conditions and populations of breeding piping plovers. 

Prairie Naturalist 33:209–19.
270 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Limpert, R.J.; Earnst, S.L. 1994. Tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus). From: Poole, A.; editor. The 

Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, New York: 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/089> Accessed June 3, 2010.

Lloyd, J.D.; Martin, T.E. 2005. Reproductive success 

of chestnut-collared longspurs in native and exotic 

grassland. The Condor 107:363–74.

Lokemoen, J.T. 1984. Examining economic efficiency 

of management practices that enhance waterfowl 

production. In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; 

[Date of conference unknown]; [City and State of 

conference unknown]. [City and State of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 49:584–607.

Mabee, T.J.; Estelle, V.B. 2000. Assessing the effectiveness of predator exclosures for plovers. Wilson 

Bulletin 112:14–20.

Madden, E.M.; Hansen, A.J.; Murphy, R.K. 1999. 

Influence of prescribed fire history on habitat 

and abundance of passerine birds in northern 

mixed-grass prairie. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

113:627–40.

Madden, E.M.; Murphy, R.K.; Hansen, A.J.; Murray, 

S.L. 2000. Models for guiding management of prairie bird habitat in northwestern North Dakota. 

American Midland Naturalist 144(2):377–92.

Madge, Steve; Burn, Hilary. 1988. Waterfowl—an 

identification guide to the ducks, geese and swans 

of the world. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton 

Mifflin Company. 298 p.

Majorowicz, A.K. 1963. Club moss infestation on 

northeastern Montana rangeland. In: Proceedings 

of the annual meeting of the American Society for 

Range Management; [Date of meeting unknown]; 

[City and State of meeting unknown]. [City and 

State of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 16:72 doi:bna.89. [Pages unknown].

Manske, L.L.; Barker, W.T. 1987. Habitat usage by prairie grouse on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. In: 

Bjugstad, A.J.; technical coordinator. Prairie chickens on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. General 

Technical Report RM-159. Fort Collins, Colorado: 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 73 p. 8–20.

Maxson, S. J. 1993. Habitat selection and nesting success of black terns at Agassiz NWR. Unpublished 

report. Bemidji, Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. [Pages unknown].

McEachern P.; Prepas, E.E.; Gibson, J.J.; Dinsmore, 

P. 2000. The forest fire induced impacts on phosphorus, nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations 

in boreal sub-arctic lakes of northern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

57(Supplement 2):73–81.

McWilliams, J.L.; Van Cleave, P.E. 1960. A comparison of crested wheatgrass and native grass mixtures seeded on rangeland in eastern Montana. 

Journal of Range Management 13(2):91–94.

Melcher, C.P.; Farmer, A.; Fernández, G. 2006. Conservation plan for the marbled godwit. Version 1.1. 

Manomet, Massachusetts: Manomet Center for 

Conservation Science. 117 p.

Michaud, J.P. 1991. A citizen’s guide to understanding and monitoring lakes and streams. Publication 

Number 94–149. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Ecology, Publications 

Office. [Pages unknown].

Mills, Richard Paul; Phillips, Roberto; Saliva, Jorge 

E.; Sydeman, Bill; Trapp, John; Wheeler, Jennifer; 

Wohl, Kent. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the 

Americas—the North American waterbird conservation plan. Version 1. Washington, DC: Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas. 78 p.

Missouri River Country. 2007. Montana’s Missouri 

River country hunting and fishing brochure. [City 

and State of publication unknown]: Missouri River 

Country. [Pages unknown].

Mitcham, S.A.; Wobeser, G. 1988. Toxic effects of natural saline waters on mallard ducklings. Journal of 

Wildlife Diseases 24(1):45–50.

Montana Bird Distribution Committee. 1996. P.D. 

Skaar’s Montana bird distribution. 5th edition. Montana Natural Heritage Program Special Publication 

No. 3. [City and State of publication unknown]: Montana Natural Heritage Program. [Pages unknown].

Montana Bird Distribution Online Database. 2001. 

Helena, Montana. April–September 2003. <http://

nhp.nris.state.mt.us/mbd/> [Access date unknown].

(MBOGC) Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation. 2010. Well surface data. Montana Department 

of Natural Resources and Conservation [Internet]. 

