Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge

Volume 1

Montana

April 2012

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

Airport Road

Lewistown, Montana 59457

406 /538 8706

and

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 / 236 8145

CITATION

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Final comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement: Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge, UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. Volume 1. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region. 468 p.

Abstract

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Type of Action: Administrative

Lead Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Responsible Official: Steve Guertin, Regional Director, region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Abstract: This final comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental impact statement (final CCP and EIS) 

identifies the purpose and need for a management plan, 

outlines the legal foundation for management of two 

refuges in Montana, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, and 

describes and evaluates four alternative plans including the no-action alternative, for managing wildlife, habitat, and wildlife-dependent public use. This process has 

involved the development of a vision, goals, objectives, 

and strategies that meet the legal directives of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and has considered 

the input of interested groups and the public. 

Under the no-action alternative (A), few changes 

would occur in managing existing wildlife populations 

and habitat. The habitat regime would be maintained 

mostly through a fire suppression program with little use of prescribed fire. There would be continued 

emphasis on big game management, annual livestock 

grazing, fencing, invasive species control, and water 

development. Habitats would continue to be managed in 65 units, and residual cover would be measured. Wildlife-dependent public use would occur at 

current levels, which includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and limited interpretation and environmental education programs. About 670 

miles of road would remain open. The Service would 

continue to manage the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wilderness and 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness within 

the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.

Under alternative B’s wildlife population emphasis, the Service would manage the landscape in cooperation with partners to emphasize abundant wildlife 

populations using both (1) natural ecological processes 

such as fire and wildlife ungulate herbivory (grazing) 

and (2) responsible farming practices or tree planting. 

Wildlife-dependent public use would be encouraged, 

but economic uses would be limited when they compete for habitat resources. About 106 miles of road 

would be closed. The Service would expand the acreage of existing proposed wilderness by 25,869 acres.

Under alternative C’s public use and economic 

use emphasis, the Service would manage the landscape in cooperation with partners to emphasize 

and promote maximum levels of compatible, wildlife-dependent public use and economic use. Wildlife 

populations and habitats would be protected with 

various management tools that would minimize damaging effects to wildlife and habitats while enhancing 

and diversifying public and economic opportunities. 

None of the existing, proposed wilderness units 

would be expanded.

Under the Service’s preferred alternative 

(alternative D’s ecological processes emphasis), 

the Service would work with partners to use natural, dynamic, ecological processes along with active 

management in a balanced, responsible manner to 

restore and maintain biological diversity, biological 

integrity, and environmental health. Once natural 

processes were restored, more passive approaches 

would be favored. The Service would provide for 

quality wildlife-dependent public use and experiences and would limit economic uses when they were 

injurious to ecological processes. About 21 miles of 

road would be permanently closed, and 15 miles of 

road would be seasonally closed. The Service would 

expand the acreage of existing, proposed wilderness 

units by 19,942 acres.

Public Review and Distribution. The draft CCP and EIS was available for public review from September 7, 2010, to December 10, 

2010. The Service received 53 letters from Federal, State, and local government agencies and nearly 20,600 letters, emails, and 

verbal comments from individuals. The final CCP and EIS can be viewed at <www.fws.gov/cmr/planning> and is presented in two 

volumes: volume 1 is the final CCP and EIS and volume 2 contains comments on the draft CCP and EIS along with the Service’s 

responses to substantive comments. The Service will issue a record of decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of the notice 

of availability of the final CCP and EIS in the Federal Register. For further information, contact Laurie Shannon at 303 / 236 4317.

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Land Management; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks; Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; Fergus, Garfield, McCone, Petroleum, Phillips, and Valley 

Counties; and Missouri River Conservation Districts Council (for the six districts that surround the refuge).

Contents

Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV

Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXI

CHAPTER 1—Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 1.1 Purpose and Need for Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Decision to Be Made. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

 1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

National Wildlife Refuge System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

 1.3 National and Regional Mandates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 1.4 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Fulfilling the Promise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Bird Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Recovery Plans for Threatened and Endangered Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

 1.5 Strategic Habitat Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

 1.6 Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 1.7 Public Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Cooperating Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Tribal Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Involvement of Interested Groups and the Public. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 1.8 Significant Issues to Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Habitat and Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Public Use and Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Wilderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Socioeconomics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Partnerships and Collaboration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Cultural Values, Traditions, and Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

 1.9 Issues Not Addressed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Enhancement Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Exercise of Private Property Rights for Mineral Extraction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Fort Peck Lake Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Livestock Grazing Fees, Transfer of Grazing Permits, and Animal Unit Months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Refuge Revenue-Sharing Payments and Payments in Lieu of Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Roads under Revised Statute 2477 and Petitioned Roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Federal Reserved Water Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Military Overflights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.10 Scope of the Document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Decision Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Analysis Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

 CHAPTER 2—Refuge History and Vision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

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

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
VI Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Existing Management ....................................................................... 27

 2.2 Special Values .......................................................................... 28

 2.3 Vision .................................................................................. 29

 2.4 Goals .................................................................................. 29

Goal for Habitat and Wildlife Management ........................................................ 29

Goal for Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern ..................................... 30

Goal for Research and Science ................................................................. 30

Goal for Fire Management .................................................................... 30

Goal for Public Use and Education ............................................................... 30

Goal for Wilderness ......................................................................... 30

Goal for Cultural and Paleontological Resources ..................................................... 30

Goal for Refuge Operations and Partnerships ....................................................... 30

CHAPTER 3—Alternatives .................................................................... 31

 3.1 Criteria for Alternatives Development ...................................................... 31

 3.2 Elements Common to All Alternatives ...................................................... 31

 3.3 Structure of the Alternative Descriptions ................................................... 33

 3.4 Summary of Alternative A—No Action ..................................................... 33

Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, 

 Research and Science, and Fire Management .................................................... 33

Public Use and Education ..................................................................... 34

Wilderness ............................................................................... 34

Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................... 39

Refuge Operations and Partnerships ............................................................. 39

 3.5 Summary of Alternative B—Wildlife Population Emphasis .................................... 39

Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, 

 Research and Science, and Fire Management .................................................... 39

Public Use and Education ..................................................................... 45

Wilderness ............................................................................... 45

Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................... 46

Refuge Operations and Partnerships ............................................................. 46

 3.6 Summary of Alternative C—Public Use and Economic Use Emphasis ........................... 46

Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, 

 Research and Science, and Fire Management .................................................... 46

Public Use and Education ..................................................................... 51

Wilderness ............................................................................... 52

Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................... 52

Refuge Operations and Partnerships ............................................................. 52

 3.7 Summary of Alternative D—Ecological Processes Emphasis (Preferred Alternative) ............. 53

Habitat and Wildlife Management, Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, 

 Research and Science, and Fire Management .................................................... 53

Public Use and Education ..................................................................... 54

Wilderness ............................................................................... 59

Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................... 59

Refuge Operations and Partnerships ............................................................. 60

 3.8 Objectives and Strategies ................................................................ 60

Organization of the Objectives and Strategies ...................................................... 60

Focal, Target, and Sentinel Species .............................................................. 60

OBJECTIVES for HABITAT and WILDLIFE .......................................................... 62

Habitat—Upland ......................................................................... 62

Habitat—River Bottom .................................................................... 72
VII

Habitat—Riparian Area and Wetland .......................................................... 74

Habitat—Shoreline ....................................................................... 79

Habitat—Fire Management ................................................................. 80

Habitat—Invasive Species .................................................................. 85

Habitat—Climate Change .................................................................. 88

Wildlife—Birds .......................................................................... 90

Wildlife—Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern ................................. 98

Wildlife—Furbearers and Small Predators ....................................................... 103

Wildlife—American Bison Restoration ......................................................... 105

Wildlife—Northern Gray Wolf ............................................................... 107

Wildlife—Big Game ...................................................................... 107

Wildlife—Other Wildlife ................................................................... 112

OBJECTIVES FOR PUBLIC USE .................................................................. 114

Public Use—Hunting ...................................................................... 114

Public Use—Fishing ...................................................................... 118

Public Use—Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation ..................................... 121

Public Use—Environmental Education .......................................................... 125

Public Use—Outreach ..................................................................... 127

Public Use—Access ...................................................................... 129

Public Use—Recreation Sites ................................................................ 132

Public Use—Commercial Recreation ........................................................... 133

OBJECTIVES for WILDERNESS ................................................................. 135

OBJECTIVES for CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................ 137

Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 137

Paleontological Resources .................................................................. 138

OBJECTIVES for REFUGE OPERATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS, and RESEARCH and SCIENCE ......................... 140

Refuge Operations ........................................................................ 140

Partnerships ............................................................................ 141

Research and Science ..................................................................... 144

 3.9 Foreseeable Activities ................................................................... 145

Federal Land Management .................................................................... 145

State Wildlife Management ................................................................... 146

Nongovernmental Conservation Activities ......................................................... 146

Livestock Grazing Lease Acquisitions ............................................................. 147

Regional Demographic and Economic Changes ...................................................... 147

Infrastructure Development ................................................................... 147

3.10 Elements Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration ............................... 148

Developing Goals for Livestock Grazing and Socioeconomic Uses ......................................... 148

Eliminating All Livestock Grazing ................................................................ 148

Managing Only for Sharp-tailed Grouse, Pronghorn, and Livestock Grazing .................................. 149

Developing a Memorandum of Understanding for Livestock Grazing ....................................... 149

Opening Roads in Wilderness .................................................................. 149

Reduction of Proposed Wilderness Areas .......................................................... 150

3.11 Partnerships ............................................................................ 150

3.12 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................ 150

3.13 Plan Amendment and Revision ............................................................ 150

3.14 Funding and Personnel ................................................................... 151

3.15 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................... 155

CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment ........................................................... 169

 4.1 Topics Not Analyzed Further .............................................................. 169

Moose .................................................................................. 169

Black Bear ............................................................................... 169
VIII Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

 4.2 Physical Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Visual Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Soundscapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Land Features, Soils, and Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Water Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

 4.3 Biological Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Disturbance Factors Affecting Major Ecological Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Uplands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

River Bottoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Riparian Areas and Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Shoreline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Birds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Furbearers and Small Predators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

American Bison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Northern Gray Wolf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Big Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Other Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

 4.4 Special Management Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Wilderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Hell Creek and Bug Creek National Natural Landmarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Research Natural Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Upper Missouri Breaks Wild and Scenic River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Missouri Breaks Back Country Byway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Lands Where USACE has Primary Jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

 4.5 Visitor Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

Fishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Wildlife Observation and Photography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Environmental Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Outreach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Recreation Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Commercial Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Refuge Headquarters and Field Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

 4.6 Human History and Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Prehistoric History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Historical Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Known Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Refuge Resources Important to Tribes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

 4.7 Paleontological Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

 4.8 Socioeconomics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Regional Economic Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Population and Demographics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Employment and Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Key Refuge Activities that Affect the Local Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Land Use and Ownership Changes Surrounding the Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
IX

CHAPTER 5—Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

 5.1 Analysis Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

 5.2 Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

 5.3 Cumulative Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

 5.4 Environmental Consequences for the Physical Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

Effects on Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

Effects on Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

Effects on Visual Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

Effects on Soundscapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Effects on Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

Effects on Water Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

Cumulative Impacts on the Physical Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

 5.5 Environmental Consequences for Biological Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

Effects on Uplands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

Effects on River Bottoms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

Effects on Riparian Areas and Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Effects on Shoreline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Effects on Birds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

Effects on Furbearers and Small Predators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Effects on American Bison Restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

Effects on Northern Gray Wolf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Effects on Big Game. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

Effects on Other Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

 5.6 Environmental Consequences for Visitor Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

Effects on Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

Effects on Fishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Effects on Wildlife Observation and Photography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

Effects on Environmental Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Effects on Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Effects on Outreach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Effects on Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

Effects on Recreation Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

Effects on Commercial Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

Cumulative Impacts on Visitor Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

 5.7 Environmental Consequences for Special Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

Effects on Special Management Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

Effects on Wilderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

Cumulative Impacts on Special Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

 5.8 Environmental Consequences for Cultural and Historical Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

Effects Common to All Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

Effects of Alternatives B, C, and D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Historical Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

 5.9 Environmental Consequences for Paleontological Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

Effects Common to All Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

Effects of Alternatives B, C, and D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
X Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

5.10 Environmental Consequences for the Socioeconomic Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

Method for the Regional Economic Impact Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

Economic Impacts of Alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

Economic Impacts of Alternative B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

Economic Impacts of Alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

Economic Impacts of Alternative D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

Impacts on Private Lands and Livestock Permittees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

Impacts on State Grazing Lands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346

Effects on Environmental Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346

Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

Cumulative Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348

5.11 Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348

5.12 Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

5.13 Adherence to Planning Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

Habitat and Wildlife Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

Research and Science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

Fire Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

Public Use and Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

Wilderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

Cultural and Paleontological Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

Refuge Operations and Partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

5.14 Unavoidable Adverse Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

5.15 Conflicts with Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

5.16 Comparison of Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

Appendixes

Appendix A—List of Preparers and Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

Appendix B—Public Involvement Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373

Appendix C—Compatibility Determinations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

Appendix D—Key Legislation and Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399

Appendix E—Wilderness Review and Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

Appendix F—List of Plant and Animal Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441

Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461

TABLES

 1. Planning process summary for the CCP for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 2. History of significant land authorizations for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

 3. Focal bird species for uplands at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

 4. Focal bird species for river bottoms at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

 5. Focal bird species for riparian areas and wetlands at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . 95

 6. Stepdown management plans for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

 7. Costs over 15 years to carry out the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . 151

 8. Cost analysis for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

 9. Personnel to carry out the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
XI

10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

11. Average daily discharge and peak flows for six USGS water stations on or near the Charles M. Russell

 and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

12. Historical fire data for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

13. Comparison of riparian area health of 82 streams across the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . 212

14. Acreage of treated weeds at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

15. Least tern nest success at Fort Peck Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

16. History of stocking pallid sturgeon in the middle Missouri River, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

17. Piping plover nest success at Fort Peck Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

18. MFWP’s elk population objectives, estimates, and needed herd-size reductions for hunting districts

 covering the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

19. Population estimates for the Nation and the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . 254

20. Employment by type for Montana and the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . 257

21. Employment by industry for the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

22. Income, earnings, and unemployment for the Nation, Montana, and counties surrounding the Charles M.

 Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

23. Farm operators whose primary employment is farming in Montana and the counties surrounding the

 Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

24. Animal inventory and animal unit months of feed needed for the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell

 and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

25. Total AUMs for the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

26. Seasonal housing in the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

27. Wildlife value orientations and proportions in the western States and Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

28. Comparison of access, visitation, and facilities between the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell

 and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

29. Wilderness protection under the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

30. Full fee-simple acquisition acreage and refuge revenue-sharing payments for the Charles M. Russell

 and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

31. Annual economic impacts from refuge revenue-sharing payments by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend

 Refuges for CCP alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

32. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend

 Refuges for CCP alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

33. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for

 CCP alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

34. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

35. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges

 for CCP alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

36. Grazing permits and AUMs for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

37. Economic impact of grazing on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

38. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges

 for CCP alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

39. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend

 Refuges for CCP alternative B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

40. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for

 CCP alternative B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

41. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

42. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for

 CCP alternative B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

43. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges

 for CCP alternative B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

44. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative B compared

 with CCP alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
XII Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

45. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend

 Refuges for CCP alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

46. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for

 CCP alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

47. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

48. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges

 for CCP alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

49. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges

 for CCP alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

50. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative C compared

 with CCP alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

51. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend

 Refuges for CCP alternative D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

52. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative D. . . . . . . . . . . . 342

53. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges

 for CCP alternative D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

54. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges

 for CCP alternative D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

55. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative D compared

 with CCP alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

56. Acres of grazing lands available under the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . 345

57. Ratings for how well the actions in the CCP alternatives meet the goals for the Charles M. Russell and

 UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

58. Summary of the environmental consequences for actions of the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell

 and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

Appendix Tables

 A. Timeline for wilderness on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

 B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408

 C. Summary of wilderness study areas (WSAs) recommended in CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell

 and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416

FIGURES

 1. Vicinity map for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

 2. Map of the bird conservation regions in North America. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 3. Map of the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 4. The process for comprehensive conservation planning and environmental analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

 5. Map of the decision and analysis areas for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

 6. Topographic base map of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 7. Map of management under CCP alternative A for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

 8. Map of management under CCP alternative B for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

 9. Map of management under CCP alternative C for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

10. Map of management under CCP alternative D for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

11. Adaptive management process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

12. Map of potential visibility of roads at 1 mile along the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

13. Map of potential visibility of roads at 3 miles along the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

14. Chart of the number of road segments visible across the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges

 and from proposed wilderness units and wilderness study areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

15. Map of water and geographic features in the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

16. Map of habitat units (grazing) in the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

17. Map of habitat types for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
XIII

18. Map of fire frequency for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

19. Graph of residual cover after grazing in the East Indian Butte Habitat Unit of the Charles M. Russell

 Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

20. Bar graph of monitoring results for chokecherry fruit production 4 years after fire at the Charles M.

 Russell Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

21. Graph of monitoring results for aspen growth at the Charles M. Russell Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

22. Bar graph of monitoring results for saltbush growth at the Charles M. Russell Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

23. Map of river bottoms in need of restoration at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

24. Map of Riparian and Wetland Research Program survey locations at the Charles M. Russell and 

 UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

25. Map of invasive species occurrence at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

26. Map of lek locations for sharp-tailed grouse on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

27. Chart of survey results for the listening route for sharp-tailed grouse on the Charles M. Russell and 

 UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

28. Graph of data for the black-footed ferret population at the UL Bend Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

29. Map of critical habitat for piping plover at Fort Peck Reservoir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

30. Map of the maximum extent of black-tailed prairie dogs at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . 224

31. Map of lek locations for greater sage-grouse on and near the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . 226

32. Map of leopard frog locations on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

33. Chart of mule deer densities within six counties covering the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . 231

34. Map of the aerial survey blocks for mule deer and elk at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . 232

35. Chart of the ratios of adult mule deer bucks to does within the six counties covering the Charles M. 

 Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

36. Chart of the number of mule deer harvested in hunting districts on and next to the Charles M. Russell 

 and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

37. Map of the aerial bighorn sheep survey at the Charles M. Russell Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

38. Map of areas within 328 yards (300 meters) of escape cover for bighorn sheep at and around the Charles M.

 Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

39. Map of areas in Montana that are valued by hunters and anglers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

40. Graph of the total employment index for Montana and the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell

 and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

41. Chart of agriculture employment in the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend

 Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

42. Chart of trends in gross revenues from agriculture in the area surrounding the Charles M. Russell and

 UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

43. Chart of the breakdown of gross revenues from agriculture for the six counties surrounding the 

 Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

44. Chart of the cattle inventory for the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

 Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

45. Chart of animal unit months by agency for the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and

 UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

46. Chart of the visibility of roads from proposed wilderness units and wilderness study areas in the 

 Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges by CCP alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

47. Chart of the visibility of roads refuge wide by CCP alternative for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . 275

48. Graph of the proportion of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges within the corresponding travel

 time of the nearest road, by CCP alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

49. Graph of the proportion of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges to the nearest road at 30 minutes. . . . . . 321

50. Map of accessibility by foot to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

Appendix Figure

 A. Map of the wilderness review areas for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405

Summary

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed 

this final comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement (final CCP and EIS) to 

provide alternatives and identify consequences for 

the management and use of the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge and the UL Bend National 

Wildlife Refuge in Montana. The alternatives are 

the result of extensive public input and of working closely with several cooperating agencies: U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Land Management; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks; Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation; counties of Fergus, Garfield, 

McCone, Petroleum, Phillips, and Valley; and Missouri River Conservation Districts Council (for the 

six districts that surround the refuge). Other tribal 

governments, governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private citizens contributed substantial input to the plan.

This document (volume 1) contains the final CCP 

and EIS. The accompanying volume 2 contains the 

Service’s summarization and response to public comments and testimony received during public review 

of the draft CCP and EIS.

Encompassing nearly 1.1 million acres—including 

Fort Peck Reservoir and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge—Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge is one of the largest refuges in the lower 48 

States. This refuge in north-central Montana extends 

west about 125 air miles along the Missouri River 

from Fort Peck Dam to the refuge’s western edge 

at the boundary of the Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument. A portion of the Missouri River 

along the refuge’s western boundary is part of 

Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River. 

This expansive refuge covers parts of six counties: 

Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, Valley, and 

Phillips. 

Refuge habitat includes native prairie, forested 

coulees, river bottoms, and badlands. Wildlife is as 

diverse as the topography and includes Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, sharp-tailed grouse, 

prairie dogs, and more than 236 species of birds. 

More than 250,000 visitors take part in a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational activities 

every year. In particular, the refuge is renowned for 

its outstanding hunting opportunities. Other visitors enjoy viewing and photographing wildlife along 

the refuge’s extensive network of roads. The Fort 

Peck Interpretive Center showcases an aquarium 

of native and game fish, other wildlife, and several 

casts of dinosaur fossils including a Tyrannosaurus rex. Still others enjoy fishing along the Missouri 

River or on Fort Peck Reservoir. 

REFUGE BACKGROUND

In 1805, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark first 

detailed accounts of the abundant wildlife resources 

they found in the area now known as Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge (Moulton 2002). 

One hundred thirty years later, Olaus J. Murie, a 

renowned wildlife biologist for the U.S. Biological 

Survey, made the first biological assessment of plant 

and wildlife species for the proposed Fort Peck 

Migratory Bird Refuge (Murie 1935).

Low clouds hang over the Missouri River on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.

Brett Billings / USFWS
XVI Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

■■

The refuge was established in 1936 as the Fort 

Peck Game Range for sustaining large numbers of 

sharp-tailed grouse, pronghorn, and other wildlife. 

In 1963, it was designated as the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Range in honor of famous western 

painter Charlie Russell, and this “range” became a 

“refuge” in 1976. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge 

was established in 1969 and lies within the boundary of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge; 

these two Refuge System units are managed cohesively as one refuge. As part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, the refuge is managed for wildlife 

conservation above all else. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge contains the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wilderness, and Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge has 15 proposed wilderness units totaling 

155,288 acres.

PURPOSE and NEED for the 

PLAN

The purpose of this final CCP and EIS is to identify 

actions necessary to accomplish the purposes of the 

refuges, identify the role the refuges will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and to provide long-term guidance for management of refuge programs and activities. The CCP 

is needed:

■ to communicate with the public and other partners in efforts to carry out the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System;

■ to provide a clear statement of direction for management of the refuge;

■ to provide neighbors, visitors, and government 

officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the refuge;

■ to ensure the Service’s management actions are 

consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act);

to ensure that management of the refuge considers other Federal, State, and county plans; 

■■ to provide a basis for development of budget 

requests for the operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs of the refuge.

The Service is committed to sustaining the Nation’s 

fish and wildlife resources together through the combined efforts of governments, businesses, and private 

citizens. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SYSTEM

Like all national wildlife refuges, Charles M. Russell 

and UL Bend Refuges are administered under the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966, as amended in 1997.

The mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, 

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

The veery is a “focal” species, one of the first to respond to 

changed conditions, for refuge river bottoms.