<http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov> Accessed August 2010.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 

2006. Subchapter 6, surface water quality standards and procedures. Subchapter 6, 17.30.601–70. 

In: Environmental quality–chapter 30, water 

quality. Administrative rules of Montana. <http://

deq.mt.gov/dir/Legal/Chapters/CH30-06.pdf> Accessed June 3, 2010.

(DNRC) Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation. 1977. Supplemental water 

for the Milk River. Helena, Montana. [Pages unknown].

Montana Field Guide. [No date]a. Franklin’s gull—

Leucophaeus pipixcan. Helena, Montana: Montana Information Technology Services Division. 

<http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNNM03020

.aspx> Accessed June 3, 2010.

Montana Field Guide. [No date]b. Mallard—Anas 

platyrhynchos. Helena, Montana: Montana Information Technology Services Division. <http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNJB10060.aspx> Accessed 

June 3, 2010.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 271

Montana Field Guide. [No date]c. Marbled godwit—Limosa fedoa. Helena, Montana: Montana 

Information Technology Services Division. <http://

fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNNF08040.aspx> Accessed June 3, 2010.

Montana Field Guide. [No date]d. Wilson’s phalarope—Phalaropus tricolor. Helena, Montana: 

Montana Information Technology Services Division. <http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNNF

20010.aspx> Accessed June 3, 2010.

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2005. Montana’s 

comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation 

strategy. Helena, Montana. <http://fwp.mt.gov/

wildthings/conservationInAction/fullplan.html> 

Accessed June 3, 2010. 658 p.

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2003. Data 

derived from element occurrences with no other 

known source material; biotics—black tern, 

Chlidonias niger. Montana Field Guide. Helena, 

Montana: Montana Natural Heritage Program 

and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. <http://

FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_ABNNM10020.aspx> 

Accessed March 7, 2011.

———. 2009a. Animal species of concern. [Internet]. 

<http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a> 

Accessed November 2009.

———. 2009b. Plant species of concern. [Internet]. 

<http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p> 

Accessed November 2009.

Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. 1997. 

1995 Surveys for piping plovers (Charadrius 

melodius) and least terns (Sterna antillarum) in 

Montana. Unpublished report. 114 p.

(MSGWG) Montana Sage Grouse Working Group. 

2005. Management plan and conservation strategies for sage grouse in Montana. [Internet]. 

<http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=

31187> Accessed April 6, 2010. 200 p.

Moore, M.L. 1989. NALMS management guide for 

lakes and reservoirs. Madison, Wisconsin: North 

American Lake Management Society. [Pages unknown].

Moorman, A.M.; Moorman, T.E.; Baldassarre, G.A.; 

Richard, D.M. 1991. Effects of saline water on 

growth and survival of mottled duck ducklings 

in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife Management 

55(3):471–76.

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.

Moyles, D.L.J. 1981. Seasonal and daily use of plant 

communities by sharp-tailed grouse (Pedioecetes 

phasianellus) in the parklands of Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:287–91.

Murphy, R.K.; Grant T.A.; Madden, E.M. 2005. Prescribed fire for fuel reduction in northern mixed 

grass prairie: influence on habitat and population 

dynamics of indigenous wildlife. Final Report, 

December 2005: Joint Fire Science Program RFP 

2001–2003. [City and State of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Pages unknown].

Murphy, R.K.; Greenwood, R.J.; Ivan, J.S.; Smith, 

K.A. 2003. Predator exclusion methods for managing endangered shorebirds—are two barriers 

better than one. Waterbirds 26:156–59.

Murray, B.G., Jr. 1983. Notes on the breeding biology 

of Wilson’s phalarope. Wilson Bulletin 95:472–75.

Musgrove, Jack W.; Musgrove, Mary R. 1943. Waterfowl in Iowa. Des Moines, Iowa: State Conservation Committee. 113 p.

National Association of Counties. 2009. About 

counties. [Internet]. <www.naco.org/Template

.cfm?Section=Find_a_County&Template=/cffiles/

counties/state.cfm&statecode=mt> Accessed February 2010.

National Association of Interpretation. [No date]. 

Mission, vision, and core values. Fort Collins, 

Colorado. <www.interpnet.com/about_nai/mission

.shtml> Accessed July 2, 2010.

National Audubon Society. 2010. Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge. In: Important bird areas for 

neotropical migrants of conservation concern—

landbirds. [Internet]. <http://iba.audubon.org/iba/

profileReport.do?siteId=2930&navSite=search&

pagerOffset=0&page=1> Accessed June 2010.

National Invasive Species Council. 2008. 2008–2012 

National invasive species management plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. 35 p.

National Park Service. 2009. Natural resources 

interpretation. [Internet]. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, National Park Service, Archeology 

Program. <www.nps.gov/archeology/ifora/tools_6

.htm> Accessed July 2, 2010.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2002. 

History, biology, ecology, suppression, and revegetation of Russian-olive sites (Elaeagnus 

angustifolia, L.). NRCS Technical Note No. MT–

43. [City and State of publication unknown]: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. [Pages unknown].

———. 2003. Ecological site information system. 

[Internet]. Fort Worth, Texas: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Central National Technology Support Center. <http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/About

.aspx> Accessed March 2008.
272 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

———. 2008. Official soil series descriptions. 

[Internet]. Lincoln, Nebraska: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. <http://soils.usda.gov/technical/

classification/osd/index.html> Accessed October 

2009.

Naugle, D.E. 1997. Habitat area requirements of 

prairie wetland birds in eastern South Dakota 

[Ph.D. dissertation]. Brookings, South Dakota: 

South Dakota State University. 85 p.

Naugle, D. 2004. Black tern (Childonias niger 

surinamensis): a technical conservation assessment. [Internet]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. <www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/

scp/assessments/blacktern.pdf> [Access date unknown].

Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Bakker, K.K. 2000. A 

synthesis of the effects of upland management 

practices on waterfowl and other birds in the 

northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada. 

Wildlife Technical Report 1. Stevens Point, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, 

College of Natural Resources. [Pages unknown].

Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Nusser, S.M. 1999. Effects of woody vegetation on prairie wetland birds. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:487–92.

Niemuth, N.D. 2000. Land use and vegetation associated with greater prairie chicken leks in an 

agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:278–86.

Niemuth, N.D.; Solberg, J.W. 2003. Response of 

waterbirds to number of wetlands in the Prairie 

Pothole Region of North Dakota, USA. Waterbirds 26(2):233–38.

Old, S.M. 1969. Microclimate, fire, and plant production in an Illinois prairie. Ecological Monographs 

39:355–84.

Pampush, G.J. 1980. Status report on the long-billed 

curlew in the Columbia and Northern Great Basins. Portland, Oregon: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

Pampush, G.J.; Anthony, R.G. 1993. Nest success, 

habitat utilization and nest-site selection of longbilled curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. 

Condor 95:957–67.

Peterjohn, B.G.; Sauer, J.R. 1999. Population status 

of North American grassland birds from the North 

American breeding bird survey. Studies in Avian 

Biology 19:27–44.

PhillCo Economic Growth Council, Inc. 2001. PhillCo 

Economic Growth Council overview. Malta, Montana. <www.maltachamber.com/phillco/overvu.

htm> Accessed December 2009.

Plissner, J.H.; Haig, S.M. 2000. Status of a broadly 

distributed endangered species—results and implications of the second international piping plover 

census. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:128–39.

Poole, A.; editor. 2005. The Birds of North America 

Online. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/> Accessed 

March 3, 2011.

Prellwitz, D.; Erickson, K.M.; Osborne, L.M. 1995. 

Translocation of piping plover nests to prevent nest 

flooding. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(1):103–106.

Prellwitz, D.M.; Prellwitz, T.A.; Stutzman, K.K.; 

Stutzman, J.W. 1989. Piping plovers nesting at 

Nelson Reservoir, Montana. Prairie Naturalist 

21:84–86.

Prescott, D.R.C.; Arbuckle, R.; Goddard, B.; Murphy, 

A. 1993. Methods for the monitoring and assessment of avian communities on NAWMP landscapes in Alberta and 1993 results. NAWMP–007. 

Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta NAWMP Centre. 48 

p.

Prescott, D.R.C.; Murphy, A.J.; Ewaschuk, E. 1995. 

An avian community approach to determining biodiversity values of NAWMP habitats in the aspen 

parkland of Alberta. NAWMP–012. Edmonton, 

Alberta: Alberta NAWMP Centre. 58 p.