Dan Sudia / USFWS

REFUGE PURPOSES

Each national wildlife refuge is managed to fulfill the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as 

well as the specific purposes for which that refuge 

was established. 

The purpose for a national wildlife refuge comes 

from one or more authorities—law, proclamation, 

Executive order, agreement, or other document—that 

establish or expand a refuge. In 1936, Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge was established by 

Executive Order 7509 for the following purpose:

“That the natural forage resources therein shall 

be first utilized for the purpose of sustaining in 

a healthy condition a maximum of four hundred 

thousand (400,000) sharp-tailed grouse, and 

one thousand five hundred (1,500) antelope, 

the primary species, and such nonpredatory 

secondary species in such numbers as may be 

necessary to maintain a balanced wildlife population, but in no case shall the consumption 

of the forage by the combined population of 
Summary XVII

the wildlife species be allowed to increase the 

burden of the range dedicated to the primary 

species: Provided further, That all the forage 

resources within this range or preserve shall be 

available, except as herein otherwise provided 

with respect to wildlife, for domestic livestock 

... And provided further, That land within the 

exterior limits of the area herein described ... 

may be utilized for public grazing purposes only 

to the extent as may be determined by the said 

Secretary (Agriculture) to be compatible with 

the utilization of said lands for the purposes for 

which they were acquired.”

UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge was established 

in 1969 “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 

U.S.C. 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

Other lands within both refuges subsequently have 

been acquired under a variety of transfer and acquisition authorities or have different designations, giving 

the refuges more than one purpose.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

In fall 2007, the Service began the public scoping for 

this project with the publication of a public involvement summary and a planning update that described 

the CCP process and anticipated schedule (FWS 

2007a). The Service published a notice of intent to 

prepare a CCP and EIS in the Federal Register on 

December 4, 2007. Since then, the Service has conducted 21 public meetings during scoping and development of the alternatives, mailed six planning 

updates, posted information on the Web page for the 

CCP, and coordinated with Federal, State, and local 

agencies, and Native American tribes.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 

The scoping process identified many qualities of the 

refuge along with issues and recommendations. Based 

on this information as well as guidance from the 

Improvement Act, National Environmental Policy 

Act, and planning policy, the Service identified seven 

significant issues to address in the CCP and EIS:

■ habitat and wildlife

■ water resources

■ public use and access

■ wilderness

■ socioeconomics

■ partnerships and collaboration

■ cultural values, traditions, and resources

HABITAT and WILDLIFE

The final CCP and EIS addresses the following habitat and wildlife issues:

■ the use and role of wildfire, livestock grazing 

(including water resources needed to support 

livestock), hunting, fencing, and other management tools for the preservation and restoration of 

habitat conditions on the refuge

■ habitat and wildlife management in the context 

of the larger landscape that includes adjacent private, State, tribal, and Federal lands

■ species reintroductions and management of species that could move onto the refuge such as wild 

American bison, gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep

■ special consideration of threatened and endangered species and species of concern

■ invasive species and noxious weed management 

including the management tools used to combat 

invasive species

■ predator management

WATER RESOURCES

Wildlife populations, both on and off the refuge, are 

affected by water quality and access to water. Livestock grazing has degraded habitat, particularly 

near water sources. Furthermore, stock watering 

ponds can affect streamflow, fish, and riparian areas 

conditions. The final CCP and EIS addresses the following important water issues:

■ water quality and quantity

■ water development

■ Missouri River riparian ecosystem

■ water rights

The scoping process identified the qualities of the refuge 

and issues of concern.

USFWS
XVIII Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

PUBLIC USE and ACCESS 

The Service allows the public uses of hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education. In addition, the Service supports these uses by providing associated access and 

facilities such as roads, motorized access, and camping. The final CCP and EIS addresses the following 

public use and access issues:

■ priority public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education

■ motorized and nonmotorized access and law 

enforcement

■ roads including number, location, types, and maintenance

■ nonpriority uses such as camping and bicycling

■ facilities, programs, and infrastructure to support 

public uses and access

■ permitted uses such as livestock grazing, commercial recreation, or other uses

WILDERNESS

Planning policy requires refuges to review special 

designation areas such as wilderness and address the 

potential for any new designations. Concurrent with 

the comprehensive conservation planning and environmental analysis process, the Service conducted 

a wilderness review and will make final recommendations in the record of decision. The final CCP and 

EIS addresses the following wilderness issues:

■ identification of the potential for new designations

■ access, infrastructure, and use of management 

tools

SOCIOECONOMICS

It is important to manage refuge resources and public 

use in ways that protect the resources, that are financially responsible, and that are integrated with the 

economic viability of the surrounding communities. 

The final CCP and EIS addresses the following socioeconomic issues:

■ benefits of the refuge and promotion of refuge 

values

■ a range of alternatives and effects of those alternatives on the local economy and community

PARTNERSHIPS and COLLABORATION

Because of the long, narrow extent of the refuge 

boundary, the subsequent amount and variety of 

adjacent land uses not only affect, but also are interrelated with, refuge resources. Therefore, it is crucial 

for the Service to collaborate with refuge neighbors 

and to establish partnerships with interested agencies and groups. Wildlife populations and movements 

are greatly affected by conditions both outside and 

inside the refuge. Similarly, invasive species are one 

of the biggest threats facing State, Federal, and private landowners. Changes in the ownership of private lands next to the refuge may change conditions 

for habitat, wildlife, and public access. Privately 

owned mineral rights, future energy development, 

and rights-of-way influence the future conditions and 

use of the refuge and adjacent lands. The final CCP 

and EIS addresses the following partnership and 

collaboration issues: 

■ adjacent land management related to habitat, 

wildlife, and public use

■ consultation and coordination with Federal, State, 

and local partners

■ climate change and development of minerals

including recommendations for reducing effects 

on resources

■ priorities for future land acquisition

CULTURAL VALUES, 

TRADITIONS, and RESOURCES 

The refuge has significant archaeological resources 

and rich prehistoric and historic values to the local 

and regional community. The western traditions and 

practices of livestock grazing have affected the lives 

of ranchers and their families for many generations. 

Of unique value are the significant paleontological 

resources (fossilized plants and animals). The final 

CCP and EIS addresses the following cultural, traditions, and resource issues: 

Dotted Gayfeather

USFWS
Summary XIX

■■ refuge values and qualities

■■ land management designations

■■ traditions and lifestyles

■■ cultural and paleontological resources

VISION 

The Service developed a vision for the refuge at the 

beginning of the planning process. The vision describes 

the focus of refuge management and portrays a picture 

of the refuge in 15 years.

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge’s expansive badlands, cottonwood river 

bottoms, old-growth forested coulees, sagebrush steppes, and mixed-grass prairies 

appear out of the sea that is the northern 

Great Plains.

Encompassing more than a million acres, the 

refuge affords visitors solitude, serenity, and 

unique opportunities to experience natural 

settings and wildlife similar to what Native 

Americans and, later, Lewis and Clark 

observed. 

The diversity of plant and animal communities found on the refuge stretch from the high 

prairie through the rugged breaks, along the 

Missouri River, and across Fort Peck Reservoir. The refuge is an outstanding example of 

a functioning, resilient, and intact landscape 

in an ever-changing West. 

Working together with our neighbors and 

partners, the Service employs adaptive management rooted in science to protect and 

improve the biological integrity, biological 

diversity, and environmental health of the 

refuge’s wildlife and habitat resources.

GOALS

The Service developed eight goals for the refuge 

based on the Improvement Act, the refuge purposes, 

and information developed during planning. The 

goals direct work toward achieving the vision and 

purposes of the refuge and outline approaches for 

managing refuge resources.

HABITAT and WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Conserve, restore, and improve the biological integrity, environmental health, and ecological diversity 

of the refuge’s plant and animal communities of the 

Missouri River Breaks and surrounding prairies to 

support healthy populations of native plants and wildlife in a changing climate. Working with others, 

reduce and control the spread of nondesirable, nonnative, invasive plant and aquatic species for the benefit 

of native communities on and off the refuge.

THREATENED and ENDANGERED 

SPECIES and SPECIES OF CONCERN

Contribute to the identification, preservation, and 

recovery of threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern that occur or have historically 

occurred in the northern Great Plains.

RESEARCH and SCIENCE

Advance the understanding of natural resources, ecological processes, and the effectiveness of management actions in a changing climate in the northern 

Great Plains through compatible scientific investigations, monitoring, and applied research.

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Manage wildland fire using a management response 

that promotes fire’s natural role in shaping the landscape while protecting values at risk. 

PUBLIC USE and EDUCATION

Provide all visitors quality education, recreation, and 

outreach opportunities that are appropriate and compatible with the purpose and goals of the refuge and 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

while maintaining the remote and primitive experience unique to the refuge.

WILDERNESS

Conserve, improve, and promote the wilderness character and associated natural processes of designated 

and proposed wilderness areas and wilderness study 

areas within the refuge for all generations.

CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

Identify, value, and preserve the significant paleontological and cultural resources of the refuge to connect refuge staff, visitors, and the community to the 

area’s prehistoric and historic past.
XX Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

REFUGE OPERATIONS and

PARTNERSHIPS

Through effective communication and innovative use 

of technology and resources, the refuge uses funding, 

personnel, partnerships, and volunteer programs for 

the benefit of natural resources while recognizing the 

social and economic connection of the refuge to adjacent communities.

ALTERNATIVES

Following the initial scoping process in 2007 and 2008, 

the Service held meetings and workshops with the 

cooperating agencies and the public and identified 

a reasonable range of preliminary alternatives. The 

Service carried forward the following four alternatives and analyzed them in detail in this environmental impact statement:

■ Alternative A—No Action

■ Alternative B—Wildlife Population Emphasis

■ Alternative C—Public Use and Economic Use 

Emphasis

■ Alternative D—Ecological Processes Emphasis 

(preferred alternative)

These alternatives examine different ways for providing permanent protection and restoration of fish, 

wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources and 

for providing opportunities for the public to engage 

in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Each 

alternative incorporates specific actions intended 

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

goal. The no-action alternative provides a basis for 

comparison of the action alternatives B–D.

ELEMENTS COMMON

to ALL ALTERNATIVES

The following actions and programs apply to all 

alternatives:

■ protection and management of significant cultural and paleontological resources

■ special regulations for public access on the refuge

■ landing sites for seaplanes

■ collection of grazing fees

■ collaboration with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

■ protection of UL Bend Wilderness and management as a class 1 air shed

■ closure of roads in proposed wilderness units 

except for roads that provide access to private 

land within the refuge

■ wildfire suppression and use of prescribed fire 

under an approved fire management plan

■ collaboration with partners to carry out the plan

■ suppression of wildfires and issuance of special 

use permits for grazing on State school-section 

lands within the boundary of the refuge

■ integrated pest management

■ capping of artesian wells

■ adjudication of water rights

■ access to State lands for livestock permittees

■ exchange of State lands within the refuge boundary where feasible

■ acquisition of priority lands within the refuge 

boundary from willing sellers

■ jurisdiction transfer for lands not needed by U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers

■ adherence to legal obligations of rights-of-way 

for access to private and State lands

■ boating

■ partnerships for providing accessible opportunities

■ prohibition of shed hunting

■ protection of areas with special designations such 

as historic trails, landmarks, research areas, and 

scenic rivers

■ evaluation of predator control for appropriateness and compatibility

Big game management includes objectives for mule deer.

USFWS

ALTERNATIVE A—NO ACTION

Few changes would occur in the management of existing wildlife populations and habitat. Wildlife-dependent public uses and economic uses would continue 

at current levels. Key actions of alternative A follow:

■ There would be a continued emphasis on big game 

management, annual livestock grazing, use of 

fencing for pastures, invasive species control, 
Summary XXI

and water development. Habitat would continue 

to be managed in the 65 habitat units that were 

established by the Bureau of Land Management 

for grazing purposes. Prescriptive grazing would 

be carried out gradually as units became available and habitat evaluations were completed.

■■ Big game would be managed to achieve target 

levels in the 1986 environmental impact statement record of decision: 160 bighorn sheep, 10 

mule deer per square mile, and 2.5 elk per square 

mile. This would include a more restrictive rifle 

season for mule deer in some State hunting districts as compared with the State season.

■■ Select stock ponds would be maintained or rehabilitated. Riparian habitat would be restored 

where possible and standard watershed management practices would be enforced.

■■ Access would be allowed on 670 miles of refuge 

roads.

■■ About 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness 

within 15 units of the Charles M. Russell Refuge 

would be managed in accordance with Service 

policy. 

A range of alternatives was identified for managing the 1.1 million-acre refuge.

© Rick and Susie Graetz

ALTERNATIVE B—WILDLIFE 

POPULATION EMPHASIS

The Service would manage the landscape, in cooperation with partners, to emphasize the abundance 

of wildlife populations using balanced natural ecological processes such as fire and herbivory by wild 

ungulates and responsible farming practices and 

tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public use would 

be encouraged, and economic uses would be limited when they compete for habitat resources. Key 

actions of alternative B follow:

■ The Service would actively manage and manipulate habitat, thus creating a diverse plant community of highly productive wildlife food and cover 

plants. The management emphasis would be on 

habitat for targeted wildlife species, including 

focal bird species, in separate parts of the refuge. The Service would consolidate the 65 habitat 

units. Subsequently, the refuge staff would write 

new habitat management plans based on field station boundaries and habitat evaluation for target 

species. The Service would work with others to 

develop methods to monitor and evaluate target 

or focal species and habitat needs. 

■■ Desired habitat conditions may be created using 

natural ecological processes (such as fire, grazing 

by wildlife, or flooding) or through management 

practices (such as prescriptive livestock grazing, 

agricultural plantings or managed fire). 

■■ An aggressive approach to reduction of invasive 

plants in the river bottoms would be based on 

funding and other staffing priorities. Work would 

include use of prescribed fire, spraying with herbicides, and planting of wildlife food crops to clear 

invasive plants. In addition, the Service would 

collaborate with others to combat invasive plants 

in shoreline habitat. Where feasible and combined 

with research, the Service would restore the functioning condition of riparian areas and preserve 

fire refugia (places where fire rarely burns). 

■■ Through cooperation and collaboration with 

the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks and adjoining landowners, the Service 

would use wildlife- and habitat-based objectives 

and strategies that consider natural densities, 

social structures, and population dynamics at the 

landscape level. The Service and cooperators 

would mutually agree on population levels that 

can be tolerated by adjoining landowners and 

provide quality recreational experiences without 

negatively affecting habitat or other wildlife. The 
XXII Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Service would collaborate with others to manage 

wildlife to benefit all species in and around the 

refuge, actions could include conservation easements or other incentives.

■■ The Service would cooperate with Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Bureau 

of Land Management; Montana Department of 

Natural Resources and Conservation; conservation organizations; and others to conduct the necessary biological, social, and economic research to 

determine the feasibility of a restoration effort 

for wild bison on the surrounding landscape.

■■ The Service would identify habitat suitable for 

bighorn sheep and establish new populations 

based on the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ modeling and transplant criteria. 

The Service would work with the department to 

provide quality hunting opportunities as a management tool that maintains both sustainable 

populations of big game and habitat for nongame 

species.

■■ In managing the hunting program, the Service 

would seek to benefit wildlife populations and 

promote harvest experiences that are not always 

achieved on other public lands. An example would 

be providing opportunities to hunt big game animals with all age classes represented (i.e., mule 

deer in the 8- to 10-year class). 

■■ The Service would close about 106 miles of road 

and would work with partners to develop a travel 

plan and secure access to the refuge through 

other lands. Nonmotorized access would be promoted, but the Service would consider allowing 

motorized access on existing roads only for game 

retrieval and restricting access on a seasonal 

basis to sensitive areas by the river and roads. 

■■ Opportunities for expanding hunting programs 

would be considered to encourage and facilitate 

young hunters and mobility-impaired hunters. 

Limited hunts for furbearers or other predators 

would be considered only if monitoring verified 

that population levels could be sustained.

■■ The Service would expand or adjust by 25,869 

acres the existing proposed wilderness units: Alkali 

Creek, Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, East Seven 

Blackfoot, Mickey Butte, Sheep Creek, Wagon Coulee, West Beauchamp Creek, and West Hell Creek.

ALTERNATIVE C—PUBLIC USE and 

ECONOMIC USE EMPHASIS

The Service would manage the landscape, in cooperation with partners, to emphasize and promote 

the maximum, compatible, wildlife-dependent public 

use and economic uses while protecting wildlife populations and habitats to the extent possible. Damaging 

The alternatives address a variety of public uses 

including hunting and access.

USFWS

effects on wildlife habitats would be minimized while 

using a variety of management tools to enhance and 

diversify public and economic opportunities. Key

actions of alternative C follow:

■ In addition to the habitat elements in alternative A, 

the Service would generally manage habitats to 

provide more opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation. In places, the refuge staff would manage for plant communities that could necessitate a 

compromise between providing wildlife food and 

cover and livestock forage needs. Where needed, 

fencing and water gaps would be used to manage 

livestock use and prevent further degradation of 

riparian habitat. Camping areas would be managed to limit expansion and further degradation 

of riparian habitat.

■ Through collaboration with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and others, the 

Service would keep a balance between numbers 

of big game and livestock to sustain habitats and 

populations of big game and sharp-tailed grouse. 

Similar balancing could be necessary when managing populations of nongame or migratory birds 

and livestock needs. For example, it could be necessary to balance prairie dog needs with public and 

economic uses such as livestock grazing or with 

needs of other wildlife. 

■ Working with the Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks, the Service would expand and 

maximize the following hunting opportunities: (1) 

programs to include new species and traditional or 
Summary XXIII

niche (primitive weapon) hunting; (2) mule deer 

season; (3) predator hunting; (4) trapping; and (5) 

opportunities for young hunters.

■■ Refuge access would be managed to benefit public 

and economic uses. The Service would improve 

access to boat ramps and consider establishing new 

roads in some areas and seasonally closing other 

areas, such as those around Fort Peck, to protect 

habitat and to provide for a diversity of experience.

■■ Wilderness areas would be managed similar to 

alternative A (155,288 acres in 15 units).

■■

■■

■■

The use of prescribed fire, wildfire, and grazing by wild ungulates and livestock is addressed.

USFWS

ALTERNATIVE D—ECOLOGICAL 

PROCESSES EMPHASIS 

(Preferred Alternative)

In cooperation with partners, the Service would use 

natural, dynamic, ecological processes and management activities in a balanced, responsible manner to 

restore and maintain the biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

Once natural processes are restored, a more passive 

approach (less human assistance) would be favored. 

There would be quality wildlife-dependent public 

uses and experiences. Economic uses would be limited when they are injurious to ecological processes. 

Key actions of alternative D follow:

Where feasible, the Service would apply management practices that mimic and restore natural 

processes on the refuge, managing for a diversity 

of plant species and wildlife species in upland and 

riparian areas. This would include a concerted 

manipulation of habitats or wildlife populations 

(using prescribed fire and grazing and hunting) 

through coordinated objectives. Management 

would evolve toward more passive approaches, 

allowing natural processes such as fire, grazing, and flooding to occur with less human aid or 

money. 

The Service would maintain plant diversity and 

health using fire in combination with wild ungulate herbivory or prescriptive livestock grazing, 

or both, to ensure the viability of populations of 

sentinel plants (those plant species that decline 

first when management practices are injurious 

and in concert with other focal bird species or 

special status wildlife species; see appendix F). 

In collaboration with the Montana Department 

of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and others, the Service would maintain the health and diversity of 

all species’ populations including focal birds 

and other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, species of concern, game species, 

and nongame species by restoring and maintaining 
XXIV Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

balanced, self-sustaining populations. This could 

include manipulating livestock grazing and wildlife 

numbers, or both, if habitat monitoring found that 

conditions were declining or plant species were 

being affected by overuse. Predators would be 

managed to benefit the ecological integrity of 

the refuge. Limited hunting for mountain lion or 

other furbearers or predators would be considered only after monitoring verified that population levels could be sustained with a hunt.

■■ The Service would cooperate with Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Bureau 

of Land Management; Montana Department of 

Natural Resources and Conservation; conservation organizations; and others to conduct the necessary biological, social, and economic research to 

determine the feasibility of a restoration effort 

for wild bison on the surrounding landscape.

■■ The Service would cooperate with Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to provide hunting experiences that keep game species 

at levels that meet State objectives, sustain ecological health, and provide opportunities not found on 

other public lands. The Service would develop 

cooperative big game population and habitat 

monitoring programs with the department. During development of habitat management plans, 

the Service would establish population levels, sex 

and age composition targets, and harvest strategies that are jointly agreed to and tailored to the 

varied habitat potential on the refuge. Hunting 

regulations would be designed to provide a variety of quality recreational opportunities including population objectives with diverse male age 

structures not generally managed for on other 

public lands.

■■ Refuge access would be managed primarily to benefit natural processes, but some improvements 

would be made to provide quality visitor experiences. Initially, the Service would close about 

21 miles of roads, implement a seasonal closure 

along 2.4 miles of road 315, and designate 13 miles 

of roads on the northeast side of the refuge as 

game-retrieval roads where seasonal closures 

would be applied. Other closures or modifications could be necessary after further review of 

the road program. This would encourage free 

movement of wildlife, permit prescribed fire or 

wildfire suppression activities, and increase effective harvest of wild ungulates. Additionally, the 

Service would upgrade about 5 miles of roads to 

all-weather access (gravel), allow for more winter fishing access, and expand opportunities for 

quality wildlife observation, interpretation, and 

environmental education by adding trails, viewing blinds, and a science interpretive center. 

■■ The Service would expand or adjust existing proposed wilderness units by 19,942 acres in Alkali 

Creek, Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, East Seven 

Blackfoot, Mickey Butte, Sheep Creek, Wagon Coulee, and West Hell Creek.

OBJECTIVES and STRATEGIES

Based on the vision and goals for the refuge, the 

Service has developed objectives and strategies for 

each alternative. An objective is a general statement 

about what the Service wants to achieve on the refuge, while a strategy is a specific action or tool that 

is used to achieve an objective. Because each alternative has a different emphasis, objectives vary by 

alternative. The following summarizes key objective topics addressed for each alternative in the final 

CCP and EIS:

■ management of four broad categories of vegetation found on the refuge: upland, river bottom, 

riparian area and wetland, and shoreline

■ use of fire (both prescribed and wildfire), grazing 

by wildlife and livestock, restoration, predation, 

and hunting in managing refuge’s uplands, river 

bottoms, riparian areas, and shoreline

■ managing for climate change and controlling 

invasive species

■ management of birds; threatened and endangered 

species or species of concern; furbearers and 

small predators; big game; and other wildlife such 

as invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and 

small mammals

■ public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, and interpretation, 

The affected environment chapter describes the resources 

at the refuge including greater sage-grouse.

antulok © Judy W
Summary XXV

and the management of commercial outfitting, recreation acres, and public access

■■ management of wilderness and other special area 

designations and the protection of significant 

cultural and paleontological resources

■■ refuge operations and partnerships

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The final CCP and EIS describes the characteristics 

and resources of the refuge and how existing or past 

management or other influences have affected these 

resources. The affected environment addresses the 

physical, biological, and social aspects of the refuge 

that could be affected by management under the 

four alternatives. These aspects include the physical and biological environment, special management 

areas, visitor services, cultural and paleontological 

resources, and the socioeconomic environment. The 

Service used published and unpublished data, as 

noted in the bibliography, to quantify what is known 

about the refuge.