Prindiville-Gaines, E.M.; Ryan, M.R. 1988. Piping 

plover habitat use and reproductive success in 

North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 

52: 266–73.

Prose, B.L. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: 

plains sharp-tailed grouse. Biological Report 82. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 31 p. 

Pylypec, B.; Romo, J.T. 2003. Long term effects of 

burning Festuca and Stipa–Agropyron grasslands. 

Journal of Range Management 56(6):640–45.

Reichel, J.D. 1996. Preliminary colonial nesting bird 

survey of the Bureau of Land Management Lewistown District—1995. Helena, Montana: Montana 

Natural Heritage Program. 97 p.

Reiss. S.A. 1995. Sport in industrial America, 1850–

1920. The American History Series. Wheeling, 

Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc. 178 p.

Renken, R.B. 1983. Breeding bird communities and 

bird-habitat associations on North Dakota waterfowl production areas of three habitat types [master’s thesis]. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University. 

90 p.

Renken, R.B.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1987. Nongame bird 

communities on managed grasslands in North Dakota. Canadian Field-Naturalist 101:551–57.

Reynolds, J.D.; Colwell, M.A.; Cooke, F. 1986. Sexual 

selection and spring arrival times of red-necked 

and Wilson’s phalaropes. Behavioral Ecology and 

Sociobiology 18:303–10.

Reynolds, R.E.; Loesch, C.R.; Wangler, B.; Shaffer, 

T.L. 2007. Waterfowl response to the Conservation 

Reserve Program and swampbuster provision in 

the Prairie Pothole Region, 1992–2004. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Biological Report. [City and 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 273

State of publication unknown]: Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 90 p.

Reynolds, R.E.; Shaffer, T.L.; Renner, R.W.; [and 

others]. 2001. Impact of the conservation reserve 

program on duck recruitment in the US Prairie 

Pothole Region. Journal of Wildlife Management 

65:765–80.

Reynolds, T.; Trost, C. 1981. Grazing, crested wheatgrass, and bird populations in southeastern Idaho. 

Northwest Science 55(3):225–34.

Robbins, Mark B.; Dale, Brenda C. 1999. Sprague’s 

pipit (Anthus spragueii). In: Poole, A.; editor. The 

Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, New York: 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds

.cornell.edu/bna/species/439> Accessed April 2011.

Roberts, T.S. 1932. The birds of Minnesota. Volume 1. 

Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota 

Press. 691 p.

Rocke, T.E.; Friend, M. 1999. Chapter 38, avian 

botulism. In: Friend, Milton; Franson, J. Christian; technical editors. Field manual of wildlife 

diseases—general field procedures and diseases 

of birds. Biological Resources Division, Information and Technology Report 1999–001. Madison, 

Wisconsin: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, 

National Wildlife Health Center. 271–82.

Rocke, T.E.; Samuel, M.D. 1999. Water and sediment 

characteristics associated with avian botulism 

outbreaks in wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63(4):1,249–60.

Rodney, [No first name]; Mohrman, [No first name]. 

2007. Conceptual model for analysis of Beaver 

Creek flood waters entering Bowdoin National 

Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Draft Report. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 26 p.

Romo, J.T.; Bai, Y. 2004. Seed bank and plant community composition, mixed prairie of Saskatchewan. 

Journal of Range Management 57:300–304.

Root, B.G.; Ryan, M.R. 2004. Changes in piping plover nesting habitat availability at Great Plains 

alkaline wetlands, 1938–1937. Wetlands 24:766.

Rumble, M.A.; Flake, L.D. 1983. Management considerations to enhance use of stock ponds by waterfowl broods. Journal of Range Management. 

36:691–94.

Ryan, M.R.; Renken, R.B. 1987. Habitat use by 

breeding willets in the northern Great Plains. Wilson Bulletin 99:175–89.

Ryan, M.R.; Renken, R.B.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1984. 

Marbled godwit habitat selection in the northern 

prairie region. Journal of Wildlife Management 

48:1,206–18.

Ryan, M.R.; Root, B.G.; Mayer, P.M. 1993. Status of 

piping plovers in the Great Plains of North America—a demographic simulation model. Conservation Biology 7:581–85.

Ryder, R.A.; Manry, D.E. 1994. White-faced ibis 

(Plegadis chihi). In: Poole, A; Gill, F.; editors. The 

birds of North America, No. 130. Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania: The Academy of Natural Sciences. 

Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists 

Union. 24 p.

Safran, R.J.; Colwell, M.A.; Isola, C.R.; Taft, O.E. 

2000. Foraging site selection by nonbreeding 

white-faced ibis. The Condor 102:211–15.

Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F. 1994. Prairie conservation in 

North America. Bioscience 44:418–21.

Saunders, A.A. 1914. The birds of Teton and northern 

Lewis and Clark counties, Montana. The Condor 

16:124–44.

Schmitz, R.A.; Clark, W.R. 1999. Survival of ringnecked pheasant hens during spring in relation to 

landscape features. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:147–54.

Schrader, T.A. 1955. Waterfowl and the potholes of 

the north central states. In: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture—Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 596–604.

Schwalbach, M.J. 1988. Conservation of least terns 

and piping plovers along the Missouri River and 

its major western tributaries in South Dakota 

[master’s thesis]. Brookings, South Dakota: South 

Dakota State University. 104 p.

Sherwood, G.A. 1960. The whistling swan in the west 

with particular reference to Great Salt Lake Valley, Utah. The Condor 62:370–77.

Sisson, L. 1969. Land use changes and sharp-tailed 

grouse breeding behavior. In: Nebraska Game 

and Parks Commission white papers, conference 

presentations, and manuscripts.

Skaar, P.D. 1969. Birds of the Bozeman latilong. Bozeman, Montana: P.D. Skaar. 132 p.

Skagen, S.K.; Oman, H.D. 1996. Dietary flexibility of 

shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere. Canadian 

Field-Naturalist 10:419–44.

Snyder, W.D. 1984. Ring-necked pheasant nesting 

ecology and wheat farming on the high plains. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48:878–88.

Society for Ecological Restoration International 

Science & Policy Working Group. 2004. The SER 

international primer on ecological restoration. 

Tucson, Arizona: Society for Ecological Restoration International. <www.ser.org/content/

ecological_restoration_primer.asp> Accessed June 

7, 2010.

Speulda, L.A.; Lewis, R.O. 2003. Region 6—historical and architectural assessment of the Depression 

Era work projects. [City and State of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 36–37; 

appendix B 1–5.

State of Montana. 2009. 82–10–504: Surface damage and disruption payments; dispute resolution; penalty for late payment. In: Montana 
274 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Code Annotated 2009; Title 82–minerals, oil, and 

gas; chapter 10–oil and gas, general provisions. 

<http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/82/10/82-10-504

.htm> Accessed February 24, 2010.

Stewart, R.E. 1975. Breeding birds of North Dakota. 

Fargo, North Dakota: Tri-College Center for Environmental Studies. 295 p.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1965. Ecological studies 

of waterfowl populations in the prairie potholes of 

North Dakota. 1965 Progress Report. Washington, 

DC: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 14 p.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1971. Classification of 

natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie 

region. Resource Publication 92. Washington, DC: 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 57 p.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1973. Ecological distribution of breeding waterfowl populations in North 

Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 37(1):39–50.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1974. Breeding waterfowl populations in Prairie Pothole Region of 

North Dakota. The Condor 76:70–79.

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1984. Ecological distribution and crude density of breeding birds on 

prairie wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 

48:426–37.

Strong, M.A. 1971. Avian productivity on the shortgrass prairie of northcentral Colorado [master’s 

thesis]. Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado State 

University. 70 p.

Sullivan, M. 2008. Environmental assessment for 

Cree Crossing fee title proposal. [City and State 

of publication unknown]: Montana Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks, Wildlife Division. 22 p.

Sutter, G.C. 1997. Nest site selection and nest entrance orientation in Sprague’s pipit. Wilson Bulletin 109:462–69.

Svedarsky, W.D.; Van Amburg, G.L. 1996. Integrated 

management of the greater prairie-chicken and 

livestock on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. 

Crookston, Minnesota: Northwest Experiment Station, University of Minnesota. 243 p.

Swanson, G.A.; Adomaitis, V.A.; Lee, F.B.; Serie, 

J.R.; Shoesmith, J.A. 1984. Limnological conditions 

influencing duckling use of saline lakes in southcentral North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(2):340–49.