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES

The alternatives for refuge management would provide a variety of positive effects (benefits) and negative 

effects (impacts) to resources at Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National 

Wildlife Refuge. Some of the greatest benefits would 

come from consolidating habitat units and managing 

the upland vegetation to create a mosaic of habitats 

using prescribed fire, naturally occurring wildfires, 

and prescriptive grazing to support a diversity of 

species and improve the overall health of the refuge. 

The Service would restore numerous former agricultural river bottoms by reducing invasive plant 

infestations and planting native species. Another significant benefit would be the improved function and 

quality of riparian areas for wildlife using prescriptive grazing, possible water impoundment removal 

or modification, and restoration projects. 

The greatest effect on refuge resources would be 

the continuation of current fire suppression strategies and constant grazing pressure over large parts 

of the refuge under alternative A. While the overall 

economic effects of any alternative would be beneficial, implementation of new grazing and habitat management approaches in alternatives B or D would 

result in impacts to individual livestock permittees. 

From a habitat perspective, the action alternatives 

(B, C, and D) would benefit upland and riparian habitats, with alternatives B and D resulting in moderate 

to major long-term benefits to both habitat and wildlife. These and other effects including a description 

of their context, intensity, and duration are described 

in detail in chapter 5. The degree of effect was quantified using known numeric or modeled estimates or 

information derived from extensive monitoring or 

research. Where sufficient numeric information was 

not available, qualitative or relative assessments 

were made using scientific literature or professional 

field experience.

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The slower transition to prescriptive grazing under 

alternatives A and C could cause moderate to major 

negative effects on soils, while the transition to prescriptive grazing over a shorter period, and over 

most of the refuge in alternatives B and D, would 

reduce those impacts in the long term. The use of 

prescribed fire in any alternative would generally 

result in short-term, negligible, negative effects on 

air quality, visual resources, and soils. The impacts 

of large wildfires on these resources would be major 

under alternative A and would be minor to moderate under alternatives B–D. 

Livestock grazing in some areas would result in 

moderate to major negative effects on soils under 

alternatives A and C, while prescriptive grazing in 

alternatives B and D would reduce those impacts 

over the long term. The aesthetic impacts of livestock grazing and prescribed fire on visual resources 

for some refuge visitors would be negligible to minor 

under alternatives A and C, while they would be 

moderate benefits under alternatives B and D.

The overall impacts of motorized use on soundscapes would be negligible to minor under all alternatives. 

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

The continuation of current management of uplands 

under alternative A would have minor short-term 

impacts, with moderate to major long-term impacts. 

The localized effects of alternative B on upland habitat 

would be variable but overall would result in moderate long-term benefits. Increased prescriptive grazing and balanced ungulate use under alternative C 

would result in minor long-term benefits. Efforts to 

restore natural processes under alternative D would 

result in major long-term benefits to uplands.

Ongoing habitat protection and water impoundment removal or improvement would benefit riparian areas and wetlands. Over the long term, these 

benefits would be minor under alternative A, moderate under alternative B, minor to moderate under 

alternative C, and moderate to major under alternative D. In all alternatives, localized moderate 
XXVI Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

impacts from grazing on riparian habitat would persist in some areas. While the approaches and timeframe would vary, river bottom restoration in all 

alternatives would result in minor to moderate longterm benefits. Effects of the alternatives on shoreline habitat would be negligible.

Under alternative A, continued negative effects 

on bird habitat would generally offset the benefits 

of protection and enhancement efforts, resulting in 

negligible effects. Habitat protection and management efforts in the action alternatives (B–D) would 

benefit birds on the refuge. These long-term benefits would be moderate to major under alternatives 

B and D, and minor under alternative C. In all alternatives, moderate to major localized impacts would 

continue to occur in some areas due to grazing.

As the Service is required to manage for the benefit of special status species, alternative A, with no 

specific objectives, would have negligible effects. 

More active management of threatened and endangered species and species of concern under the action 

alternatives (B–D) would have moderate to major 

long-term benefits for those species. 

Continued management of furbearers and small 

predators would have negligible effects. Alternative B 

would have major long-term benefits to furbearers 

and small predators due to reintroductions, while 

alternative C would have minor to major impacts due 

to increased harvest. The effects of alternative D 

would be negligible. 

While the big game management emphases and 

approaches would vary, all alternatives would benefit big game populations. Over the long term, these 

benefits would be minor under alternative A, minor 

to moderate under alternative B, and moderate 

under alternatives C and D. 

Continued habitat degradation under alternative A would have minor, incremental, negative 

effects on amphibians, reptiles, fish, and small mammals, while habitat improvements under the action 

alternatives would benefit those species. Benefits 

would be moderate under alternative B, minor under 

alternative C, and moderate to major under alternative D.

Implementation of the action alternatives (B–D) would 

have the greatest benefit to riparian areas.

USFWS

The 670 miles of roads that crisscross the refuge affect the 

physical, biological, and public environment.

USFWS

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS

Alternative A would keep the current and proposed 

wilderness configurations. Expansion of proposed 

wilderness units under alternatives B and D would 

result in minor benefits. None of the alternatives 

would affect the designation or management of other 

special management areas.

VISITOR SERVICES

Continuation of current hunting opportunities and 

management under alternative A would have negligible effects, while the action alternatives (B–D) would 

have varying benefits to hunting. Expanded hunting 

opportunities under alternative B would have negligible to minor benefits, while an expanded emphasis 

on hunting opportunities and harvest under alternative C would have minor to moderate benefits. The 

benefits of higher quality hunting opportunities under 

alternative D would be minor to moderate, depending on the preferences of individual hunters. None of 

the alternatives would affect fishing. 

Alternative A would have negligible effects on 

wildlife observation and photography. Increases in 

personnel, facilities, and programs would result in 

negligible to minor benefits under alternative B and 

moderate benefits under alternatives C and D. Limited environmental education, interpretation, and outreach under alternative A would have negligible 

effects. Alternative B would have negligible benefits 

due to more staff and program and facility improvements. Alternatives C and D would have minor benefits due to expanded staff and facilities. Effects on 
Summary XXVII

commercial uses would be negligible under all alternatives except for alternative C, which would have 

minor benefits due to more permits and efforts to 

reduce conflicts.

Under alternative A, access would remain as 

it is currently with 670 miles of road open to visitors. Alternative B would result in minor negative 

effects on vehicle access, with 106 miles of road closures, while the 21 miles of closed roads and 15 miles 

of seasonal closures in alternative D would have negligible impacts. Alternatives C and D would consider 

allowing more winter fishing access along the southwest side. There would be 16 miles of upgrades to 

roads under alternative C and 5 miles in alternative 

D, which would have minor benefits. The impacts of 

specific road closures would be greater for individuals who prefer to access the refuge by those particular routes.

Fishing would continue to be a popular activity under all alternatives.

Brett Billings / USFWS

CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

While alternative A would have negligible effects, all 

of the action alternatives (B–D) would have negligible to minor benefits on cultural and paleontological 

resources due to improved resource identification, 

protection, law enforcement, and interpretation.

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

The regional economic impacts of refuge management activities, including local economic output and 

jobs, would be negligible under alternatives A and B. 

Alternatives C and D would result in minor benefits. 

Alternative C would generate $3.9 million in local output and 48 additional jobs, and alternative D would 

generate $2.1 million in local output and 25 additional 

jobs. 

As the refuge currently supplies less than 1 percent of total animal unit months in the six-county 

area, any changes in grazing management would 

have negligible economic effects. However, refuge 

management changes would affect individual livestock permittees. The negative effects on permittees 

would be negligible to minor under alternatives A 

and C and would be potentially moderate to major 

under alternatives B and D.

COMMENTS on the DRAFT 

CCP and EIS

The Service received nearly 20,600 comments on the 

draft CCP and EIS, which was released to the public for review and comment on September 7, 2010. 

A 60-day comment period for the document closed 

on November 16, 2010 and then was extended to 

December 10, 2010. The Service held seven public 

hearings throughout Montana during the comment 

period. Refer to appendix B for the public involvement summary and volume 2, which contains public 

comments and Service responses. 
XXVIII Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES in the 

FINAL CCP and EIS

As a result of public comment on the draft CCP and 

EIS, the Service made several significant changes 

while preparing the final CCP and EIS.

WILDERNESS

■■ Revised appendix E and clarified that any additions would become wilderness study areas 

(existing proposed wilderness units would remain 

the same).

■■ Modified the acreage for the wilderness study 

areas in alternatives B and D due in part to a 

mapping error in the draft CCP and EIS (640 

acres within East Seven Blackfoot proposed wilderness and next to the Bureau of Land Management wilderness study area was mislabeled 

as State lands). The Mickey Butte addition was 

included in alternative D (already considered in 

alternative B). As a result, the acreage for alternative B would be 25,869 acres, and alternative D 

would be 19,942 acres.

■■ Determined that there is not sufficient justification for recommending the removal of any existing proposed wilderness previously considered in 

alternatives C and D.

ROADS

■■ Changed road 315 (Petroleum County) in alternative D from closed to seasonally closed from junction of road 838 to its end.

■■ Designated about 13 miles on the northeast side 

(roads 331, 332, 333, and 440 in Valley County) as 

game-retrieval roads in alternative D (previously 

identified for closure in alternative B only). These 

would be seasonal closures during the hunting 

season, when most of the use occurs.

WILDLIFE OBJECTIVES

■■ Adjusted and clarified the big game objectives. 

The objectives would meet or exceed the objectives approved in existing State plans. Refugespecific abundance and population composition 

objectives would be established through the 

habitat management planning process and would 

be tailored to regional habitat conditions, productivity, and considerations for functioning ecosystem processes, biological integrity, and hunting 

opportunities and experiences.

■■ Updated the information on threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern (gray 

wolf, Sprague’s pipit, mountain plover, and northern leopard frog).

HABITAT OBJECTIVES and STRATEGIES

■■ Clarified and expanded on the prescriptive grazing definition and information. 

■■ Made several organizational changes to the habitat objectives including changing livestock grazing from an objective level to a strategy, which is 

consistent with Service policy (timeframes would 

remain the same).

■■ Clarified that the timeframe for implementation 

of prescribed grazing under alternative A would 

be similar to alternative C (50 percent or more 

would have converted to prescribed grazing over 

15 years, based on the current trends for conversion). 

■■ Expanded the discussion on monitoring sentinel 

plant and the refuge’s past monitoring efforts.

■■ Identified the miles of streams and the percentage of riparian areas within the refuge that would 

be improved from restoration efforts.

FOCAL BIRD SPECIES

■■ Identified the focal bird species for each broad 

habitat category (upland, river bottom, riparian 

areas and wetland, and shoreline) and connected 

the sentinel plant monitoring to the focal bird species, particularly in alternative D and to a lesser 

extent in the other alternatives. Previously, these 

were identified as potential sentinel bird species. 

The use of “focal birds” is consistent with the Service’s focal bird strategy (FWS 2011c).

MINERALS

■■ Clarified that mineral withdrawals are for locatable minerals.

LAND ACQUISITION

■■ Clarified that, under all alternatives, the Service 

would continue to acquire lands within its authorized boundary and in accordance with Title VIII 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(Enhancement Act).

LEGAL MANDATES

■■ Expanded discussion on the history of the passage of the Improvement Act, Service policies, 

refuge history, and legal mandates.
Summary XXIX

WATER QUALITY, AIR MONITORING, 

and CLIMATE CHANGE

■ Added information and clarified these topics.

■ Added climate change to several of the goals.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

The Service’s final decision will be documented in a 

record of decision published in the Federal Register no sooner than 30 days after filing this final EIS 

and CCP with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and distributing it to the public.

The Service will begin to carry out the final 

CCP immediately on publication of the decision in 

the Federal Register. Selected management activities and projects will be carried out as funds become 

available. The final plan does not constitute a commitment for funding, and future budgets could influence implementation priorities.

Abbreviations

ATV all-terrain vehicle

AUM animal-unit month

BCR 17 Badlands and Prairies Bird Conservation Region 

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CCP comprehensive conservation plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO2 Carbon dioxide

DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

EIS environmental impact statement

Enhancement Act Title VIII of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

GS General Schedule (employment type)

HDP height-density plot

HMP Habitat Management Plan

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

MFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

MIAG Montana/Idaho Airshed Group

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

region 6 Mountain–Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

RLGIS Refuge Land Geographic Information System

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

TEA–21 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TES threatened and endangered species

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS USDA Forest Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WG wage grade (employment type)

WSA wilderness study area

Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, 

located after chapter 5.

1—Introduction

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has 

developed this final comprehensive conservation 

plan and environmental impact statement (final CCP 

and EIS) to provide alternatives and identify consequences for the management and use of Charles 

M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend 

National Wildlife Refuge, located in north-central Montana. Located within the boundary of the 

Charles M. Russell Refuge, UL Bend Refuge is, in 

essence, a refuge within a refuge (see vicinity map 

in figure 1). The Service manages these refuges as 

one refuge. Together, they encompass an area of 1.1 

million acres that span about 125 air miles along the 

Missouri River, from the Fort Peck Dam west to the 

boundary with the Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument. Throughout this document, the 

two refuges are referred to as “the refuge” unless 

individually named.

Wildlife conservation is the first priority in managing national wildlife refuges. Public uses, specifically 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses, are allowed and 

encouraged as long as they are compatible with the 

refuge’s purposes. 

In preparing this document, the Service complied 

with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd et 

seq.), also known as the Improvement Act and Part 

602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FWS 2000c). 

Additionally, the actions described meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

This document (volume 1) contains the final CCP 

and EIS. The accompanying volume 2 contains the 

Service’s summarization and response to public comments and testimony received during public review 

of the draft CCP and EIS.

This final CCP and EIS discusses program levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily 

for Service strategic planning purposes. Once completed, the CCP will specify the necessary actions to 

achieve the vision and goals of the refuge. The plan 

will guide the management, programs, and actions 

for 15 years after CCP approval.

The Service has formulated four final alternatives that are the result of extensive public input and 

working closely with agencies and local governments 

that have close ties to the refuge. The core planning 

team of representatives from several Service programs prepared this final CCP and EIS (refer to 

appendix A). In addition, the following cooperating 

agencies participated on the planning team:

■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

■ Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

■ Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

(MFWP)

■ Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation (DNRC)

■ Counties of Fergus, Garfield, McCone, Petroleum, Phillips, and Valley

■ Missouri River Conservation Districts Council, 

representing the six conservation districts next 

to the refuge

Public involvement in the planning process is discussed in section 1.6 below and in detail in appendix B.

About 276 bird species, including the burrowing owl, have been recorded on the refuge.

USFWS
2 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana 

After reviewing a wide range of management 

needs and public comments during three public 

comment periods (scoping, draft alternatives, and 

draft CCP and EIS), the planning team developed 

four sets of alternatives, objectives, and strategies 

for management of the refuge. Details on the noaction alternative and the three action alternatives 

and are in chapter 3, and the predicted effects of the 

alternatives are described in chapter 5. The Service 

has identified one alternative (D) as the preferred 

alternative.

1.1 PURPOSE and NEED for

ACTION

The purpose of this final CCP and EIS is to identify 

the role the refuge will play in support of the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and to provide long-term guidance for management of refuge programs and activities. The CCP is 

needed:

■ to communicate with the public and other partners 

in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge 

System;

■ to provide a clear statement of direction for management of the refuge;

■ to provide neighbors, visitors, and government 

officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the refuge;

■ to ensure that the Service’s management actions 

are consistent with the mandates of the Improvement Act;

■ to ensure that management of the refuge considers 

other Federal, State, and local government plans; 

■ to provide a basis for development of budget requests for the operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs of the refuge.

The Service is committed to sustaining the Nation’s 

fish and wildlife resources together through the combined efforts of governments, businesses, and private citizens. 

DECISION to be MADE

The Regional Director of Region 6 of the Service will 

make the final decision on the selection of a preferred 

alternative for the CCP. The Regional Director’s decision will be based on the legal responsibility of the 

Service including the mission of the Service and the 

Refuge System, other legal and policy mandates, the 

purposes of Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges, 

and the vision and goals in this final CCP. In addition, 

the Regional Director will consider public input from 

the cooperating agencies, Native American tribes, and 

the public about the final CCP and EIS. Other conFigure 1. Vicinity map for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.
Chapter 1—Introduction 3

siderations are land uses in the surrounding area and 

other parts of the ecosystem, the environmental effects 

of the alternatives, and future budget projections. 

The Service’s final decision will be documented in 

a record of decision that is published in the Federal 

Register, no sooner than 30 days after filing the final 

CCP and EIS with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and distributing it to the public. The Service will begin to carry out the final CCP immediately 

on publication of the decision in the Federal Register. 

1.2 The U.S. FISH and

WILDLIFE SERVICE and the

REFUGE SYSTEM

The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the Service’s major programs.

U.S. FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE

The Service was established in the Department of 

the Interior (DOI) in 1940, through the consolidation of bureaus then operating in several Federal 

departments. The primary precursor agency was the 

Bureau of Biological Survey in the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. Today, the Service enforces Federal 

wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, 

restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves 

and restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and 

recovers endangered species, and helps other 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. 

Our mission is working with others to 

conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

and plants and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people.

Service Activities in Montana

Service activities in Montana contribute to the State’s 

economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The 

following list describes the Service’s presence and 

activities:

■■ Management of two national fish hatcheries, 

one fish health center, one fish technology center, 

four ecological services field offices, and one fish 

and wildlife management assistance office (FWS 

2010a). 

■■ Management of 23 national wildlife refuges encompassing 1,228,575 acres (FWS 2010a). 

■■ Management of five wetland management districts 

(FWS 2010a). 

■■ Management of 209,479 acres of waterfowl production areas (includes fee-title lands, easements, 

or leases) (FWS 2010a). 

■■ Annually provides millions of dollars to MFWP 

for sport fish and wildlife restoration and hunter 

education (FWS 2009f). 

■■ For more than 20 years, the Service’s Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife program has helped private 

landowners restore about 33,000 wetland acres on 

2,715 sites, 388,760 upland acres, and 1,288 miles 

of river and stream channel habitat (FWS 2008a). 

■■ In 2009, payment to Montana counties of $371,727 

under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act for use 

in schools and for roads (FWS 2010b). 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the Nation’s 

first wildlife refuge for the protection of brown pelicans and other native, nesting birds. This was the 

first time the Federal Government had 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 550 units that total 150 million acres (FWS 

2009e). Today, there is at least one refuge in every 

State and in five U.S. territories and Commonwealths. 

These units of the Refuge System vary widely in 

size, purpose, origin, climate, level of development 

and use, and degree of Federal ownership (Fischman 

2005, FWS 2011d). 

Before 1997, most refuge-establishing statutes 

authorizing acquisition of national wildlife refuge 

lands gave broad authority to the Service for managing lands for wildlife. However, in many cases 

the establishing authorities lacked specific direction or procedures for uniform management of the 

acquired and reserved lands. To resolve this, Congress passed two statutes in the 1960s to provide 

administrative guidance: Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962 and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. While the Administration Act 

of 1966 consolidated the units under the Service’s 

jurisdiction, it still did not meet its goal of giving 
4 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana 

clear direction for Refuge System management. The 

Administration Act gave the Secretary of the Interior broad power to determine what secondary uses 

could occur on national wildlife refuges but did not 

provide any biological standards or other standards 

of review outside of the establishing purposes. Furthermore, Congress did not specify a definition for 

compatible uses or provide any other direction on 

making such a determination (Tredennick 2000). 

In the late 1980s, a decline in migratory bird populations prompted a General Accounting Office study 

of wildlife practices affecting the Service’s ability 

to reverse the decline with refuge lands (General 

Accounting Office 1989, U.S. House of Representatives 1997). The report concluded that the management of secondary uses of refuges diverted refuge 

managers’ attention and scarce resources away from 

wildlife management. In the early 1990s, several environmental organizations sought to end recreational 

and economic uses on refuges because of alleged incompatibility with wildlife conservation and challenged the 

Service through several lawsuits (Tredennick 2000). 

Eventually, the Service settled the lawsuits by changing or eliminating several existing uses on refuge lands. 

The pressure for new legislation intensified as a direct 

result of these lawsuits combined with other issues, 

and the ground was laid for passage of a bill that would 

give the Service a clear mission and help resolve the 

problems of the past (U.S. House of Representatives 

1997). Finally, on October 9, 1997, Congress passed into 

law the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Improvement Act established 

a clear vision for the Refuge System.

The mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, 

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

The Improvement Act (or associated regulations) states that each national wildlife refuge shall 

be managed:

■ to “fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the 

specific purposes for which that refuge was established”;

■ to consider “wildlife conservation ... [as] the singular National Wildlife Refuge System mission” 

(Final Compatibility Regulations Pursuant to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997);

■■ to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the System are maintained”;

■■ to fulfill the requirements of preparing “a comprehensive conservation plan ... for each refuge 

within 15 years after the date of enactment of the 

... Act” and of ensuring opportunities for “public 

involvement in the preparation and revision of 

[these] plans”;

■■ to recognize that “compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation [fishing, hunting, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation] is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System”;

■■ to retain the authority of a refuge manager to 

“make ... the compatibility determination” after 

exercising “sound professional judgement ... 

regarding wildlife conservation and uses of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System” (Final Compatibility Regulations Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997).

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the Service started carrying out the direction of the new legislation including the preparation of CCPs for all national 

wildlife refuges and wetland management districts. 

Consistent with the Improvement Act, the Service 

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

its first CCP within the 15-year schedule, by 2012.

People and the Refuge System

The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part 

of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places 

have always given people special opportunities to 

have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world. 

Wildlife recreation contributes millions of dollars to local economies, whether through birdwatching, fishing, hunting, photography, or other wildlife 

pursuits. Nearly 35 million people visited national 

wildlife refuges in 2006 (Carver and Caudill 2007), 

mostly to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. 

Visitors experience nature trails, auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Local communities that surround the refuges 

and districts generate significant economic benefits. 

Economists report that Refuge System visitors contribute more than $1.7 billion annually to local economies (Carver and Caudill 2007). These figures do not 

include Alaska or the Pacific Island refuges, which 

together hosted more than 2 million visitors in 2006. 

Compatible Refuge Uses

Lands within the Refuge System are different from 

multiple-use Federal lands. Refuge System lands 

are closed to all public uses unless specifically and 
Chapter 1—Introduction 5

legally opened. A refuge use is not allowed unless 

the Service finds the use to be appropriate and compatible (FWS 2000a). The Service cannot initiate or 

permit a new use of a refuge or expand, renew, or 

extend an existing use of a refuge unless the Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible 

use and is consistent with public safety. A compatible 

use is one that, in the sound professional judgment 

of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere 

with, or detract from the fulfillment of the Refuge 

System mission or the purposes of the refuge. Sound 

professional judgment is defined as a decision that 

is consistent with the principles of fish and wildlife 

management and administration, the available science and resources, and adherence to law. 

A compatibility determination is the written documentation that a proposed or existing use of a national 

wildlife refuge is or is not a compatible use. The determination is completed, signed, and dated by the refuge manager with the concurrence of the assistant 

Regional Director for the Refuge System. Compatibility determinations are typically completed as part 

of the process for a CCP or stepdown management 

plan. Once a final compatibility determination is made, 

it is not subject to administrative appeal.

The Improvement Act states that six priority 

uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education—should receive consideration in planning and 

management over other public uses. All facilities and 

activities associated with recreational uses, or where 

there is an economic benefit associated with a use, 

such as livestock grazing or commercial recreation, 

require compatibility determinations. However, refuge management activities such as prescribed fire or 

invasive plant control do not require compatibility 

determinations. 

The compatibility determinations for the refuge 

are in appendix C.

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health

Central to the Improvement Act is the requirement 

that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System be maintained 

for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. In 2001, the Service published a policy 

with guidance on this topic (FWS 2001). This policy presents a directive for refuge managers to follow while achieving refuge purposes and the Refuge 

System mission: a refuge manager is to consider the 

broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources 

found on the refuge and associated ecosystem. The 

policy defines the terms biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health and provides direction 

for allowing secondary economic uses like farming, 

haying, logging, livestock grazing, and other extractive activities. These are permissible habitat management practices only when prescribed in plans 

to meet wildlife or habitat management objectives 

and only when more natural methods, such as fire 

or grazing by native herbivores, cannot meet refuge 

purposes and goals.

1.3 NATIONAL and REGIONAL 

MANDATES 

The Service manages Refuge System units to achieve 

the mission and goals of the Refuge System, along 

with the designated purposes of the refuges and districts as described in establishing legislation, Executive orders, or other establishing documents. Key 

concepts and guidance for the Refuge System are in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, as amended by the Improvement Act 

(16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 668dd et seq.) and 

further detailed in Title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) and the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual.

Brief descriptions of the laws and Executive 

orders that may affect the development or implementation of this CCP are in appendix D. Service policy 

for the planning process and management of refuges 

and districts is in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual and the Refuge Manual.

1.4 REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS 

to NATIONAL and REGIONAL 

PLANS

Refuge resources contribute to the planning and conservation efforts, both regional and national, listed 

below. 
6 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana 

FULFILLING the PROMISE

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise—The National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (FWS 1999a), was the 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), which was attended by 

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

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements dealing with wildlife 

and habitat, people, and leadership. The outcome of 

that effort continues to influence CCP planning both 

nationally and locally.

Yellow-headed blackbirds nest on the refuge.

Phil Norton / USFWS

BIRD CONSERVATION 

During the past few decades, there has been growing 

interest in conserving birds and their habitats. This 

has led to the development of partnership-based bird 

conservation initiatives that have produced international, national, and regional conservation plans. 

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

Committee was started in 1999. This coalition of government agencies, private organizations, and bird 

initiative groups in the United States, Canada, and 

Mexico is working to advance and integrate bird conservation efforts. The primary conservation planning 

initiatives follow: Partners In Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan, North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The refuge’s role is described below 

for the Partners in Flight plan and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

Partners in Flight

The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with 

the recognition of declining population levels of many 

migratory bird species. The program’s primary goal 

is to provide for the long-term health of birdlife in 

North America. Priorities include the following: (1) prevent the rarest species from going extinct; (2) prevent 

uncommon species from descending into threatened 

status; and (3) “keep common birds common” (Partners in Flight 2010). 

For planning purposes, Partners in Flight splits 

North America into seven groupings of birds by 

ecological area, avifaunal biomes, and 37 conservation regions (see figure 2). The refuge lies within 

Bird Conservation Region 17–Badlands and Prairies (North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

2009). Region 17 is a semiarid plain dominated by 

mixed-grass prairie. Importantly, this region provides habitat for some of the healthiest populations 

of high-priority, dry-grassland bird species on the 

continent including greater sage-grouse, Sprague’s 

pipit, mountain plover, McCown’s longspur, and longbilled curlew.

Focal birds are species representative of a 

broader group of species that share similar conservation needs. They are a subset of the list of the Service’s 2009 Birds of Management Concern (FWS 

2011c) and are chosen based on one of five criteria: 

(1) high conservation need; (2) representative of a 

broader group of species sharing the same or similar 

conservation needs; (3) high level of current Service 

effort; (4) potential to stimulate partnerships; and (5) 

high likelihood that factors affecting status can realistically be addressed. 

As discussed in chapter 3, section 3.8, and chapter 4, section 4.3, many of the Region 17 species are 

found on the refuge.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

By 1985, waterfowl populations had plummeted to 

record lows, with waterfowl habitat disappearing 

at a rate of 60 acres per hour. The North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan envisioned a 15-year 
Chapter 1—Introduction 7

effort to achieve landscape conditions that could 

sustain waterfowl populations. Specific objectives 

of the plan are to increase and restore duck populations to the average levels of the 1970s: 62 million 

breeding ducks and a fall flight of 100 million birds. 

Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North Americans and the need for international cooperation to help recover a shared resource, 

the United States and Canada Governments developed a strategy to restore waterfowl populations 

through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. Mexico signed the plan in 1994. The plan is 

innovative because of its international scope plus its 

implementation at the regional level (DOI [FWS], 

SEMARNAP Mexico, Environment Canada 1998). 

The success of the waterfowl management plan 

depends on the strength of partnerships called joint 

ventures, which involve Federal, State, provincial, 

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

ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships 

that carry out science-based conservation through 

community participation. Joint ventures develop 

implementation plans that focus on areas of concern identified in the plan. The refuge is part of the 

Northern Great Plains Joint Venture (FWS 2009b). 

Figure 2. Map of the bird conservation regions in North America.

RECOVERY PLANS for THREATENED 

and ENDANGERED SPECIES

Where federally listed threatened or endangered 

species occur at the Charles M. Russell and UL 

Bend Refuges, the refuge staff adheres to the management goals and strategies in the recovery plans. 

The list of threatened and endangered species at the 

refuge changes as species are listed or delisted or as 

listed species are discovered on refuge lands. Currently, the refuge follows the recovery and management plans for black-footed ferret, pallid sturgeon, 

piping plover, and least tern. In 1994, the Service 

released black-footed ferrets into prairie dog towns 

on the refuge. Since their release, the ferrets have 

suffered from canine distemper and starvation due 

to the devastation of their main food source, prairie 

dogs, caused by the sylvatic plague (refer to chapter 4).
8 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana 

STATE COMPREHENSIVE FISH and

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY

Documented declines of wildlife populations have 

occurred nationwide over the past several decades. As 

an ambitious endeavor to take an active hand in keeping species from becoming threatened or endangered, 

Congress created the State Wildlife Grant program 

in 2001. This program provides States and territories 

with Federal money to support wildlife conservation.

Under this program, a State develops a Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

that defines an integrated approach to the stewardship of all wildlife species, with emphasis on species 

of concern and habitats at risk. The goal is to shift 

focus from single-species management and highly 

specific individual efforts to a geographically based, 

landscape-oriented, conservation effort. The Service 

approves each State’s conservation strategy and 

administers the State Wildlife Grant money. 

Montana’s focus has been on game animals and 

their habitats from the early years of fish and wildlife management, and hunters and anglers have provided most of MFWP’s funding. MFWP intends to 

keep its focus on important game species and maintains that conserving particular types of habitat will 

benefit a variety of game and nongame species. With 

Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy and State Wildlife Grant money in 

place, MFWP believes that managing fish and wildlife more comprehensively is a natural progression in 

the effective conservation of Montana’s remarkable 

fish and wildlife resources (MFWP 2005a).

Although game species are included in Montana’s 

conservation strategy, the priority is species and 

their related habitats “in greatest conservation 

need.” This means identifying focus areas or community types that are significantly degraded or declining, federally listed species and other declining 

populations, and areas where important distribution 

and occurrence information needed to assess the status of individuals and groups of species are lacking. 

The planning team reviewed Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

and used the information during the development of 

the final CCP and EIS (MFWP 2005a). Implementation of the CCP’s habitat goals and objectives would 

support the goals and objectives of the State conservation strategy. 

1.5 STRATEGIC HABITAT 

CONSERVATION

In the face of escalating challenges such as land use 

conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and 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 (USGS) culminated in a report by the 

National Ecological Assessment Team (USGS 2006). 

The report outlines a unifying adaptive resource management approach for conservation at a landscape 

scale, the entire range of a priority species or suite of 

species. This is strategic habitat conservation—a way 

of thinking and doing business by incorporating biological goals for priority 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 22 geographic areas. Experts from the Service and USGS developed this framework through 

an aggregation of bird conservation regions (figure 2). 

The Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges lie in 

the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area (figure 3). Key issues in this geographic area are conservation of paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, waterfowl, 

shorebirds, grassland birds, and black-footed ferret.

The Service is using the framework as the basis 

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

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

fundamental units for planning and science, the cooperatives have the capacity to help the Service carry 

out the elements of strategic habitat conservation: 

biological planning, conservation design and delivery, 

and monitoring and research. Coordinated planning 

and scientific information will strengthen the Service’s 

strategic response to accelerating climate change.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The Service expects that accelerating climate change 

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

continue to thrive, some may decline and in some 

instances go extinct. Others will survive in the wild 

only through direct and continuous intervention by 

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

years. 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 partnerships across 

the Nation and around the world (FWS 2010c). This 

strategic plan is an integral part of DOI’s strategy 

for addressing climate change as expressed in Secretarial Order 3289 (DOI 2009). 
Chapter 1—Introduction 9

Figure 3. Map of the Plains and Prairie Potholes Geographic Area.

Charles M. Russell and UL Bend

National Wildlife Refuges

The Service will use the following guiding principles from the strategic plan (FWS 2010c) 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 state-ofthe-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.

1.6 PLANNING PROCESS

In 2000, the Service issued its Refuge System planning policy (FWS 2000c). The resulting requirements 

and guidance for refuge and district plans, including CCPs and stepdown management plans, ensure 

that planning efforts comply with the Improvement 

Act. The planning policy sets out the steps of the CCP 

and environmental analysis process (see figure 4).
10 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana 

Figure 4. The process for comprehensive conservation planning and environmental analysis.

The Service began the pre-planning step for the 

refuge’s CCP in June 2007 with the establishment of 

a core planning team comprising Service personnel 

from the refuge and region 6. Appendix A lists the 

planning team members, cooperating agency members, contributors, and consultants for this planning 

process. 

The core team is responsible for the analysis, writing, and production of the draft and final versions of 

the CCP and EIS. Together with the entire refuge 

staff, the core team developed a preliminary vision 

and set of goals for the refuge. The cooperating agencies (refer to section 1.7) are part of the larger planning team, which has met throughout the process to 

develop and review the alternatives and to review 

drafts of the CCP and EIS. 

While developing the CCP and EIS, the planning team collected available information about the 

resources of the refuge and surrounding area. This 

information is summarized in chapter 4 and served 

as baseline information for analyzing the predicted 

effects of alternatives documented in chapter 5. 

Table 1 lists these and many other planning activities that have occurred to date.

1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Public scoping began in October and November 2007 

with the publication of a public involvement summary and a planning update that described the CCP 

process and anticipated schedule (FWS 2007a). The 

Service published a notice of intent to prepare a 

CCP and EIS in the Federal Register on December 4, 2007. Since then, the Service has conducted 

21 public meetings during scoping and development 

of the alternatives and draft CCP and EIS, mailed 

six planning updates, posted information on the CCP 

Web page, and coordinated with Federal, State, and 

local agencies, and Native American tribes. 

An important consideration in the development of 

this plan—including the vision, goals, objectives and 

strategies—is the opinions, perspectives, and values of all interested citizens, agencies, and organized 

groups. While there are no requirements to base management decisions on public opinion, the Service values and considers input from the public. As detailed 

in appendix B, the Service has consulted with Native 

American tribes and actively involved Federal and 

State agencies, local governments, organizations, 

and private citizens throughout the process. 
Chapter 1—Introduction 11

Table 1. Planning process summary for the CCP for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Date Planning activity Outcome

June 2007 Initial site meeting Finalization of planning team. Identification of refuge 

purposes and initial list of issues and qualities. Development of the CCP overview and mailing list.

October 9–12, 2007 Kickoff meeting and 

workshop for vision 

and goals

Update of the list of issues and qualities. Identification of 

needed biological information and maps. Draft of vision 

and goals. Process for public scoping.

October 7, 2007 Public Involvement 

Summary

Report of the planned public involvement process for use 

as a handout and posting to the CCP Web page.

Fall 2007 Scoping Notification or briefing about CCP development to State 

of Montana, Native American tribes, agencies, county 

commissioners, conservation districts, and organizations.

November 14, 2007 Planning team kickoff Initial meeting with refuge staff and the planning team.

December 4, 2008 Notice of intent in the 

Federal Register

Notice of intent to develop a CCP and EIS and a request 

for comments published in the Federal Register (scoping 

comments accepted until February 29, 2008).

January 2008 Planning Update 1 Announcement of dates, location, and format of public 

meetings; and description of the draft vision and goals. 

Distribution of update to the mailing list and posting to 

the CCP Web page.

January 28–30, 2008

February 4–6, 21, 2008

Public scoping meetings People in six adjacent communities informed about the 

refuge and CCP development.

April 2008 Scoping report Documentation of public comments from the comment 

period and identification of significant issues. Posting of 

report to the CCP Web page.

April 29–May 1, 2008 Planning team meeting 

for draft alternatives

Development, discussion, and revision of draft alternatives with refuge staff and the planning team.

May 2008 Planning Update 2 Summary of issues identified during the scoping process. 

Distribution of update to the mailing list and posting to 

the CCP Web page.

August 6, 2008 Draft alternatives Release to the public of four draft alternatives. Posting 

of draft alternatives to the CCP Web page.

August 2008 Planning Update 3 Summary of four alternatives and schedule for the alternative workshops. Distribution of update to the mailing 

list and posting to the CCP Web page.

September 2–4, 15–17, 

2008

Public workshops for 

draft alternatives

Input on draft alternatives from people in six communities. 

January 2009 Planning Update 4 Summary of comments received on the draft alternatives. Distribution of the update to the mailing list and 

posting to the CCP Web page.

January 27–29, 2009 Biological objectives, 

strategies workshop

Development of biological objectives and strategies for 

each alternative.

February 24–26, 2009 Public use objectives, 

strategies workshop

Development of public use objectives and strategies for 

each alternative.

March 18, 2009 Meeting with MFWP 

for wildlife objectives

Identification of potential outcomes for the objectives for 

big game and wildlife reintroductions.

May 12, 2009 Transportation meeting Development of information on road data and the transportation aspects of the draft alternatives.

March 2009–March 2010 Draft CCP and EIS Initial development of the draft CCP and EIS.

July 2009 Tribal consultation Consultation with the Fort Peck Tribes and Fort 

Belknap Tribes about the CCP and EIS process.
12 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana 

Table 1. Planning process summary for the CCP for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Date Planning activity Outcome

April 2010 Internal review of the 

draft CCP and EIS

Review of the draft plan by other Service programs and 

cooperating agencies.

June 2010 Internal review meetingMet with cooperating agencies to review comments on 

the internal review document.

August 2010 Plan status meeting Met with cooperating agencies for an update on the status of the draft CCP and EIS.

September–October 

2010

Public hearings Conducted meetings to gather and record public comments on the draft CCP and EIS.

July 2011 Plan progress meeting Met with cooperating agencies for an update on the 

progress of the final CCP and EIS.

COOPERATING AGENCIES

The Service sent letters of notification about the planning process including an invitation to participate on 

the planning team to the both MFWP and DNRC. 

The Service also notified the Montana State Historic 

Preservation Office and the six counties (Fergus, 

Garfield, McCone, Petroleum, Phillips, and Valley).

In September 2007, Service staff met with representatives from the conservation districts and the 

counties to inform them of the CCP and EIS process, 

answer any questions about the project, and gather 

any issues or concerns.

The Service received formal letters requesting 

cooperating agency status from the six counties, the 

Missouri River Conservation Districts Council, and 

the Garfield County Conservation District. The Service granted the six counties cooperating agency 

status, and two representatives attend the planning 

team meetings on the counties’ behalf. The Service 

also granted the six conservation districts that surround the refuge cooperating status, and one representative attends meetings on the districts’ behalf.

TRIBAL COORDINATION

The Service sent letters of notification about the planning process, including an invitation to participate on 

the planning team, to the following tribes: Arapahoe 

Business Council, Chippewa Cree Tribe, Crow Tribal 

Council, Fort Belknap Tribal Council, Fort Peck 

Tribal Council, and Northern Cheyenne Tribe. The 

Service has continued to communicate with the tribes 

and encourage participation in the CCP process. The 

Service formally consulted with the Fort Belknap 

Tribes and Fort Peck Tribes in July 2009.

INVOLVEMENT of INTERESTED 

GROUPS and the PUBLIC

Many interested groups and private citizens have 

participated in the CCP process by attending public 

meetings, submitting comments, or obtaining information about the plan from the CCP Web page or 

other outreach methods. 

1.8 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES to

ADDRESS 

The scoping process identified many qualities of the 

refuge along with issues and recommendations. Based 

on this information as well as guidance from the 

Improvement Act, National Environmental Policy 

Act, and planning policy, the Service identified seven 

significant issues to address in the final CCP and EIS:

■ habitat and wildlife

■ water resources

■ public use and access

■ wilderness

■ socioeconomics

■ partnerships and collaboration

■ cultural values, traditions, and resources

The planning team considered every comment 

received during the public scoping process. These 

comments were grouped into related topics and subtopics as described in the scoping report published 

on the CCP Web page in April 2008 (FWS 2008c). 

Significant issues are those that are within the Service’s jurisdiction, which suggest different actions 

or alternatives and that will influence the Service’s 

decision.

Yellowcress
Chapter 1—Introduction 13

HABITAT and WILDLIFE

The refuge encompasses more than a million acres 

of expansive badlands (arid lands dissected by steep, 

eroded slopes), riparian areas, old growth forested 

coulees (ravines), sagebrush steppes (level, shrubland plains), and mixed-grass prairie in north-central Montana. This final CCP and EIS addresses the 

following aspects of the habitat and wildlife issue: 

■ the use and role of wildland fire, livestock grazing (including water resources needed to support 

livestock), hunting, fencing, and other management tools for the preservation and restoration of 

habitat conditions on the refuge

■ implementation of the Service’s climate change 

policy in managing habitat and wildlife

■ management of the refuge as climate change 

accelerates and affects refuge wildlife and habitats

■ habitat and wildlife management in the context 

of the larger landscape that includes adjacent private, State, tribal, and Federal lands

■ species reintroductions or management of species 

that could move onto the refuge: wild American 

bison, gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

■ special consideration of threatened and endangered species and species of concern

■ invasive species and noxious weed management 

including the management tools used to combat 

invasive species

■ the definition of prescriptive grazing and how it is 

used to manage refuge habitat

■ predator management

WATER RESOURCES

Wildlife populations, both on and off the refuge, are 

affected by water quality and access to water. Livestock grazing has degraded habitat, particularly near 

water sources. Furthermore, stock watering ponds 

can affect streamflow, fish, and riparian areas conditions. The final CCP and EIS addresses these important aspects of the water resources issue:

■ water quality and quantity

■ water development

■ Missouri River riparian ecosystem

PUBLIC USE and ACCESS

The refuge is one of the most visited refuges in the 

Refuge System, with nearly 250,000 recreational 

visits (Carver and Caudill 2007), and it is the main 

core of a larger regional area that provides many 

outdoor recreation opportunities and access. The 

most popular activity is hunting. Large populations 

of wild ungulates (elk, deer, and pronghorn) offer 

renowned hunting opportunities that attract local, 

regional, out-of-state, and international visitors. The 

refuge provides uncrowded, solitary experiences 

not afforded on other public lands, and many areas 

require skills in self-reliance and backcountry travel. 

However, about 80 percent of the refuge is accessible by more than 680 miles of road (mostly two-track 

and gravel roads), and there are 135 miles of lake and 

river access for visitors to take part in a variety of 

activities. 

The Service allows the public uses of hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education. In addition, the 

Service supports these uses by providing associated 

access and facilities such as roads, motorized access, 

and camping. This final CCP and EIS addresses the 

following important aspects of the public use and 

access issue:

■ priority public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education

■ motorized and nonmotorized access and law 

enforcement

■ roads including number, location, types, and maintenance

■ nonpriority uses such as camping and bicycling

■ facilities, programs, and infrastructure to support public uses and access

■ permitted uses such as other commercial recreation, livestock grazing, or other uses

WILDERNESS

There is one federally designated wilderness within 

the refuge boundaries, UL Bend Wilderness, consisting of about 20,819 acres. In addition, there are 

15 units (also referred to as “areas”) of proposed 

wilderness (155,288 acres). These units are awaiting congressional action on formal inclusion into the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. It is Service policy to manage proposed wilderness units 

as though they were designated wilderness (FWS 

2008d). 

Planning policy requires refuges to review special 

designation areas such as wilderness and address the 

potential for any new designations. Concurrent with 

the CCP and EIS process, the Service is conducting 

a wilderness review (refer to appendix E). This final 

CCP and EIS addresses the following aspects of the 

wilderness issue:

■ consolidation or addition of existing proposed wilderness units

■ identification of the potential for new designations

■ access, infrastructure, and use of management 

tools
14 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana 

SOCIOECONOMICS

It is important to manage refuge resources and public use in ways that protect the resources, that are 

financially responsible, and that are integrated with 

the economic viability of the surrounding communities. This final CCP and EIS addresses the following 

aspects of the socioeconomics issue:

■ benefits of the refuge and promotion of refuge 

values

■ range of alternatives and effects of those alternatives on the local economy and community

PARTNERSHIPS and COLLABORATION

Because of the long, narrow extent of the refuge 

boundary, the subsequent amount and variety of 

adjacent land uses not only affect, but also are interrelated with, refuge resources. Therefore, it is crucial 

for the Service to collaborate with refuge neighbors 

and to establish partnerships with interested agencies, 

stakeholders, and other organizations. Wildlife populations and movements are greatly affected by conditions 

both outside and inside the refuge. Similarly, invasive 

species are one of the biggest threats facing State, Federal, and private landowners. Reduced budgets require 

collaboration between the Service and others to leverage money for combating invasive plants and managing wildlife on lands within and next to the refuge. 