Swanson, G.A.; Euliss, N.H.; Hanson, B.A.; Muset, 

D.M. 2003. Dynamics of a prairie wetland complex—implications for wetland management. In: 

Winter, T.C. Hydrological, chemical, and biological 

characteristics of a prairie pothole wetland complex under highly variable climate conditions–the 

Cottonwood Lake area, east-central North Dakota. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1675. [City and State of publication unknown]: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey. 55–94.

Swanson, G.A.; Meyer, M.I.; Serie, J.R. 1974. Feeding 

ecology of breeding blue-winged teals. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 38(3):396–407.

Swanson, G.A.; Winter, T.C.; Adomaitis, V.A.; LaBaugh, J.W. 1988. Chemical characteristics of 

prairie lakes in south-central North Dakota—their 

potential for influencing use by fish and wildlife. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report 18. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 44 p.

Swenson, J.E. 1985. Seasonal habitat use by sharptailed grouse, Tympanuchus phasianellus, on 

mixed-grass prairie in Montana. Canadian FieldNaturalist 99:40–46.

Talent, L.G.; Krapu, G.L.; Jarvis, R.L. 1982. Habitat 

use by mallard broods in south-central North Dakota. The Condor 85:74–78.

Tchobanoglous, George; Burton, Franklin. 1991. 

Wastewater engineering: treatment, disposal and 

reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. [Pages unknown].

Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. New York: A. Knopf. 

1,100 p.

Trammell, M.A.; Butler, J.L. 1995. Effects of exotic 

plants on native ungulate use of habitat. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 59:808–16.

Umbanhowar, C.E., Jr. 1996. Recent fire history of 

the northern Great Plains. American Midland 

Naturalist 135:115–21.

URS Group, Inc. 2009. Lake Bowdoin feasibility study. Final report. Denver, Colorado: URS 

Group, Inc. 49 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1965. Review report on flood control and allied purposes for 

Beaver Creek, Milk River Basin, Montana. Omaha, 

Nebraska: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. [Pages 

unknown].

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Local area 

unemployment statistics [database]. <www.bls

.gov/data/#unemployment> [Access date unknown].

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and the Office of Science. 1999. 

Carbon sequestration research and development. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service. <www.fossil.energy

.gov/programs/sequestration/publications/1999_

rdreport/> Accessed November 2008.

(EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. 

Industrial and municipal waste disposal wells 

(class 1). [Internet]. <http://water.epa.gov/type/

groundwater/uic/wells_class1.cfm> Accessed May 

16, 2011.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; determination of 

endangered and threatened status for the piping 

plover—final rule. Federal Register 50: 50720–34.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 275

———. 1988. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

report—Milk River water supply study, Montana. 

[City and State of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Pages unknown].

———. 1999a. Field manual of wildlife diseases—

general field procedures and diseases of birds. 

DOI/USFWS Resource Publication 167. [City and 

State of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 225 p.

———. 1999b. Fulfilling the promise. Arlington, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 94 p.

———. 2003. Biological opinion on the operation of 

the Missouri River main stem reservoir system, 

operation and maintenance of the Missouri River 

bank stabilization and navigation project and 

operation of the Kansas River reservoir system. 

[City and State of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 296 p.

———. 2007. Montana Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

strategic habitat conservation plan. Unpublished 

report. [Pages unknown].

———. 2008a. Birds of conservation concern 2008. 

Arlington, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. 85 p. <www.fws.gov/

migratorybirds/> [Access date unknown].

———. 2008b. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. <www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/nawm/ppjv.

htm> Accessed September 2008.

———. 2008c. Staffing model for field stations—final 

report. Unpublished report on file at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Malta, Montana. 

22 p.

———. 2009. Management of oil and gas activities 

on Fish and Wildlife Service lands. Draft. Unpublished report. [Pages unknown].

———. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge—strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. Unpublished report. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 36 p. <www.fws

.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/CCStrategicPlan

.pdf> Accessed May 6, 2011.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl 

management plan—a strategy for cooperation. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Gatineau, Quebec: Environment Canada. 26 p.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2001. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service—information on oil and gas activities in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

<www.gao.gov/new.items/d0264r.pdf> Accessed 

January 8, 2010.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Strategic habitat conservation—final report of the National Ecological 

Assessment Team. [City and State of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 45 p.