Changes in the ownership of private lands next to the 

refuge may change conditions for habitat, wildlife, and 

public access. Privately owned mineral rights, future 

energy development, and rights-of-way influence the 

future conditions and use of the refuge and adjacent 

lands. This final CCP and EIS addresses the following 

important aspects of the partnerships and collaboration issue: 

■ adjacent land management related to habitat, 

wildlife, and public use

■ consultation and coordination with Federal, State, 

and local partners

■ climate change and development of minerals 

including recommendations for reducing effects 

on resources

■ priorities for future land acquisition

CULTURAL VALUES, 

TRADITIONS, and RESOURCES 

The refuge, second largest in the lower 48 States, 

contains unique qualities that are valued on a 

national, regional, and local level (refer to chapter 

2). Montana’s glaciated plains in and around the refuge support rich and diverse wildlife populations. In 

addition to its wildlife value, the geology and landforms have created valued scenery and backcountry 

areas: the Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River is along the refuge’s western boundary, the 

refuge is part of the Missouri Breaks National Back 

Country Byway, and large areas are designated or 

proposed for the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. During scoping, many people described the 

refuge’s qualities as rugged, isolated, and offering 

outstanding opportunities for solitude, hunting, fishing, and other public uses.

The refuge has significant archaeological resources 

and rich prehistoric and historic values to the local and 

regional community from when Native Americans 

hunted the lands to the area’s documentation by the 

Lewis and Clark expedition. The western traditions 

and practices of livestock grazing have affected the 

lives of ranchers and their families for many generations. Of unique value for a refuge, Charles M. Russell 

and UL Bend Refuges have significant paleontological 

resources (fossilized plants and animals). 

This final CCP and EIS addresses the following 

aspects of the resource and cultural values issue:

■ refuge values and qualities

■ land management designations

■ traditions and lifestyles

■ cultural and paleontological resources

1.9 ISSUES not ADDRESSED

The Service considered several issues that were identified by the public during scoping and alternatives’ 

development but were not selected for detailed 

analysis in the CCP and EIS. In accordance with 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act, the Service has identified and eliminated from 

detailed study the topics or issues that are not significant or are out of the scope of this planning process. 

These issues and the rationale for not selecting them 

as significant issues are briefly described below.

ENHANCEMENT ACT

Title VIII of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2000 is known as the Enhancement Act (Public Law 106–54). The act authorized the Secretary of 

the Army, working with the Secretary of the Interior, to identify cabin sites suitable for sale to current 

lessees. The Enhancement Act also directed the performance of necessary environmental and real estate 

activities to dispose of these cabin sites at fair-market value. Money from the sale of the cabin sites will 

be deposited in the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Trust for use in acquiring other lands with 

greater wildlife and public value for the refuge. The 

actions outlined in the Enhancement Act, including 

the time limits imposed in the act, are outside the 

scope of this planning process. The Service does not 

have control over the sale of the cabins.
Chapter 1—Introduction 15

EXERCISE of PRIVATE PROPERTY 

RIGHTS for MINERAL EXTRACTION

The final CCP and EIS does not address the rights 

of private property owners to exercise their rights 

to extract minerals on State or private lands within 

or next to the refuge.

FORT PECK LAKE LEVELS

Fort Peck Lake is the Nation’s fifth-largest constructed reservoir and backs up from the dam for 

about 134 river miles to the west and south. At maximum pool levels, the lake surface area is about 

245,000 acres (USACE 2009). The Fort Peck Project was authorized for flood control, navigation, 

hydropower, fish and wildlife, recreation, municipal 

and industrial water supply, and irrigation. Management of Fort Peck Lake is under the authority of 

USACE; therefore, determination of water levels on 

Fort Peck Lake is outside the scope of this Service 

planning process.

LIVESTOCK GRAZING FEES, 

TRANSFER of GRAZING PERMITS, 

and ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS

Grazing Fee Rates

Service guidance on grazing, including the process 

for determining rates of charge, is in the Refuge 

Manual (6 RM 9) (FWS 1982). Neither the Public 

Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, nor the 

Taylor Grazing Act apply to the Service’s management of grazing lands within the refuge. For region 

6, grazing fee rates are based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Statistics Board publication, Grazing Fee Rates for Cattle by Selected 

States and Regions (USDA 2011). USDA fee structure is adjusted each year based on the data available. Region 6 uses the annual published USDA 

rate as the base rate of charge with increases in the 

yearly fee allowed by $1.00 per AUM until the base 

rate is reached. The refuge began adjusting to fair 

market value for grazing rates in 1994, per national 

Service guidance. The grazing fee rates for the refuge are the same rates for refuges across Montana. 

Grazing fees are not addressed in the final CCP and 

EIS.

Transfer of Grazing Privileges

Unlike other public lands, such as BLM lands, the 

Improvement Act does not provide for the transfer of grazing permits. The transfer of grazing privileges on the refuge follows current policies, which 

have guided permit transfers associated with ranch 

sales. Grazing is considered a secondary use on a 

national wildlife refuge and must be compatible with 

the purposes of the refuge. Therefore, the final CCP 

and EIS does not address this topic further.

Increase Animal Unit Months

The 1986 record of decision for the final EIS for resource management for the refuge (FWS 1986) called 

for a substantial decrease in the number of AUMs 

of livestock grazing. This decision was subsequently 

carried out and is the basis of the no-action alternative described in chapter 3. This final CCP and EIS 

does not readdress the 1986 record of decision about 

the maximum number of AUMs that could be grazed 

(refer to chapter 2 for more information including 

past litigation). Instead, this final CCP and EIS 

addresses how livestock grazing would be used as 

a management tool to meet specific goals and objectives for managing habitat and wildlife, which are 

described in the Improvement Act and the Service’s 

policies on biological integrity and planning.

REFUGE REVENUE-SHARING PAYMENTS 

and PAYMENTS in LIEU of TAXES

Since 1935, the Service has made revenue-sharing 

payments for refuge land under its administration 

to counties under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act 

of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 715s), which has been revised several times. These payments are not the same as other 

Federal revenue-sharing measures such as Payments 

in Lieu of Taxes, which applies to lands administered 

by USACE and by other DOI agencies such as the 

BLM. When there is not enough money to cover the 

payments, Congress is authorized to appropriate 

money to make up the deficit; however, payments to a 

county are reduced when Congress fails to appropriate the money. These are issues of considerable concern for the six counties, but the refuge has no control 

over these payments and, as such, they are outside 

the scope of this final CCP and EIS. 

ROADS under REVISED STATUTE 2477 

and PETITIONED ROADS

Several of the adjacent counties asked that Revised 

Statute 2477 roads or county-petitioned roads be 

recognized as legally valid roads in the planning process. Section 2477 of the Revised Statutes emerged 

from Section 8 of the Mining Act of 1866 to promote public highway construction through the large, 

unsettled western territories. Revised Statute 2477 

was repealed on October 21, 1976, by the Federal 

Land and Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. § 

932). Because this act did not terminate valid existing rights-of-way, the existence and extent of many 

Revised Statute 2477 claims remains an issue today. 

Determining the validity of any Revised Statute 2477 

claim is outside the scope of the CCP and EIS process.
16 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana 

Similarly, one or more of the adjacent counties 

have identified roads within the refuge that they 

believe were legally petitioned as county roads recorded before refuge establishment. Some of these 

roads follow near, or on the same alignment, as current refuge roads. Other roads, often not more than 

two-track trails, were closed long ago. Some of these 

roads are in the UL Bend Wilderness or are within 

USACE’s primary jurisdiction. Like Revised Statute 2477 claims, determining or recognizing the 

legal validity of these rights-of-way is outside the 

scope of the final CCP and EIS. These are important 

issues for the counties, but the CCP is not the tool to 

resolve many of these issues.

FEDERAL RESERVED WATER RIGHTS

The United States holds Federal reserved water 

rights for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. The United States is in the process of quantifying these reserved rights with the Montana 

Reserved Rights Compact Commission. Issues 

related to the adjudication process for water rights 

are outside the scope of the final CCP and EIS. More 

information about water rights is in chapter 4 under 

“Water Resources.” 

MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS

The refuge is located beneath the Hays Military Operations Area. This airspace operations area overlies a 

large part of north-central Montana at altitudes ranging from 300 feet above ground level, up to 18,000 feet 

above mean sea level. The Federal Aviation Administration has the responsibility to plan, manage, and 

control the structure and use of all airspace over the 

United States including the Hays Military Operations Area. Furthermore, the Improvement Act specifically exempted overflights above a refuge from 

compatibility requirements (FWS 2000a). Therefore, 

the Hays Military Operations Area is outside the 

scope of this planning process.

1.10 SCOPE of the DOCUMENT

This planning process considers different geographic 

designations, the decision area and primary analysis 

area, as depicted in figure 5.

DECISION AREA

The decision area is the area within the designated 

boundaries for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

National Wildlife Refuges (figure 5; refer to chapter 2 

for a complete description of the refuge). Where 

USACE holds primary jurisdiction and the refuge 

has secondary jurisdiction (refer to chapters 2 and 3), 

a memorandum of understanding guides how habitat 

and wildlife resources are managed.

ANALYSIS AREA

The analysis area (figure 5) includes the decision area 

and areas outside of the decision area where most of 

the direct, indirect, or cumulative effects could occur 

as a result of implementing the alternatives. The 

analysis area includes the area used in the socioeconomic analysis (chapter 4, section 4.8, and chapter 5, 

section 5.10). Additionally, the foreseeable activities 

in this area that could result in cumulative impacts 

are described in detail in chapter 3, section 3.9.
Chapter 1—Introduction 17

Figure 5. Map of the decision and analysis areas for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Figure 5 (decision and analysis areas)

2—Refuge History and Vision

This chapter explains the history, purpose, and special values of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

National Wildlife Refuges, as well the development 

of the vision and goals for the CCP planning process. 

These refuges are part of a complex of refuges managed from the headquarters station in Lewistown, 

Montana. Because the UL Bend Refuge lies within 

the boundary area of the Charles M. Russell Refuge, 

essentially they are managed as one unit even though 

they were established through different authorities 

and for different purposes. Several other refuges and 

a wetland management district are part of the refuge 

complex but are not part of this final CCP and EIS.

Every refuge has a purpose for which it was 

established. This purpose is the foundation on which 

to build all refuge programs, from biology and public 

use to maintenance and facilities. Refuge purposes 

are found in the legislative acts or administrative 

orders that authorize either the transfer or acquisition of land for a refuge. An individual refuge may 

contain lands that have been acquired under a variety 

of transfer and acquisition authorities, giving a refuge more than one purpose. This is true for Charles 

M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend 

National Wildlife Refuge; table 2 lists the significant 

land authorizations for the refuges. The goals, objectives, and strategies in the final CCP (refer to chapter 3) are intended to support the purposes for which 

both refuges were established. 

2.1 ESTABLISHMENT, 

ACQUISITION, and

MANAGEMENT HISTORY 

Although the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge is 

within the boundary of the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge, they were established 

through different authorities as shown in table 2. 

This section first describes each refuge separately, 

and then summarizes the existing management of 

the refuges as one unit. 

The topography on the refuge is varied and diverse.

USFWS
20 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 2. History of significant land authorizations for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Date Authority Number Subject

12/12/1933 Executive Order 6491 Lands withdrawn for Fort Peck Dam (USACE)

05/09/1934 Executive Order 6707 Lands withdrawn for Fort Peck Dam (USACE)

09/11/1934 Executive Order 6841 Lands withdrawn for Fort Peck Dam (USACE)

04/03/1936 Executive Order 7331 Lands withdrawn for Fort Peck Dam (USACE)

12/11/1936 Executive Order 7509 Fort Peck Game Range established; jurisdiction transferred from 

USACE to what is now the Service; superseded Executive Order 

6910 that provided for prevention of injury to public livestock grazing lands through overgrazing and soil deterioration

04/13/1942 Executive Order 9132 Lands withdrawn for Fort Peck Dam (USACE)

02/25/1963 Public Land Order 2951 Name changed to Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range

03/25/1969 Public Land Order 4588 UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge designated and Executive Order 

7509 withdrawn; established by the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission on February 7, 1967

05/15/1970 Public Land Order 4826 Mineral entry withdrawn for UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge

04/25/1975 Public Land Order 5498 Jurisdiction of certain lands transferred to BLM

02/27/1976 Public Law 94–223 Game Range Act transferred administrative status of all game ranges 

to the Service under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System; ended joint management with BLM

10/12/1976 Public Law 94–486 Modification of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act applied a scenic designation to the river and its bank within Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Range as part of the Upper Missouri River Breaks Wild and 

Scenic River

10/19/1976 Public Law 94–557 UL Bend Wilderness designated in parts of UL Bend National 

Wildlife Refuge; size eventually modified to about 20,819 acres

04/25/1978 Public Land Order 5635 Public Land Order 5498 changed name to Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge and clarified administration and management of the refuge under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966

10/31/1983 Public Law 98–140 Modified the boundary of UL Bend Wilderness Area to exclude 28 

acres as designated in Public Law 94–557

09/28/1993 Public Land Order 6997 Mineral estate withdrawn within Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge for 20 years

12/08/1993 Wildlife order 183 General Services Agency transfer of 6,020 acres from USACE to 

the Service for wildlife conservation

CHARLES M. RUSSELL 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Encompassing nearly 1.1 million acres—including Fort Peck Reservoir and UL Bend Refuge—

the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge is 

the second largest refuge within the lower 48 States 

(see figure 6). This refuge in north-central Montana 

extends west about 125 air miles along the Missouri 

River from Fort Peck Dam to the refuge’s western 

edge at the boundary of the Upper Missouri River 

Breaks National Monument (BLM administered). 

The refuge spans six counties: Fergus, Garfield, 

McCone, Petroleum, Phillips, and Valley. Habitat 

includes native prairie, forested coulees (ravines), 

river bottoms, and badlands (arid lands dissected by 

steep, eroded slopes). Wildlife is as diverse as the 

topography and includes Rocky Mountain elk, mule 

deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie dogs, and 

more than 236 species of birds (refer to the refuge 

species list in appendix F). A portion of the Missouri 

River along the refuge’s western boundary is part 

of Upper Missouri River National Wild and Scenic 

River.

Establishment and Acquisition

In May of 1805, Meriwether Lewis and William 

Clark first detailed accounts of the abundant wildlife resources they found in the area now known as 
Chapter 2—Refuge History and Vision 21

Figure 6 follows 

(two foldout pages)
22 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 6. Topographic base map of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Figure 6 (topographic map, west)
Chapter 2—Refuge History and Vision 23

Figure 6 (topographic map, east)

Chapter 2—Refuge History and Vision 25

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge during their Corps of Discovery journey of the Missouri 

River (Moulton 2002). One hundred thirty years 

later in August 1935, Olaus Murie, a biologist for the 

Bureau of Biological Survey (now the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service), traveled to the Fort Peck area to 

do a biological assessment. He documented his findings in a report about the Fort Peck Migratory Bird 

Refuge (Murie 1935). Of interest in Murie’s comprehensive assessment of the topography, soils, vegetation, wildlife, and grazing, was his notation on 

sharp-tailed grouse and the importance of shrubs to 

its distribution and abundance. He estimated that 

25,000–40,000 grouse could be sustained on the refuge. Murie observed:

“The sharp-tailed grouse was given careful 

study since this is the most important bird 

affected by the plans for the refuge. We found 

that this is true sharp-tailed range. Of course, 

as in the case of big game animals, the winter 

period is the critical one and we studied the 

factors concerned in this phase of its life history. In the winter, these grouse spend much 

time in the Missouri River bottoms but live 

also in the rough breaks, especially at the 

heads of numerous draws. Their distribution 

is of course largely determined by the food 

supply. It is known that in winter they feed 

extensively on buffalo berry, snowberry, and 

rosehips.”

In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established 

the Fort Peck Game Range through Executive Order 

7509. The area was set aside for the preservation 

of wildlife, specifically sharp-tailed grouse, pronghorn, and other wildlife. Beyond the wildlife priorities, resources are to be made available for domestic 

livestock providing it is compatible with the uses for 

which the lands were acquired. The Executive order 

detailed the purposes of the game range:

“That the natural forage resources therein 

shall be first utilized for the purpose of sustaining in a healthy condition a maximum of 

four hundred thousand (400,000) sharp-tailed 

grouse, and one thousand five hundred (1,500) 

antelope, the primary species, and such nonpredatory secondary species in such numbers 

as may be necessary to maintain a balanced 

wildlife population, but in no case shall the 

consumption of the forage by the combined 

population of the wildlife species be allowed 

to increase the burden of the range dedicated 

to the primary species: Provided further, That 

all the forage resources within this range or 

preserve shall be available, except as herein 

otherwise provided with respect to wildlife, 

for domestic livestock ... And provided further, That land within the exterior limits of 

the area herein described ... may be utilized 

for public grazing purposes only to the extent 

as may be determined by the said Secretary 

(Agriculture) to be compatible with the utilization of said lands for the purposes for which 

they were acquired.”

It is unclear why there was a discrepancy between 

Murie’s estimate for the number of sharp-tailed 

grouse that could be sustained and what appeared in 

the Executive order. Chapter 4 has more information 

about the vegetation and wildlife found on the refuge.

Since 1936, other lands within the refuge have 

been acquired under a variety of transfer and acquisition authorities or have different designations 

(refer to table 2). Today, the Charles M. Russell Refuge (not including the UL Bend Refuge and Fort 

Peck Reservoir) covers about 916,107 acres, of which 

739,097 acres are reserved from the public domain. 

The Service has sole jurisdiction on about 358,196 

acres and secondary jurisdiction on the remainder 

where USACE has primary jurisdiction. The Federal Government has acquired another 155,969 acres 

where the Service has primary jurisdiction on 8,574 

acres and secondary jurisdiction on the remainder. 

The protection of sharp-tailed grouse was specifically 

identified in the establishing legislation for the refuge.

Brett Billings / USFWS

Pronghorn

USFWS
26 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

The remaining acreage has been purchased (13,994 

acres), received by donation (139 acres), or is under 

agreement or lease (6,907 acres) (FWS 2010a).

Management History

Originally, the secretaries for USDA (The Bureau 

of Biological Survey, in Agriculture, was the principle precursor agency of the Service) and DOI administered the game range jointly. In co-managing the 

uplands from 1936 to 1976, the Service and BLM 

struggled to maintain the lands’ value to wildlife while 

supporting a large number of livestock. With differing agency mandates and missions, the management 

arrangement functioned poorly (FWS 1986). The Fort 

Peck Game Range became the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Range in 1963 (Public Land Order 

2951) in recognition of Charlie Russell, the colorful 

western artist who often portrayed the refuge’s landscape in his paintings (refer to table 2). 

Of significant interest in this planning process has 

been the provision in the Executive order for domestic livestock grazing to occur if it remains compatible 

with use of the land for the primary purposes. The root 

of this text can also be found in the Executive orders 

of other former game ranges. Historically, there were 

six game ranges set aside by various Executive orders 

but with similar, or even identical, provisions for livestock grazing: Hart Mountain National Antelope 

Range (1935), Desert Game Range (1936), Fort Peck 

Game Range (1936), Sheldon Game Range (1936), Kofa 

Game Range (1936), and Cabeza Prieta Game Range 

(1939). Hart Mountain National Antelope Range was 

changed to the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge in 1936, and Desert Game Range was designated 

as a national wildlife refuge by Congress in 1966 (FWS 

2009a).

The administrative status of Fort Peck Game 

Range (renamed Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range by Public Land Order 2951 on February 25, 1963) and all remaining game ranges in the 

Nation—Sheldon Game Range, Cabeza Prieta Game 

Range, and Kofa Game Range—was changed on 

February 27, 1976, by the signing of Public Law 

94–223 (90 Stat. 199). Commonly called the Game 

Range Act, this law brought to a close the joint management between the Service and BLM and vested 

management authority of the game ranges with the 

Service. Public Land Order 5635 (1978) changed the 

name of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range 

to Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and 

clarified the administration and management of the 

refuge under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, subsequently amended 

(16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) (refer to table 2). Today, 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge is the 

only former game range that still uses livestock grazing to manage habitat (FWS 1994a, FWS and BLM 

1996, FWS 2009a, FWS 2011e, and personal communication with staff at Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge and Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge).

Within the uplands of the refuge lies the Missouri River and the nearly 250,000-acre Fort Peck 

Reservoir, established by Executive Order 6491 on 

December 12, 1933. Agreements exist between the 

Service and USACE for management of areas where 

the Service has secondary jurisdiction. The Service 

and USACE cooperatively manage the surrounding edges of the reservoir, and its associated recreational areas. 

There are approximately 36,000 acres of State 

school trust lands (see figure 5 in chapter 1) managed 

by DNRC and about 41,000 acres of private inholdings 

(figure 5) within the refuge. The Service has an offset 

fire-protection agreement to allow wildfire protection 

strategies to be used on State lands. This agreement 

allows for initial attack and other actions related to 

the spread of wildfire to comply with DNRC’s standards for fire suppression on State lands.

The refuge annual performance plan reports that 

250,000 visitors, on average, come to the refuge each 

year. Containing some of the best elk habitat in Montana, the refuge hosts recreationists not only for hunting, but for fishing, wildlife and landscape photography, 

wildlife observation, hiking, camping, and much more.

In addition to the UL Bend Wilderness (described 

in the UL Bend Refuge section below), there are 

15 areas of about 155,288 acres (public domain and 

USACE) proposed for wilderness (DOI 1974b). 

These 15 separate units along the Missouri River 

and Fort Peck Reservoir (see figure 7 in chapter 3) 

are awaiting congressional action on their formal 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. In the meantime, these areas are managed 

in accordance with the Service’s wilderness policy 

(FWS 2008c). More details about wilderness are in 

chapter 4 and appendix E. 

UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge is located north 

of the Missouri River about 50 miles south of Malta, 

Montana, in Phillips County (see the topographic 

base map of the refuge in figure 6). Bison, elk, deer, 

and pronghorn historically used the crossing at this 

huge bend in the Missouri River, and the abundance of game attracted Native Americans including the Assiniboine, Gros Ventre, and the Blackfeet. 

Explorer Meriwether Lewis noted the following in 

his journal on May 21, 1805 (Moulton 2002):

“The Missouri in its course downward makes a 

suddon and extensive bend toward the south, 

to receive the Muscle shell river, the point of 

country thus formed tho’ high is still much 

lower than that surrounding it, thus forming 
Chapter 2—Refuge History and Vision 27

a valley of wavey country which extends itself 

for a great distance in a Northerly direction; 

the soil is fertile, produces a fine turf of low 

grass and some herbs, also immence quantities of the Prickley pear, without a stick of 

timber of any description.”

In 1896, Oren and Will Bachues established a ranch 

in the “Big Bend of the Missouri River.” The place 

became known as UL Bend after the ranch’s stock 

brand (DOI 1974c).

The bend in the Missouri River at its confluence with the Musselshell River.

© Google Earth

Establishment and Acquisition

The refuge was established through the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission on February 7, 1967. 

On March 25, 1969, Public Land Order 4588 designated the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge on 

about 39,456 acres (revoking Executive Order 7509 

on those lands). The order defined the refuge’s purpose: “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds” 

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d). 

Although it was primarily established for the development and management of waterfowl, other wildlife that use refuge habitat includes the endangered 

black-footed ferret, elk, deer, pronghorn, migratory 

birds, and other prairie species. 

Today, the UL Bend Refuge contains about 56,090 

acres (FWS 2010a). Of this land base, 36,615 acres 

are reserved from public domain, where the Service 

has sole or primary jurisdiction on 29,678 acres and 

secondary jurisdiction on 6,937 acres. About 9,226 

acres were acquired by another Federal agency, 

where the Service has primary jurisdiction on about 

1,300 acres and secondary jurisdiction on the remainder. Another 9,688 acres have been purchased, and 

another 560 acres are under easement or lease (FWS 

2010a). Following passage of the Wilderness Act of 

1964, there was a wilderness study of public lands 

(DOI 1974c). In 1976, Public Law 94–557 (90 Stat 

2633–4) designated about 20,890 acres in the refuge as the UL Bend Wilderness (refer to table 2). 

This acreage was later modified to its current size of 

about 20,819 acres (see figure 7 in chapter 3). More 

details about wilderness are in chapter 4 and appendix E. 

Management History

Early development plans called for the construction of a series of dikes in the interior of the refuge 

to convert uplands to aquatic habitat for waterfowl. 

Some attempts were made toward this development, 

but these were never completed, and the plans were 

abandoned.

EXISTING MANAGEMENT 

For nearly 25 years, the Service has managed the 

refuge under a resource management plan that was 

developed through an EIS and approved in a record 

of decision signed April 1986 (FWS 1985, 1986). In 

addition to identifying specific habitat and wildlife 

objectives, the record of decision called for a sizeable 

reduction in annual livestock grazing. While implementation of the 1986 record of decision has helped 

to improve habitat for wildlife, many problems and 
28 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

issues still exist (refer to chapter 4). The refuge has 

65 habitat units and one concern is that many of these 

units are not meeting the habitat objectives set forth 

in the 1985 EIS. Furthermore, with the passage of 

the Improvement Act and requirements contained 

therein, Service management policies specify that 

secondary economic uses such as livestock grazing 

are permissible only when prescribed to meet wildlife and habitat objectives. Currently, many of the 

units are managed through an annual grazing program with a limited prescriptive component.

Due to a host of issues such as drought, climate 

change, grazing by wildlife and livestock, invasive 

species, and altered fire regimes, the uplands have 

seen a decline in desirable species such as forbs and 

shrubs. Some riparian areas are functioning in poor 

condition, and invasive species are of concern. There 

have been court challenges to the Service’s management of the refuge both before and after the 1986 

record of decision, and these decisions have influenced refuge management as described below.

Schwenke v. Secretary of the Interior, 720 F.2d 

571 (Ninth Circuit, 1983): The Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals addressed the issue of whether grazing or wildlife conservation had priority of forage 

resources at the Charles M. Russell Refuge. The 

lower court had found that conservation and grazing were of coequal priority and that grazing on refuge land should be administered under the Taylor 

Grazing Act. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court held 

that, under Executive Order 7509, wildlife has a limited priority to the refuge’s forage resources. Beyond 

Executive Order 7509’s wildlife population limits 

(400,000 sharp-tailed grouse, 1,500 pronghorn, and 

“non-predatory secondary species in such numbers 

as may be necessary to maintain a balanced wildlife population”) wildlife and grazing livestock have 

coequal priority to the refuge’s forage resources. 

The court also held that amendments to the National 

Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 (Public 

Law 89–669; 80 Stat. 927; codified as amended at 16 

U.S.C. Sec. 668dd [1976]) shifted administration of 

national wildlife refuges from being under the Taylor 

Grazing Act to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 (commonly known as the Wildlife Refuge Act).

James Kirkland v. Department of the Interior 

(1996): The plaintiff (Kirkland) challenged an administrative decision when the Service did not renew his 

grazing permit. The district court found the Service’s 

decision to be a rational decision and not arbitrary 

and capricious. A grazing permit is not a property 

right on the Charles M. Russell Refuge, and grazing 

is administered under the National Wildlife Refuge 

Administration Act of 1966 and not the Taylor Grazing Act. The defendant (DOI [FWS]) repeatedly 

notified Kirkland of violations of his grazing permit. Kirkland received due process when the Service 

complied with Title 50 CFR 25.45 and the described 

appeal process.

Silver Dollar Grazing Association v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, No. 07–35612, (Ninth Circuit, January 13, 2009): The Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals held that the Service may analyze habitat 

as a proxy for wildlife populations rather than taking 

an actual inventory of the populations and that the 

Service’s failure to follow monitoring guidelines in a 

habitat management plan (HMP) was not arbitrary 

and capricious. The Silver Dollar Grazing Association filed suit against the Service for allegedly violating the National Environmental Policy Act and the 

Silver Dollar HMP. The grazing association alleged 

that prescriptive grazing would harm the environment and that initiating prescriptive grazing before 

conducting a wildlife population survey violated 

Executive Order 7509. The district court granted 

summary judgment for the Service, and the Silver 

Dollar Grazing Association appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit because 

Silver Dollar failed to provide evidence that prescriptive grazing would harm the environment. Furthermore, without evidence of a specific, personally 

suffered injury, the grazing association lacked standing to sue. 

2.2 SPECIAL VALUES

Early in the planning process, the planning team and 

public identified many outstanding qualities and values of the refuge. Refuge qualities are the characteristics and features of the refuge that make it special, 

valuable for wildlife and people, and worthy of refuge 

status. Qualities can be unique biological values, as 

well as something as simple as a quiet place to see a 

variety of birds and enjoy nature. The following summarizes the qualities that make the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges unique and valued: 

■ The refuge encompasses a large landscape containing diverse species that not only occur today 

but also are historic residents of the land. 

■ The refuge is part of a large block of undeveloped 

land that includes adjacent Federal, State, and 

private lands.

■ The UL Bend Refuge contains quality wintering 

habitat for sage-grouse.

■ There is great potential for improving important 

habitat for sharp-tailed grouse. 

■ The riparian area corridor through the refuge is 

one of the last natural free-flowing remnants of 

the Missouri River where natural processes like 

flooding and cottonwood regeneration still occur.
Chapter 2—Refuge History and Vision 29

■■ The Missouri River Breaks provide excellent 

habitat for Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer.

■■ The refuge supports a premier elk population 

consisting of good herd population dynamics and 

good herd structure with diverse age classes.

■■ The refuge supports the oldest and largest reintroduction effort in Montana for the black-footed 

ferret population.

■■ There is a large amount of public land, such as BLM 

land, within the vicinity and buffering the refuge.

■■ Multiple wilderness designations provide habitat 

protection and opportunities to experience the 

remoteness of the landscape.

■■ Multiple land designations within and next to the 

refuge complement the refuge: wild and scenic 

river designation within the refuge and the adjacent Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument managed by BLM, UL Bend Wilderness 

and proposed wilderness, and the Missouri Breaks 

Back Country Byway.

■■ The refuge is home to several threatened and endangered species including birds of concern such as the 

piping plover, mountain plover, and sage-grouse. 

Other species such as the black-tailed prairie dog 

and many reptile species are found on the refuge.

■■ The refuge is host to more than 150 homesteaded 

river bottoms. There are more than 300 known 

archaeological sites, mostly Native American.

■■ There are important paleontological resources 

associated with the Hell Creek Formation found 

on the refuge. The refuge also contains fossils from 

the Early Tertiary Tullock Formation of the Fort 

Union Group showing the transition from the “Age 

of Reptiles” to the rise of mammals (Bug Creek).

■■ The large landscape offers the opportunity for 

a remote recreational and wildlife experience not 

available elsewhere.

■■ The refuge attracts numerous recreationists including Montanans from every county and many outof-state residents.

■■ The refuge provides a large outdoor laboratory 

for potential research and science investigation 

by graduate students, with the opportunity to 

provide biological data to refuge staff.

■■ The refuge offers opportunities for wildland fire 

research including understanding how fires shape 

the landscape and affect species.

■■ There are multiple opportunities to use naturalignition wildfire for habitat management at the 

landscape scale.

■■ With much of the refuge being accessible either 

within 1 mile of a road or by the river, it allows for 

ample access. However, due to its remoteness and 

rugged terrain, the refuge provides many opportunities to experience wilderness and solitude.

2.3 VISION 

The Service developed a vision for the refuge at 

the beginning of the planning process. The vision 

describes the focus of refuge management and portrays a picture of the refuge in 15 years. 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge’s expansive badlands, cottonwood river 

bottoms, old-growth forested coulees, sagebrush steppes, and mixed-grass prairies 

appear out of the sea that is the northern 

Great Plains. 

Encompassing more than a million acres, 

the refuge affords visitors solitude, serenity, 

and unique opportunities to experience natural settings and wildlife similar to what 

Native Americans and, later, Lewis and 

Clark observed. 

The diversity of plant and animal communities found on the refuge stretch from the high 

prairie through the rugged breaks, along the 

Missouri River, and across Fort Peck Reservoir. The refuge is an outstanding example of 

a functioning, resilient, and intact landscape 

in an ever-changing West. 

Working together with our neighbors and 

partners, the Service employs adaptive management rooted in science to protect and 

improve the biological integrity, biological 

diversity, and environmental health of the 

refuge’s wildlife and habitat resources.

2.4 GOALS

The Service developed eight goals for the refuge 

based on the Improvement Act, the refuge purposes, and information developed during planning. 

The goals direct work toward achieving the vision 

and purposes of the refuge and outline approaches 

for managing refuge resources.

GOAL for HABITAT and 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Conserve, restore, and improve the biological integrity, environmental health, and ecological diversity 

of the refuge’s plant and animal communities of the 

Missouri River Breaks and surrounding prairies to 

support healthy populations of native plants and 
30 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

wildlife in a changing climate. Working with others, reduce and control the spread of nondesirable, 

nonnative, invasive plant and aquatic species for the 

benefit of native communities on and off the refuge.

Rocky Mountain Elk

GOAL for THREATENED and ENDANGERED 

SPECIES and SPECIES of CONCERN

Contribute to the identification, preservation, and 

recovery of threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern that occur, or have historically 

occurred, in the northern Great Plains. 

GOAL for RESEARCH and SCIENCE

Advance the understanding of natural resources, 

ecological processes, and the effectiveness of management actions in a changing climate in the northern Great Plains through compatible scientific 

investigations, monitoring, and applied research.

GOAL for FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Manage wildland fire using a management response 

that promotes fire’s natural role in shaping the landscape while protecting values at risk. 

GOAL for PUBLIC USE and EDUCATION

Provide all visitors quality education, recreation, 

and outreach opportunities that are appropriate and 

compatible with the purpose and goals of the refuge 

and the mission of the Refuge System while maintaining the remote and primitive experience unique 

to the refuge.

GOAL for WILDERNESS

Conserve, improve, and promote the wilderness character and associated natural processes of designated 

and proposed wilderness areas and wilderness study 

areas within the refuge for all generations.

GOAL for CULTURAL and

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Identify, value, and preserve the significant paleontological and cultural resources of the refuge to connect refuge staff, visitors, and the community to the 

area’s prehistoric and historic past.

GOAL for REFUGE 

OPERATIONS and PARTNERSHIPS

Through effective communication and innovative use 

of technology and resources, the refuge uses funding, 

personnel, partnerships, and volunteer programs for 

the benefit of natural resources while recognizing 

the social and economic connection of the refuge to 

adjacent communities. 
3—Alternatives

This chapter describes the management alternatives for the Charles 

M. Russell and UL Bend National 

Wildlife Refuges. Alternatives are 

different approaches to management designed to achieve the refuge 

purposes, vision, and goals; the mission of the Refuge System; and the 

mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are formulated to 

address significant issues, concerns, 

and problems identified by the Service, cooperating agencies, interested groups, tribal governments, 

and the public during public scoping 

and throughout the development of 

the final plan. Chapter 1 contains 

descriptions of the issues. Service staff present the management alternatives to the public. 

USFWS

3.1 CRITERIA for

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

Following the initial scoping process in fall 2007 and 

early 2008, the Service held meetings and workshops 

with the cooperating agencies and the public and 

identified a reasonable range of preliminary alternatives. Some ideas were eventually dropped, and 

those are discussed later in section 3.10. The Service 

carried forward the following four alternatives and 

analyzed them in detail in this EIS:

■ Alternative A—No Action

■ Alternative B—Wildlife Population Emphasis

■ Alternative C—Public Use and Economic Use 

Emphasis

■ Alternative D—Ecological Processes Emphasis 

(preferred alternative)

These alternatives examine different ways for providing permanent protection and restoration of fish, 

wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources and 

for providing opportunities for the public to engage 

in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Each 

alternative incorporates specific actions intended to 

achieve the goals described in chapter 2. However, 

the no-action alternative A represents the current, 

unchanged refuge management and may not meet 

every aspect of every goal. The no-action alternative 

provides a basis for comparison of the action alternatives B, C, and D.

3.2 ELEMENTS COMMON to

ALL ALTERNATIVES

Key elements of refuge management will be included 

in the final CCP regardless of the alternative selected. 

For example, the Service will comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies for management 

activities that could affect refuge resources such as 

soil, water, air, threatened and endangered species, 

and archaeological and historical resources. These 

activities include subsurface mineral reservations and 

management of utility lines, easements, contaminants, 

and invasive species. A list of key legislation and policies that the Service adheres to is in appendix D. 

Specific elements common to all alternatives follow:

■ Significant cultural and paleontological resources 

will be protected and managed. Individual projects may require more consultation with the 

State of Montana’s Historic Preservation Office, 

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and other 

interested parties.

■ Several special regulations for public access on 

the refuge will continue to apply. Many of these 

are identified at the beginning of the public use—

access discussion in section 3.8. This includes, 

among others, the requirement for all-terrain 

vehicles (ATVs) and motorcycles to be streetlegal. In addition, all vehicles must stay on established routes. The Service will continue to allow 

for access to private inholdings or State lands. 
32 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Although the amount or type of access varies by 

alternative, the Service will develop a stepdown 

management plan for transportation based on the 

alternative selected for the final CCP.

■■ Landing sites for seaplanes will continue to be 

allowed under the provisions of the Seaplane 

Landing Plan (USACE 1995). Aircraft may not 

land on the uplands of the refuge. Landing and 

taxiing of fixed-wing aircraft on the surface of 

Fort Peck Reservoir is allowed in designated 

landing locations. 

■■ The Service will continue to collect grazing fees 

in accordance with the region 6 grazing policy. 

■■ The Service will collaborate with USACE in 

accordance with established agreements. As an 

example, operation of the Fort Peck Interpretive 

Center and Museum is a cooperative effort 

between USACE, the Service, and Fort Peck 

Paleontology Incorporated.

■■ The UL Bend Wilderness and all proposed wilderness will be protected in accordance with the 

1964 Wilderness Act and the Service’s Wilderness Stewardship Policy (FWS 2008c). 

■■ All wildfire suppression and prescribed fire activities will be carried out under an approved fire 

management plan. Any prescribed burns will 

be carried out in conformance with an approved 

smoke management plan that addresses critical 

smoke concerns, measures to reduce negative 

effects, downwind receptors, and smoke-vector 

maps in individual burn plans. The Service will 

acquire an outdoor burning permit issued by the 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 

The use of prescribed fire will follow protocol and 

guidelines established in the Montana/Idaho Airshed Operating guide (MIAG 2010). The Service 

will obtain clearance from the Montana/Idaho 

Airshed Group before any use of prescribed fire.

■■ The Service will carry out actions in the CCP 

through cooperation and collaboration with Federal, State, tribal, and local governments; nongovernmental organizations; and adjacent private 

landowners. Section 3.11 describes existing and 

potential partnerships.

■■ Through a reciprocal agreement between the 

Service and DNRC, the Service will aggressively 

suppress all wildfires that occur on State schoolsection lands within the boundary of the refuge. 

The Service will continue to issue special use permits for grazing on the State school sections that 

recognize those AUMs allotted.

■■ The control of invasive weeds and integrated pest 

management will be done using a variety of tools 

such as biological and mechanical controls, grazing, and herbicides. The Service will continue to 

update invasive species mapping, use the Service’s weed strike team, and work in partnership 

with others to reduce weed infestations. 

■■ Artesian wells will be capped to prevent depletion

of ground water.

■■ The Service will carry out all refuge management 

activities for water development in accordance 

with the final outcome as determined by the 

Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission (refer to chapter 4, under “4.2 Physical 

Environment,” “Water Resources”).

■■ Several refuge permittees have grazing permits 

that include Service lands, BLM, and DNRC lands. 

The implementation of prescriptive grazing on 

Service lands may negatively affect the ability 

of permittees to continue to graze DNRC lands 

within the refuge boundary. It is not the intent 

of the Service to negatively affect DNRC’s ability to meet their obligation of generating revenue 

for local schools. The Service will work with local 

DNRC land managers to allow permittees continued access for grazing DNRC lands. If current 

permittees of DNRC lands do not want to keep 

their permits, the Service will work within current budget constraints to obtain leases that benefit refuge management activities.

■■ The Service will look to facilitate the exchange 

of State lands within the refuge boundary where 

feasible.

■■ The Service will work with willing sellers as 

money is available to buy priority lands within 

the authorized boundary.

■■ The Service will cooperate with USACE to transfer jurisdiction of lands not needed by USACE to 

meet its legal mandates.

■■ The Service will adhere to legal obligations for 

any valid rights-of-way for access to private and 

State lands.

■■ Boating will continue to be allowed on the refuge. Special regulations apply along the western 

end, which is part of the National Wild and Scenic 

River System.

■■ The Service will cooperate with partners to provide comparable accessible opportunities for all. 

■■ The Service will continue to prohibit shed hunting.

■■ The Service will continue to protect all areas with 

special land designations: wilderness, proposed 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, the Lewis 

and Clark National Historic Trail, the Hell Creek 

and Bug Creek Fossil Areas, the research natural 

areas, and the Upper Missouri River Breaks Wild 

and Scenic River.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 33

■■ In any actions involving the taking of wildlife on 

the refuge for predator control by U.S. Department of Agriculture (Wildlife Services), the 

Service will decide whether the activity is appropriate (603 FW 1), and, if so, whether it is compatible with the purposes of the refuge and the 

Refuge System.

3.3 STRUCTURE of

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS

Each alternative is designed to clearly address the 

goals described in chapter 2; therefore, the alternatives are organized by the following goal headings:

■ Habitat and Wildlife Management

■ Threatened and Endangered Species and Species 

of Concern

■ Research and Science

■ Fire Management

■ Public Use and Education

■ Wilderness

■ Cultural and Paleontological Resources

■ Refuge Operations and Partnerships 

Sections 3.4–3.7 summarize alternatives A–D, 

respectively, which the Service developed to achieve 

the refuge vision and goals and to address significant 

issues. There is a no-action, or current management, 

alternative (A) and three action alternatives (B–D). 

The Service has identified alternative D as the preferred alternative. These alternative summaries 

describe the overall focus of each alternative along 

with its key management elements. In addition, 

there is a map of each alternative showing management elements that could be visually represented. 

To easily compare the alternatives by topic, section 3.8 contains the detailed actions by which the 

goals would be achieved. Each goal title is followed 

by the related objectives for each of the four alternatives. The timeframe to accomplish each objective refers to the number of years after the Service 

approves the final CCP. Detailed rationale explains 

how and why each objective would help meet the 

goal under the specific emphasis of the associated 

alternative. Additionally, there are strategies listed 

for achieving each objective. Comparing the objectives and strategies by goal, instead of separating 

out the topics by alternative, makes it easier to compare the differences between specific objectives. 

Table 10 in section 3.15 is a summary of the actions 

for each alternative. Table 56 in chapter 5, section 

5.16, summarizes the consequences of these actions.

3.4 SUMMARY of

ALTERNATIVE A (No Action)

Few changes would occur in managing existing wildlife populations and habitat. Wildlife-dependent public and economic uses would continue at current 

levels. Figure 7 depicts the management of resources 

and public use for alternative A.

HABITAT and WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 

THREATENED and ENDANGERED SPECIES 

and SPECIES of CONCERN, RESEARCH 

and SCIENCE, and FIRE MANAGEMENT

Goals for the topics above are intricately linked in 

managing habitat, wildlife, and water resources. The 

elements below reflect these relationships for alternative A.

Habitat

There would be a continued emphasis on big game 

management, annual livestock grazing, use of fencing 

for pastures, and invasive species control. Habitats 

would continue to be managed in the 65 habitat units 

that were established by BLM for grazing purposes, 

and residual cover on these units would be measured. 

Some small bottomland or riparian area restoration 

projects would occur. Monitoring of habitat would 

continue at existing levels: (1) residual cover; and (2) 

sentinel plant species throughout the refuge.

Livestock Grazing. Livestock would be kept out of 

most riparian areas primarily through fencing. The 

Service would gradually implement prescriptive 

grazing across the refuge as required by Service 

policy. This would occur as habitat evaluations are 

completed or following the sale of a ranch to a third 

party. By the end of 15 years, about 50 percent or 

more of the units would have been converted to a 

prescriptive component (see section 3. 8, “Habitat—

Upland,” for a full definition and description). 

Wildland Fire. The current fire management strategies 

would be maintained. Wildfires would be suppressed 

with no benefit obtained. Prescribed fire would continue to be minimally used as a management tool. 

Invasive Species. The existing control programs for 

invasive species would continue. Actions include mapping; using biological controls, chemical spraying, 

and weed wash stations; and requiring horse users 

to use weed-seed-free hay. 

Climate Change. Following Service policy and guidelines on climate change initiatives, the Service would
34 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

carry out the following actions: (1) maintain a small 

wind turbine; (2) continue recycling; (3) increase energy 

efficiency and adopt other ways to reduce the carbon 

footprint; and (4) consider what conditions precipitated 

by climate change the refuge may deal with, such as 

increased drought, longer fire seasons, hotter fires, 

loss, or increase, of plant and wildlife species, change in 

migration patterns, and relocation of species. 

Water Resources

Select stock ponds would be maintained and rehabilitated. Riparian habitat would be restored where 

possible and standard watershed management practices would be enforced. Water rights would be adjudicated and defined.

Wildlife 

Inventory and monitoring of wildlife would continue 

at existing levels: (1) wildlife surveys of Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, 

black-footed ferret, and raptors; (2) lek locations for 

grouse; (3) black-tailed prairie dog mapping; and 

(4) mourning dove counts. 

Big game would be managed to achieve target 

levels in the 1986 EIS record of decision: 2.5 elk per 

square mile, 10 mule deer per square mile, and 160 

bighorn sheep. This includes a more restrictive rifle 

season for mule deer in some State hunting districts 

as compared to the State season.

Predator control coordinated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,Wildlife Services, would occur 

on a limited basis, but mountain lion hunting and 

predator hunting or trapping would not be allowed. 

Limited coyote hunting would be allowed from midOctober through March 1.

Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern

The black-footed ferret recovery effort would continue including releasing animals, intensive monitoring, and disease and habitat management. 

PUBLIC USE and EDUCATION

The Service would continue managing public uses to 

provide for a variety of wildlife-dependent opportunities and programs.