(USRS) U.S. Reclamation Service. 1920. Nineteenth 

annual report of the U.S. Reclamation Service 

1919–1920. Washington, DC. [Pages unknown].

van der Valk, A.G.; editor. 1989. Northern prairie 

wetlands. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University 

Press. 400 p.

Van Dyne, G.M.; Vogel, W.G. 1967. Relationship of 

Selaginella densa to site, grazing and climate. 

Ecology 48:438–44.

Vrtiska, M.P.; Hansen, J.L.; Sharp, D.E. 1999. Central flyway perspectives on trumpeter swans. 

Plymouth, Minnesota: Trumpeter Swan Society. 5 p.

Walters, C.J.; Holling, C.S. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2,060–68.

Watson, A.K. 1985. Introduction—the leafy spurge 

problem. In: Watson, A.K.; editor. Leafy spurge. 

Weed Science Society of America Monograph 

3:1–6.

Weller, M.W.; Spatcher, C.S. 1965. Role of habitat in 

the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. 

Department of Zoology and Entomology Special 

Report Number 43. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station. [Pages unknown].

Werner, J.K.; Hendricks, D.P.; Maxell B.A.; Flath, 

D.L. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. 

Missoula, Montana: Mountain Press Publishing 

Company. 262 p.

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 

2009. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge. <www

.whsrn.org/site-profile/bowdoin-national-wildliferefuge> Accessed February 2010.

Weydemeyer, W.; Marsh, V.L. 1936. The bird life of 

Lake Bowdoin, Montana. The Condor 38(5):185–98.

Whyte, A.J. 1985. Breeding ecology of the piping 

plover (Charadrius melodus) in central Saskatchewan [master’s thesis]. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: 

University of Saskatchewan. 126 p.

Wightman, C.; Jones, S.L.; Tilly, F. 2011. Western 

colonial waterbird survey database for Montana 

during 2009–2011. Unpublished database submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Wightman, Catherine; Tilly, Fred. 2011. Montana’s 

colonial-nesting waterbird inventory 2011: annual 

report. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and American Bird Conservancy. [Pages unknown].

Wikipedia. 2009. Milk River (Alberta–Montana). 

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_River_

(Alberta%E2%80%93Montana)#History> Accessed December 1, 2009.

Wilson, S. 2000. Crested wheatgrass control in Grasslands National Park. Unpublished report. Regina, 

Saskatchewan: University of Regina. 3 p.
276 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana

Wilson, S.D.; Gerry, A.K. 1995. Strategies for mixedgrass prairie restoration—herbicide, tilling, and 

nitrogen manipulation. Restoration Ecology 

3(4):290–98.

Wilson, S.D.; Pärtel, M. 2003. Extirpation or coexistence? Management of a persistent introduced 

grass in a prairie restoration. Restoration Ecology 

11(4):410–16.

Windingstad, R.M.; Kartch, F.X.; Stroud, R.K.; Smith, 

M.R. 1987. Salt toxicosis in waterfowl in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 23(3):443–46.

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Faaborg, J. 1999. Patterns 

of area sensitivity in grassland nesting birds. Conservation Biology 13:1,424–36.

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Faaborg, J. 2000. Evidence for edge effects on multiple levels in tallgrass prairie. The Condor 102(2):256–66.

Wolfgram, T.J.; Nemeth, C. 1998. A cultural resources inventory of a buried telephone cable 

from Malta to Sleeping Buffalo, Montana. Ethos 

Consultants, Inc., for Triangle Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Central Montana Communications, 

Inc. 59 p.

Woodin, Marc C.; Michot, Thomas C. 2002. Redhead 

(Aythya americana). From: Poole, A.; editor. The 

birds of North America Online. Ithaca, New York: 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/695doi:bna.695> [Access date 

unknown].

Wright, H.A.; Bailey, A.W. 1980. Fire ecology and 

prescribed burning in the Great Plains–a research 

review. General Technical Report INT–77. Ogden, 

Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 62 p.

Ziewitz, J.W.; Sidle, J.G.; Dinan, J.J. 1992. Habitat 

conservation for nesting least terns and piping 

plovers on the Platte River, Nebraska. Prairie 

Naturalist 24(1):1–20.