Hunting

Hunting programs would continue for wild ungulates 

(elk, deer, and pronghorn), upland birds, waterfowl, 

and coyote (limited hunting). Shooting of nongame 

species, trapping, and shed-antler hunting would all 

be prohibited. All other wildlife would be protected. 

The Service would cooperate with USACE on providing deer hunting opportunities for persons with 

disabilities. Facilities such as the accessible hunting 

blind would be maintained or upgraded. 

Fishing

State regulations would apply. The Service would 

continue to allow fishing opportunities in accordance 

with the compatibility determination (appendix C) 

and MFWP regulations.

Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Interpretation, Environmental Education, 

and Outreach

Limited programs would be offered and include the 

educational bus tour, school visits, and refuge personnel at the fair booth. Facilities such as the auto tour 

route, elk-viewing area, and other kiosks would be 

maintained. Seasonal refuge personnel would staff 

the interpretive center at Fort Peck Field Station. 

Access

About 670 miles of road and trails would remain 

open with limited, seasonal closure of some roads 

when necessary. The following activities would be 

allowed: ATV use on public roads providing they are 

licensed, bicycling on numbered roads including seasonally closed roads, horseback riding, and public 

planes that could land only on water or ice as determined by USACE and the refuge’s aircraft landing 

plan. Camping would be allowed throughout the refuge, and vehicle access would be allowed to campsites within 100 yards of a road. 

Recreation Sites

The Service would work with USACE on management 

of boat ramps. About nine ramps have access to water. 

Commercial Recreation

Eleven outfitting permits would continue to be 

offered for hunting, and unregulated commercial fishing and guided fishing would continue to be allowed. 

Commercial outfitting for coyote hunting would be 

prohibited. [Note: USACE has primary jurisdiction 

over Fort Peck Lake and is the lead agency in managing commercial activities on the lake and other 

USACE-managed lands.]

WILDERNESS

The Service would continue to manage the 20,819-acre 

UL Bend Wilderness (see figure 7) in the UL Bend 

Refuge as a class 1 air shed. About 155,288 acres of 

proposed wilderness within 15 units of the Charles 

M. Russell Refuge (see figure 7) would be managed 

in accordance with Service policy. Roads in proposed 

wilderness units would remain closed except for 

roads that provide access to private lands within the 

refuge. Within 2 years, the Service would complete 

the study of all units that meet the wilderness criteria (see appendix E) and submit final recommendations to the Service directorate and Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 35

Figure 7 follows 

(two foldout pages)
36 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 7. Map of management under CCP alternative A for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Figure 7 (alternative A, west)
Chapter 3—Alternatives 37

 Figure 7 (alternative A, east)

Chapter 3—Alternatives 39

CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

Cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects that are the result of human activities and that 

are more than 50 years old. They include prehistoric, 

historic, and architectural sites; artifacts; historical 

records; and traditional cultural properties including 

traditional use areas for Native Americans that may 

or may not have material evidence. Paleontological 

resources include fossils of both animals and plants.

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources would be identified, and significant resources would be protected in accordance with 

the National Historic Preservation Act and other 

relevant laws. Some old homesteads would continue to be maintained but others would not. Known 

gravesites would be protected and the cultural 

resource inventory would be maintained. The Service would maintain closures of roads through sensitive areas. A refuge history brochure would be 

provided. 

Paleontological Resources

The Service would continue to issue permits to institutions that investigate paleontological resources from a 

scientific perspective. Permits would not be issued for 

recreational paleontology requests that do not follow a 

scientific study design. All permits would continue to 

meet compatibility requirements and the regulations 

for the Paleontology Resource Protection Act. 

REFUGE OPERATIONS and PARTNERSHIPS

The vision and goals would be met through commensurate refuge operations and the refuge’s collaboration with many partners.

Refuge Operations

The refuge relies on personnel, equipment, and facilities to carry out both the day-to-day operations 

along with the long-term programs.

Personnel. Personnel would be kept at current levels.

Equipment and Facilities. Equipment and facilities 

would be maintained at current levels. (Same as 

alternative B.)

Minerals. The mineral withdrawals for locatable minerals (diatreme gems) on the UL Bend Refuge (permanent) and the Charles M. Russell Refuge (20-year 

withdrawal) would remain in effect. 

Partnerships and Collaboration

The Service would maintain existing partnerships 

with Federal and State agencies, counties, conservation districts, adjacent private landowners, local communities, and others.

3.5 SUMMARY of

ALTERNATIVE B 

(Wildlife Population Emphasis)

The Service would manage the landscape, in cooperation with partners, to emphasize the abundance of 

wildlife populations using (1) balanced natural ecological processes such as fire and herbivory (grazing 

and browsing) by wild ungulates, and (2) responsible 

farming practices or tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public uses would be encouraged, and economic 

uses would be limited when they compete for habitat resources. Figure 8 depicts the management of 

resources and public use for alternative B.

HABITAT and WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 

THREATENED and ENDANGERED SPECIES 

and SPECIES of CONCERN, RESEARCH 

and SCIENCE, and FIRE MANAGEMENT

Goals for the topics above are intricately linked in 

managing habitat, wildlife, and water resources. The 

elements below reflect these relationships for alternative B.

Habitat

The Service would actively manage and manipulate 

habitat, thus creating a diverse plant community 

of highly productive wildlife food and cover plants. 

The management emphasis would be on habitat for 

specific target or focal species of wildlife in separate parts of the refuge, largely based on the species 

recommendations in Olaus Murie’s 1935 biological 

assessment. Murie talked about the refuge’s habitat 

potential to support a variety of wildlife species such 

as elk, bighorn sheep, and bison to name a few. The 

Service would consolidate the 65 habitat units; subsequently, the refuge staff would write new HMPs 

based on field station boundaries and habitat evaluation and management for each target or focal species. The Service would work with others to develop 

methods to monitor and evaluate target species and 

habitat needs. (Refer to section 3.8 for descriptions 

of focal, target, and sentinel species.)

Desired habitat conditions may be created using 

natural ecological processes, such as fire, grazing by 

wildlife, or flooding or through management practices, such as agricultural plantings and managed 

fire. For example, the dense understory of juniper, 

ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir in forested coulees 

(ravines) could be thinned, which would lessen the 

likelihood of wildfire moving into the overstory and 

possibly eliminating mature forest stands. 

An aggressive approach to reduction of invasive 

plants in the river bottoms would be based on pri-
40 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

orities. Work would include using prescribed fire, 

spraying with herbicides, and planting wildlife food 

crops to clear invasive plants. In addition, the Service would collaborate with others to combat invasive plants in shoreline habitat. Mechanical means 

could be used to improve shoreline habitat for fish, 

birds, or other wildlife. Where feasible and combined 

with research, the Service would restore the functioning condition of riparian areas and preserve fire 

refugia. 

Livestock Grazing. The Service would carry out a 

prescriptive grazing regime, designating the use of 

livestock grazing with written directions to achieve 

specific desired outcomes, across most of the refuge (refer to section 3.8, “Habitat,” for a full definition and description). Within 4–7 years, prescriptive 

livestock grazing would be carried out on 50–75 percent of the refuge, and this progression would be 

continued over 15 years. Interior fencing would be 

removed if necessary. The refuge boundary would 

be fenced to exclude common pastures and allow 

the Service to conduct management treatments for 

achieving the habitat objectives. The use of exclosures and prescriptive grazing would be increased 

where needed to exclude livestock from river bottoms or other riparian areas with the exception of 

developed water gaps if found appropriate and compatible with habitat management objectives. 

Wildland Fire. The Service would increase the use 

of prescribed fire—any fire ignited by management 

actions to meet specific objectives. Increased monitoring would be used to measure and understand the 

implications of prescriptive livestock grazing and 

prescribed fire. 

The Service would work with USACE and other 

partners to address the wildland–urban interface at 

the Pines Recreation Area and other USACE recreation areas. Wildfire would be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and, where possible, be 

allowed to function in its natural ecological role. 

Invasive Species. There would be an increased effort 

to reduce invasive plants by converting former croplands that are now infested with invasive plants 

(more than 3,000 acres) to food plots for wildlife. The 

Service would emphasize visitor awareness about 

invasive plants and invasive aquatic wildlife, such 

as the zebra mussel, through education along with 

increasing the weed-seed-free requirements for outfitters or permittees and increasing enforcement, if 

necessary. 

Climate Change. Based on climate change predictions 

and following Service and departmental policies and 

initiatives, the Service would identify (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. Additionally, 

the Service would design science-based, long-term 

monitoring protocols to document changes in plant 

and animal composition or health due to climate 

change. The Service would coordinate with adjoining agencies and partners to immediately alleviate 

declines, if needed, using tools such as prescriptive 

grazing, prescribed fire, or flooding. The Service 

would cooperate on national and international projects to maintain biological diversity, integrity, and 

environmental health on a global basis. 

In addition to the climate change elements in 

alternative A, the Service would do the following: (1) 

replace all vehicles with more fuel-efficient vehicles; 

(2) upgrade offices to “green” standards; (3) consider 

installing solar panels or small wind turbines for offices 

and field stations; (4) provide more recycling bins; (5) 

encourage more teleconferencing instead of meetings; (6) encourage staff to be more energy efficient 

(such as turning off lights, recycling, and turning 

down heat); and (7) study and promote the carbon 

sequestration benefits of the refuge.

(Same as alternatives C and D.)

Water Resources

In addition to the water resources elements in alternative A, the Service would work to restore water 

quality for fish and wildlife habitats and populations 

by addressing soil erosion from overgrazing, roads, 

or other sources (such as contamination from recreational or economic uses including human use of 

camping areas or excessive livestock use of streams). 

There would be efforts to retain ground cover 

throughout the refuge to increase ground waterflow 

into streams and to reduce runoff and soil erosion, 

thus protecting riparian area corridors. 

The Service would acquire water rights associated with buying inholdings and would obtain senior 

upstream water rights only when approached by a 

landowner or current water right holder.

Wildlife

Through cooperation and collaboration with MFWP 

and adjoining landowners, the Service would use 

wildlife- and habitat-based objectives and strategies 

that consider natural densities, social structures, and 

population dynamics at the landscape level. The Service and these cooperators would mutually agree on 

population levels that can be tolerated by adjoining landowners and provide for quality recreational 

experiences without negatively affecting habitat or 

other wildlife species. The Service would collaborate with others to manage wildlife to benefit all species in and around the refuge. Actions would include 

using hunting to improve habitat, developing conservation easements, or other incentives to benefit species diversity and ecological integrity.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 41

Figure 8 follows 

(two foldout pages)
42 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 8. Map of management under CCP alternative B for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Figure 8 (alternative B, west)
Chapter 3—Alternatives 43

 Figure 8 (alternative B, east)

Chapter 3—Alternatives 45

Reintroductions. The Service would identify habitat suitable for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and 

establish new populations based on modeling and 

MFWP transplant criteria. The Service would seek 

to restore and increase native fish populations in the 

Missouri River and its tributaries and in artificially 

developed impoundments (existing or new).

Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern

The Service would protect or enhance populations 

of threatened and endangered species such as the 

black-footed ferret, nongame species such as the 

black-tailed prairie dog, and bird species or other 

species of management concern through research, 

disease management, population augmentation, or 

habitat manipulation.

The Service would develop management plans 

for the grizzly bear, in accordance with Federal and 

State regulations and plans to address potential immigration of this species to the refuge. With approved 

MFWP management plans and in cooperation with 

MFWP and others, the Service would consider reintroduction of more black-footed ferrets, swift foxes, 

black-tailed prairie dogs, pallid sturgeons, and bighorn sheep into the landscape. Predators would be 

managed as an important component of the wildlife 

community, and predator management by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture would be stopped.

PUBLIC USE and EDUCATION

In addition to the elements for public use and education in alternative A, the Service would encourage 

the wildlife-dependent opportunities and elements 

described below. The Service would not allow new 

secondary recreational uses unless they facilitate 

one of the wildlife-dependent recreational uses.

Hunting

The Service would work with others to provide opportunities for quality hunting as a management tool that 

maintains sustainable populations of big game and 

improves habitat for nongame species.

Fishing

The Service would work with others to provide opportunities for quality fishing that maintain sustainable 

populations of game and nongame fish.

Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Interpretation, Environmental Education, 

and Outreach

Environmental education and interpretation programs would be created based on wildlife biology 

and habitat requirements. The Service would work 

with more partners to expand interpretive and educational opportunities and update the signage, Web 

site, and other interpretive media and facilities as 

needed. More opportunities would be provided for 

persons with disabilities where needed. The Service 

would collaborate with others to develop a science 

center at Sand Creek Field Station.

Access

The Service would manage access to benefit and 

increase wildlife populations and promote harvest 

opportunities. The Service would close about 106 

miles of road and some access. The Service would 

work with partners (Federal and State agencies, 

counties, and others) to develop a travel plan and 

secure access to the refuge through other lands. 

Nonmotorized access would be promoted, but the 

Service would consider allowing motorized access on 

existing roads only for game retrieval and restricting access on a seasonal basis to sensitive areas by 

river and road. ATV use would be monitored on numbered trails and managed if there was documented 

disturbance of wildlife or visitors. The Service would 

monitor boat use and determine if disturbance is an 

issue, and then the Service would work with cooperators and users to identify solutions for limiting disturbance to wildlife along the river corridor. 

Recreation Sites

Vehicular camping would be managed to fit the associated use. For example, paddlefish fishing lends itself 

to concentrated camping versus big game hunting and 

dispersed camping. Backcountry camping would be 

allowed. The Service would ensure that camping does 

not severely affect surrounding habitat. 

Commercial Recreation

The Service would collaborate with USACE to permit commercial fishing operations, including fishing tournaments, through USACE’s permit process. 

More commercial backcountry outfitting permits 

would be developed for hunting to accomplish habitat and wildlife objectives.

WILDERNESS

In addition to the wilderness elements in alternative A, the Service would make recommendations to 

expand or adjust existing proposed wilderness units 

by 25,869 acres in Alkali Creek, Antelope Creek, 

Crooked Creek, East Seven Blackfoot, Mickey 

Butte, Sheep Creek, Wagon Coulee, West Beauchamp Creek, and West Hell Creek to conserve and 

promote their wilderness qualities and characteristics. These expansions or adjustments are called wilderness study areas (see figure 8 and appendix E).
46 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

Cultural resources and paleontological resources 

would be protected as identified in alternative A. 

Cultural Resources

In addition to the protection elements in alternative 

A, the Service would create a sensitivity model for 

cultural resource locations and conduct surveys in 

areas with a moderate or high potential for resources. 

A comprehensive cultural resource overview and 

stepdown plan would be completed. Oral histories 

would be collected to help understand and interpret 

the history of some of the structures on the refuge. 

Opportunities to work with partners to fund and 

carry out preservation projects would be explored, 

and any artifact collections would be located and 

properly curated. There would be increased protection of cultural and paleontological sites through law 

enforcement and public education. 

(Same as alternative D.)

Paleontological Resources

For paleontological resources, elements would be 

similar to alternative A, except the refuge would 

develop a stepdown plan with Montana State University and USACE for these resources. The number of 

education permits for universities for excavation of 

paleontological resources could be decreased if necessary to increase protection. 

REFUGE OPERATIONS and PARTNERSHIPS

The vision and goals would be met through refuge 

operations and the refuge’s collaboration with many 

partners.

Refuge Operations

The refuge relies on personnel, equipment, and facilities to carry out both day-to-day operations and longterm programs.

Personnel. In addition to elements in alternative A, 

the Service would increase staff to include an outdoor recreation planner, an added full-time law 

enforcement officer, and a fire technician at the Fort 

Peck Field Station.

Equipment and Facilities. Same as alternative A. 

Minerals. In addition to elements in alternative A, 

the Service would seek permanent withdrawal of 

all minerals including oil and gas and other leasable 

and saleable minerals on all refuge lands and future 

acquisitions.

Partnerships and Collaboration

In addition to the partnerships and collaboration elements in alternative A, the Service would review 

the refuge’s partnerships and adapt them as needed 

based on new management direction. Staff would 

coordinate with USACE on lands that could be 

transferred to the Service for primary jurisdiction. 

The Service would continue to explore opportunities to collaborate with partners on wildfire suppression, use of prescribed fire, and habitat manipulation. 

Staff would seek more partnerships and money to 

support endeavors such as increased control of invasive species or for initiation of a Friends group. For 

a full list of existing and potential partners, refer to 

section 3.11.

(Same as alternative C.)

3.6 SUMMARY of

ALTERNATIVE C (Public Use and 

Economic Use Emphasis)

The Service would manage the landscape, in cooperation with partners, to emphasize and promote the 

maximum, compatible, wildlife-dependent public uses 

and economic uses while protecting wildlife populations and habitats to the extent possible. Damaging 

effects on wildlife habitats would be minimized while 

using a variety of management tools to enhance and 

diversify public and economic opportunities. Figure 9 

depicts the management of resources and public use 

for alternative C.

HABITAT and WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 

THREATENED and ENDANGERED SPECIES 

and SPECIES of CONCERN, RESEARCH 

and SCIENCE, and FIRE MANAGEMENT

Goals for the topics above are intricately linked in 

managing habitat, wildlife, and water resources. The 

elements below reflect these relationships for alternative C.

Habitat

In addition to the habitat elements in alternative A, 

the Service would generally manage habitats to provide more opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. In places, the refuge staff would manage for 

plant communities that could necessitate a compromise between providing wildlife food and cover and 

livestock forage needs. Where needed, fencing and 

water gaps would be used to manage livestock use 

and prevent further degradation of riparian habitat. 

Camping areas would be managed to limit expansion 

and further degradation of riparian habitat. Similar 

to alternative A, the Service would monitor residual 

cover to measure forage availability.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 47

Figure 9 follows 

(two foldout pages)
48 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 9. Map of management under CCP alternative C for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Figure 9 (alternative C, west)
Chapter 3—Alternatives 49

 Figure 9 (alternative C, east)

Chapter 3—Alternatives 51

Livestock Grazing. The Service would gradually move 

to a prescriptive livestock-grazing program when 

current grazing permits become available due to 

ranches changing ownership (this would not include 

generational transfer; refer to section 3.8, “Habitat,” for a full definition and description). If monitoring revealed that populations of the first-to-decline, 

grazing or browsing, sentinel plant species (refer to 

appendix F) were not viable, a balanced reduction 

in permitted livestock numbers and in wild ungulate numbers would occur. Similarly, prescribed 

fire would be used to enhance wildlife habitat and 

improve forage for livestock. 

Wildland Fire. The Service would work with DNRC 

to make forage available on the refuge to replace forage on State lands that is reduced due to use of prescribed fire in a burn unit containing refuge land and 

State land. Aggressive initial attack would be used 

in identified habitat units to minimize economic loss 

from wildfire. Wildland fire would be used as a mechanism for natural succession in habitat units. To minimize the fuel load, more use of prescriptive grazing 

could be necessary. 

Invasive Species. Similar elements as for alternatives 

B and D. The Service would work with partners to increase efforts to reduce the acreage of invasive species 

and measure trends of other species not currently 

classified as noxious.

Climate Change. Same as alternatives B and D.

Water Resources

In addition to elements in alternative A, the Service 

would allow for natural and constructed water sources 

for livestock use and public fishing and hunting. 

Future water developments would be allowed on a 

site-specific basis and consideration of effects (positive and negative) to all resources. The Service 

would adhere to any other regulatory or permitting 

requirements and would balance water quality restoration with public use and economic needs.

Wildlife

Through collaboration with MFWP and others, the 

Service would keep a balance between numbers of big 

game (elk, deer, and pronghorn) and livestock to sustain habitats and populations of big game and sharptailed grouse. Similar balancing could be necessary 

when managing for nongame or migratory bird populations and livestock needs. For example, it could be 

necessary to balance prairie dog populations and habitat needs with public and economic uses like livestock 

grazing or with other wildlife population needs. 

The staff would work with partners to increase 

fish populations in the Missouri River and its tributaries and in artificially developed impoundments or 

to create new impoundments for fish populations and 

livestock water. 

At the landscape level, the emphasis would be 

on public and economic uses, and the Service would 

work with others to identify and secure public access 

to the refuge, manage all ungulate species to benefit 

all wildlife species, and work to promote private conservation easements.

Reintroductions. Suitable habitat for Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep would be identified, and a new population would be established in accordance with suitability models and MFWP transplant criteria. 

Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern

Threatened and endangered species would be protected, but there would be less intensive manipulation of habitat for those species. Similar to alternative 

B, a grizzly bear management plan would be developed in accordance with Federal and State regulations and plans to address potential immigration of 

this species to the refuge.

PUBLIC USE and EDUCATION

The Service would emphasize and maximize opportunities for wildlife-dependent use, as described below.

Hunting

Working with MFWP to improve habitat, the Service 

would maximize hunting opportunities by expanding 

(1) programs to include new species and traditional 

or niche (primitive weapon) hunting, (2) the mule 

deer season, and (3) predator hunting. Additionally, there would be an expanded program offering 

opportunities to young people to go hunting. Trapping could be allowed.

Fishing

Increased fishing access would be provided to areas 

that are no longer accessible due to the changing level 

of Fort Peck Lake. The Service would consider permitting vehicular access to shorelines for ice fishing in 

the winter. More fishing opportunities would be created by stocking stock select reservoirs and holding 

fishing events for young people and fishing groups.

Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Interpretation, Environmental Education, 

and Outreach

The Service would create programs based on popular activities such as hunting, fishing, birding, camping, photography, and all other wildlife-dependent 

activities. Curriculum-based activities would focus 

on threatened and endangered species, reintroduced 

species, restoration activities, and aquatic species 

including invasive aquatic species.
52 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

New areas for wildlife viewing would be identified, 

and ecotourism opportunities would be increased. 

The Service would work with partners to develop 

an interpretive center at Sand Creek Field Station, 

construct an interpretive trail near the Sand Arroyo 

area, and increase the interpretation of paleontological resources.

To encourage more children to visit, the refuge 

would consider sponsoring geocaching (a hobby in 

which objects are hidden outdoors for people to find 

using Global Positioning System [GPS] positions 

posted on the Internet). While virtual geocaching 

would be allowed, physical geocaching would not be 

allowed on refuge lands.

In addition, programs for troubled youths would 

be increased.

Access

Refuge access would be managed to benefit public and 

economic uses. The Service would consider expanding access (establishing new roads or trails) in some 

areas along with seasonally closing other areas, such 

as those around Fort Peck, to protect habitat and to 

provide for a diversity of experience. Access to boat 

ramps would be improved. The Service would promote nonmotorized access but would consider allowing motorized access on existing seasonally closed 

roads for game retrieval only. The Service would evaluate creating more trails that are open for bicycle use. 

Working within existing policies, livestock permittees 

would be allowed to manage infrastructure and stock 

within habitat units, or the Service would consider 

designating administrative use–only roads for livestock management where appropriate and allowed by 

policy and laws.

Recreation Sites

The Service would collaborate with other agencies 

to provide facilities and services that enable people 

of all abilities to enjoy the education and recreation 

opportunities at the refuge.

New campsites and campgrounds would be considered, if needed. For example, the Service would 

evaluate the need for designated horse camps or 

campsites along the lake.

Commercial Recreation

Commercial recreation would be permitted if it contributes to the refuge purposes or the mission of the 

Refuge System. The Service would increase opportunities for appropriate and compatible commercial 

recreation, such as promotion of ecotourism tours and 

experiences on the refuge. Outfitting permits would 

be increased, and the Service would ensure this does 

not negatively affect public hunting. The Service 

would coordinate with USACE on commercial activities occurring on Fort Peck Lake and the Missouri 

River where USACE has primary jurisdiction.

WILDERNESS

Wilderness would be managed similar to alternative 

A. The Service would not make recommendations to 

expand wilderness protection in any units on the refuge.

CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

Cultural resources and paleontological resources would 

be protected as identified in alternative A. 

Cultural Resources

In addition to elements in alternatives A, B, and D, the 

Service would increase education-oriented ecotourism opportunities (nonconsumptive). The refuge staff 

would develop brochures and kiosks that interpret cultural resources and work with others to identify or stabilize cultural resources. There would be more use of 

interpretive signs, but archaeological sites would not 

be identified.

Paleontological Resources

The Service would increase educational opportunities and permits for universities. Documentaries and 

classes would be promoted. The Service would consider buying inholdings for protection.

REFUGE OPERATIONS and PARTNERSHIPS

The vision and goals would be met through refuge 

operations and the refuge’s collaboration with many 

partners.

Refuge Operations

The refuge relies on personnel, equipment, and facilities to carry out both day-to-day operations and longterm programs.

Personnel. In addition to elements in alternative 

A, the Service would increase personnel to include 

an outdoor recreation planner at each of the Fort 

Peck and Lewistown Field Stations, a full-time law 

enforcement officer at Fort Peck Field Station, a 

manager at the UL Bend Refuge, two maintenance 

employees, and a fire specialist on the east end of the 

refuge.

(Same as alternative D.)

Equipment and Facilities. In addition to elements in 

alternative A, the Service would expand facilities at 

Jordan Field Station and provide more office space at 

Jordan and Sand Creek Field Stations. A bunkhouse 

would be built at Fort Peck Field Station and an interpretive center at Sand Creek Field Station.

Minerals. Same as alternative B.

Partnerships and Collaboration

Same as alternative B. 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 53

3.7 SUMMARY of

ALTERNATIVE D 

(Ecological Processes Emphasis, 

Preferred Alternative)

In cooperation with partners, the Service would use 

natural, dynamic ecological processes and management activities in a balanced, responsible manner to 

restore and maintain the biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

Once natural processes are restored, a more passive 

approach (less human assistance) would be favored. 

There would be quality wildlife-dependent public 

uses and experiences. Economic uses would be limited when they are injurious to ecological processes. 

Figure 10 depicts the management of resources and 

public use for alternative D.

Redosier Dogwood

R.A. Howard Image Collection / Smithsonian Institution

HABITAT and WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 

THREATENED and ENDANGERED SPECIES 

and SPECIES of CONCERN, RESEARCH 

and SCIENCE, and FIRE MANAGEMENT

Goals for the topics above are intricately linked in 

managing habitat, wildlife, and water resources. The 

elements below reflect these relationships for alternative D.

Habitat

Where feasible, the Service would apply management 

practices that mimic and restore natural processes 

on the refuge, managing for a diversity of plant species in upland and riparian areas. The emphasis 

on ecological, or natural, processes recognizes the 

importance of fire, grazing by ungulates, hydrology, temperature, nutrients, and soil compaction in 

shaping and sustaining diverse, healthy habitats on 

the refuge. Initially, this would include a concerted 

manipulation of habitats or wildlife populations (prescribed fire and grazing and hunting) through coordinated objectives. Eventually, the Service would 

favor more passive approaches using fire, grazing, or 

flooding, which require less manipulation and money. 

The Service would maintain plant diversity and 

health using fire in combination with wild ungulate 

herbivory (wildlife feeding on plants) or prescriptive livestock grazing, or both. The objective would 

be twofold: (1) ensure viable populations of sentinel 

plant species (species that decline first when management practices are injurious); and (2) ensure the 

viability of focal bird species (species that are representative of a broader group of species that share 

similar conservation needs). 

Livestock Grazing. The Service would remove interior 

fences to facilitate management of environmental 

processes including patch burning and long-distance 

movement of animals. Generational transfer of permits would continue; however, the Service would 

implement prescriptive grazing across most of the 

refuge (50–75 percent within 6–9 years and continue 

the progression over 15 years). In sensitive areas 

like river bottoms, fencing would be used to exclude 

livestock except at designated water gaps (areas 

where livestock can access water); refer to section 

3.8, “Habitat,” for a full definition and description. 

Wildland Fire. The Service would restore the natural 

fire regime through an increased use of prescribed 

fire to increase the viability of fire-dependent plant 

species. The Service would burn patches of varying 

size and within the historical fire-return intervals 

on a rotational basis. This technique would create 

a mosaic of habitats that (1) restores heterogeneity 

(more natural diversity in species) within landscapes, 

(2) preserves fire refugia and associated plant species, 

(3) enhances food resources for wildlife, (4) ensures 

biological diversity and integrity and environmental 

health, and (5) promotes ecological resilience. Fur-
54 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

thermore, some areas could need intensive manipulation with mechanical and hand restoration tools. The 

Service would minimize the use of fire in other areas 

to protect species of concern like the greater sagegrouse.

The Service would work with partners to address 

wildland–urban interface areas at the Pines Recreation 

Area and other USACE recreation areas. In adherence 

with an approved fire management plan and using historical fire frequency data and current fire conditions, 

the Service would evaluate each wildfire to determine 

the management response and whether the wildfire 

could be used in the patch-burning program.

Invasive Species. Similar to elements in alternatives 

A, B, and C, the Service would work with many partners to combat invasive plants and encourage growth 

of native vegetation. When feasible, the Service 

would also work with USACE and others on habitat 

enhancement to benefit plovers, terns, or other species of Federal and State concern along the shoreline. 

The biological potential and economical feasibility of 

using additional biological control measures would 

be evaluated for safety and effectiveness as a way to 

reduce the use of chemical controls for treatment of 

invasive plant infestations.

Climate Change. Same as alternatives B and C.

Research

Research and monitoring would be designed to understand the interaction between fire, grazing, plant 

response, wildlife populations, and other ecological 

factors. The Service would adopt an active approach 

to using livestock grazing as a management tool by 

shifting from traditional annually permitted grazing to a prescriptive grazing regime for enhancement of wildlife habitats. If monitoring revealed that 

adequate populations of sentinel plant species were 

not viable, changes in livestock permitting such as 

reduced AUMs or retired permits would be initiated. 

Water Resources

In addition to the water resources elements in alternative A, the Service would work with others to 

restore or encourage natural water development 

within streams such as increased flow, pools, and beaver ponds to restore ecological processes. The Service 

would refer to riparian area research and publications 

for guidance on improving water quality in identified 

areas. Additionally, the Service would assess the uses 

and needs of current reservoirs and remove those no 

longer needed for livestock or wildlife.

Wildlife

In collaboration with MFWP and others, the Service 

would maintain the health and diversity of all species’ 

populations (including game, nongame, and migratory 

bird species) by restoring and maintaining balanced, 

self-sustaining populations. This could include manipulating livestock grazing and using hunting to control wildlife numbers, or both, if habitat monitoring 

shows that conditions are declining or plant species 

are being affected by overuse.

The Service would review plans for the Partners in Flight program and joint ventures to identify 

key parameters for improving habitats to support 

grassland-dependent birds. Additionally, the Service 

would collaborate with others to prevent species 

from being listed, primarily through restoring biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health 

across the landscape.

Predator control by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, would be stopped, and 

predators would be managed to benefit the ecological integrity of the refuge.

Reintroductions. Similar to wildlife elements in alternatives B and C, the Service would work collaboratively with MFWP and adjoining landowners to 

identify suitable habitat for Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep and establish new populations using modeling 

and transplant criteria. 

At a landscape scale, the Service would work with 

others on ways to benefit wildlife diversity and health 

such as (1) promoting private conservation easements 

and conservation incentives to benefit species diversity or restore extirpated (eliminated) species, and 

(2) cooperating with MFWP to consider species reintroductions or expansion of species when there is adequate habitat to support the species. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

and Species of Concern

In addition to the elements for threatened and endangered species and species of concern in alternative B, 

populations of the black-tailed prairie dog would 

be expanded to maintain or increase the health and 

diversity of all species’ populations where prairie dogs 

are a critical component. 

PUBLIC USE and EDUCATION

The Service would emphasize quality (versus quantity) wildlife-dependent uses and experiences and 

secure access to the refuge, as described below. 

Quality experiences are based on criteria defined 

in the Service’s policy for wildlife-dependent recreation (FWS 2006c): 

■ promotion of safety

■ compliance with laws

■ minimizing conflicts with other policies or adjacent landowners

■ promotion of accessibility and availability to a 

broad spectrum of visitors

■ promotion of resources stewardship and conservation
Chapter 3—Alternatives 55

Figure 10 follows 

(two foldout pages)
56 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 10. Map of management under CCP alternative D for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Figure 10 (alternative D, west)
Chapter 3—Alternatives 57

 Figure 10 (alternative D, east)

Chapter 3—Alternatives 59

■■ provision of reliable and reasonable opportunities 

to experience wildlife

■■ provision of facilities that are accessible and blend 

into the natural setting

Hunting

Pursuant to Service policies and Federal laws and regulations, the Service would cooperate with MFWP to 

provide hunting experiences that maintain big game 

species and other game species at levels that sustain 

ecological health and improve habitat but that also provide opportunities for quality experiences including 

diverse male-age structures provided by appropriate 

population objectives. When formulating population 

management objectives, the Service would consider 

natural densities, social structures, and population 

dynamics at the refuge level as well as guidance found 

in national policies, such as the biological integrity policy. The Service would allow opportunities for limited, 

compatible, and appropriate hunting and trapping.

Fishing

The Service would cooperate with other agencies 

to enhance fishing opportunities while maintaining 

game species and other species. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Interpretation, Environmental Education, 

and Outreach

Environmental education and interpretation programs would incorporate the Service’s conservation goals in the themes, messages, and activities. 

The Service would provide opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography across diverse habitats that show the full spectrum of plant and animal 

species found in the area.

Access

Refuge access would be primarily managed to benefit natural processes, but some improvements would 

be made to provide quality visitor experiences. Initially, the Service would close about 21 miles of 

roads, implement a seasonal closure along 2.4 miles 

of road 315, and designate 13 miles of roads on the 

northeast side of the refuge as game retrieval roads 

where seasonal closures would be applied. Other closures or modifications could be necessary after further review of the refuge’s road program. This would 

encourage free movement of wildlife, permit prescribed fire or wildfire suppression activities, and 

increase effective harvest of wild ungulates. The 

Service would upgrade about 5 miles of roads to allweather access (gravel), allow more winter fishing 

access, and expand opportunities for quality wildlife observation, interpretation, and environmental 

education through added facilities (trails, viewing 

blinds, and a science interpretive center).

Working with USACE and other agencies, the 

Service would monitor boat use along the Missouri 

River to determine use levels and whether wildlife 

disturbance, particularly during hunting season, was 

an issue. The Service would then work with cooperators and users to manage access where needed to 

limit disturbance to wildlife along the river corridor. 

Motorized vehicle use would be monitored on numbered trails and managed if there is documented disturbance to wildlife or visitors. 

Bicycles would be restricted to numbered roads 

only including seasonally closed roads. The Service 

would provide facilities and services that enable people of all abilities to enjoy the educational and recreational opportunities available on the refuge. 

Recreation Sites

Facilities would be upgraded and designed to meet 

accessibility standards. Camping needs would be 

evaluated as use changes on the refuge, and adaptive management (refer to figure 11) would be used 

to address camping demand, for example, harden the 

frequently used sites to minimize erosion and effects 

on habitat. Camping would be limited to within 100 

yards of numbered routes. 

Commercial Recreation

The Service would only permit commercial recreation when it benefits natural ecological processes or 

habitats. For example, commercial activities could 

be allowed in roadless areas to facilitate big game 

harvest for meeting wildlife and habitat objectives.

WILDERNESS

In addition to the wilderness elements in alternative 

A, the Service would expand or adjust the existing 

proposed wilderness units by 19,942 acres in Alkali 

Creek, Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, East Seven 

Blackfoot, Mickey Butte, Wagon Coulee, Sheep 

Creek, and West Hell Creek to promote and conserve wilderness qualities and characteristics and 

minimize negative effects on existing access. These 

expansions or adjustments are called wilderness 

study areas (see figure 10 and appendix E).

CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

Cultural resources and paleontological resources 

would be protected as identified in alternative A. 

Cultural Resources

Same as alternative B. 

Paleontological Resources

Similar to alternative B.
60 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

REFUGE OPERATIONS and PARTNERSHIPS

The vision and goals would be met through proportionate refuge operations and the refuge’s collaboration with many partners.

Refuge Operations

The refuge relies on personnel, equipment, and facilities to carry out both the day-to-day operations along 

with the long-term programs.

Personnel. Same as alternative C.

Equipment and Facilities. In addition to elements in 

alternative A, the Service would expand facilities at 

Jordan Field Station and provide more office space at 

Jordan and Sand Creek Field Stations. A bunkhouse 

would be built at Fort Peck Field Station. The Service 

would collaborate with others to develop a science 

and interpretive center at Sand Creek Field Station. 

Minerals. Same as alternative B.

Partnerships and Collaboration

In addition to the partnerships and collaboration elements in alternatives B and C, the Service would seek 

ways to highlight refuge resources including the use 

of promotional materials. 

3.8 OBJECTIVES and

STRATEGIES

As discussed in sections 3.1 and 3.3 above, the alternatives stemmed from the planning goals identified in chapter 2. This section describes the specific 

objectives that would achieve the goals and meet 

the emphasis of each alternative. Objectives are 

concise statements of what needs to be achieved; 

how much, when, and where it would be achieved; 

and who would be responsible. To the extent possible, each objective has been developed to be specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and 

time-fixed (FWS 2000c). Timeframes for the objectives are based on the assumption that implementation will begin following the record of decision for the 

final CCP and will occur over 15 years. 

Objectives provide the basis for determining 

strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating success in meeting the goals. Strategies 

are specific tools or techniques used to carry out the 

objectives. An explanation, or rationale, for each 

objective describes how and why the objective’s 

actions are important to achieving the associated 

goal in conjunction with the alternative’s emphasis. 

Each goal title is listed below, followed by the 

associated objectives, rationale, and strategies for 

each of the four alternatives, A–D. Where an objective or strategy is similar or the same as for another 

alternative, this has been noted and for conciseness 

it is generally not repeated.

ORGANIZATION of the

OBJECTIVES and STRATEGIES

The goals are intricately linked in managing habitat, 

wildlife, and water resources; therefore, the objectives for all these goals are grouped in this section 

under two topics, habitat and wildlife.

The habitat objectives are split into four vegetation categories: upland, river bottom, riparian area 

and wetland, and shoreline. There are other objectives for the major factors that influence habitat: 

invasive species, prescribed fire, wildfire, and climate change.

While the habitat objectives would benefit most 

wildlife on the refuge, the following categories of 

wildlife were identified based on scoping comments 

and have specific objectives: birds, threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern, furbearers and small predators, American bison, gray wolf, 

big game (elk, deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, and mountain lion), and other wildlife 

(invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and small 

mammals). Although wild American bison and gray 

wolf are not currently found on the refuge, they are 

discussed.

Objectives for threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern are for the following species: 

black-footed ferret, least tern, pallid sturgeon, piping 

plover, grizzly bear, black-tailed prairie dog, greater 

sage-grouse, mountain plover, burrowing owl, sicklefin chub, and sturgeon chub.

FOCAL, TARGET, and SENTINEL SPECIES

It is important to understand the designations for 

species the Service has identified for management 

and monitoring in the plan, as detailed in the objectives and strategies.

■ A focal bird species is representative of a broader 

group of species that share similar conservation 

needs. It may have restrictive habitat needs or 

be more sensitive to or limited by certain ecological processes or management activities such 

as fire or grazing. For example, an area that 

supports Sprague’s pipit would also support 

western meadowlark, but an area that supports 

western meadowlark would not necessarily support Sprague’s pipit (Lambeck 1997). The Service 

identified 13 focal bird species for habitats on the 

refuge: uplands (6 species), river bottoms (3 species), and riparian areas and wetlands (4 species).
Chapter 3—Alternatives 61

■■ A target wildlife species is one the Service chose 

to manage for specific biological or social reasons. 

A target species could be a focal, endangered, big 

game, or other species. Establishing a huntable 

bighorn sheep population east of Timber Creek is 

an example of a species being targeted for a specific area.

■■ A sentinel plant species is one that vanishes first 

when ecological processes are out of balance. 

The Service identified 23 sentinel plant species 

to monitor as indicators of refuge habitat conditions. An important limiting component for many 

wildlife species is the availability of quality foods 

(White 1978); for example, the sentinel Maximilian sunflower provides valuable wildlife forage, 

fruit, and pollen-producing food plants and is 

desired by both wildlife and livestock.

Refuge staff monitor plants on the refuge.

USFWS
62 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

OBJECTIVES for HABITAT and WILDLIFE

HABITAT—UPLAND

Each species of wildlife that uses the uplands has 

unique habitat needs. Their needs for food, water, 

and protection are different. Ecological processes 

(disturbances) affect each species’ habitat. The major 

disturbances that occur in the uplands are herbivory 

(ungulate grazing) and fire. Uplands exist in alternate states depending largely on the frequency and 

intensity of herbivory and fire.

Prescriptive livestock grazing, as described below, 

is one of the strategies the Service uses, where 

appropriate, to achieve upland habitat objectives. 

What is Prescriptive Livestock Grazing on the Refuge?

Prescriptive livestock grazing is the planned application of livestock grazing at a specified season, duration, and intensity to achieve specific vegetation objectives. The objectives are 

designed to meet the broader habitat and wildlife goals. Rather than managing refuge 

resources to support livestock grazing or other economic uses, livestock grazing is used as a 

habitat management tool to achieve the goals and objectives for wildlife habitat (FWS 2001). 

The Service has been gradually making the transition to prescribed livestock grazing for more 

than 20 years as a result of the 1986 record of decision on an earlier EIS (FWS 1986) and Service policies that resulted from passage of the Improvement Act—compatibility (FWS 2000a) 

and biological integrity (FWS 2001). Current prescribed grazing is applied on about 34 percent 

of the refuge. In practice, these current grazing prescriptions range from variable livestock 

timing and distribution to long-term rest or permanent exclusion. 

Future prescriptive grazing regimens could include short-duration, high-intensity grazing 

treatments to control invasive plants (FWS 2011b); habitat management for specific wildlife 

or focal bird species; or multiple-unit rotational systems to provide long-term rest between 

grazing treatments. These and other prescriptions such as pyric herbivory will be considered 

for achieving habitat objectives and developing a mosaic of desired habitat conditions that support a variety of wildlife species. 

Each alternative would continue the transition to prescribed grazing across the refuge. The 

Service will identify habitat-based objectives to support the life requirements of wildlife species and, where applicable, use grazing as a tool to achieve the required vegetation structure 

and composition.

The Service will communicate with existing and future grazing permittees as habitat management plans are developed. This will help permittees to plan and adapt their operations at the 

same time the Service is applying prescriptive grazing as a management tool to meet habitat 

and vegetation objectives.

Chapter 1, section 1.2, has more information on the Service’s biological integrity policy. Chapter 4, section 4.3, describes 

the history of livestock grazing on the refuge and upland vegetation monitoring. 

Objectives for Upland Habitat, Alternative A

In large part, existing habitat objectives and strategies are based on the decisions resulting from the 

record of decision on the 1986 resource management 

plan and EIS for the refuge (FWS 1986). Although 

many actions have been carried out, under alternative A the upland habitat would be managed according to direction set by this earlier plan. The 1986 plan 

blended objectives and strategies, and these were 

separated to the extent practical to more closely follow the below format used in current CCPs. Rationale statements were pulled from the 1986 plan or 

are based on direction stemming from the plan.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 63

Upland A1. Over 15 years, continue to manage refuge habitats in the 65 habitat units (see figure 16 in 

chapter 4) that were originally established by BLM 

for grazing purposes and that were based on habitat 

management plans (HMPs) developed in the early 

1990s.

Rationale for Upland A1. Each HMP describes wildlife 

habitat issues and provides specific management 

actions—such as grazing seasons of use, prescribed 

fire, planting, and rest—to correct problems from grazing if necessary. These actions would continue to be 

coordinated with BLM in joint pastures; the plans recognized that BLM and the Service have different management objectives for livestock grazing (FWS 1986). 

Upland A2. By 2013, increase the quantity and quality 

of deciduous shrubs using prescribed fire on about 

1,900 acres and on 7,700 acres by 2028. 

Upland A3. By 2013, plant shrubs on about 100 acres 

and on 500 acres by 2028. 

Upland A4. Over 15 years, continue planting shrubs 

on about 25–30 acres per year. 

Rationale for Upland A2–A4. Habitat analysis shows 

that deciduous shrub species are declining in both 

in abundance and vigor on the refuge (see chapter 4, section 4.3), and historical accounts indicate 

shrubs were once more abundant than current conditions. HMPs would determine the best means of 

reestablishing shrubs in each habitat unit: management actions would require adjustments in grazing, 

prescribed fire, and planting, in that order. Shrubs 

would be planted to reestablish a seed source for natural revegetation, and it is estimated that this would 

involve about 25 acres per year depending on the 

success of grazing adjustments and prescribed fire. 

Following prescribed fire or planting, grazing would 

not be allowed until plants are successfully established.

The specified number of AUMs is based on what 

would have been permitted if all grazing permittees exercised their full permitted AUMs. Since 

implementation of the 1986 record of decision, several ranches have sold. Furthermore, livestock grazing permits do not transfer with the sale of a ranch 

(FWS 1982; Schwenke v. Secretary of the Interior, 

720 F.2d 571, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1983).

The 1986 record of decision called for livestock 

grazing to be substantially reduced to improve habitat conditions for wildlife. Each habitat unit (see figure 16 in chapter 4) was examined in terms of existing 

range conditions, slope, water, and soil limitations. 

Concurrently, the Service evaluated wildlife habitat 

conditions by habitat unit and noted deficiencies. In 

most areas where evaluation showed existing livestock–wildlife conflicts, limitations of slope, water, 

and soil were the reason for the necessary grazing 

change. In the remaining areas, grazing adjustments 

allowed the achievement of applicable wildlife objectives. This process found that light grazing (0- to 

35-percent utilization) coupled with various seasons 

of use would achieve the diversity of habitat conditions mandated by the refuge goals and objectives. 

Most livestock grazing would continue on a seasonal 

basis (winter, spring, summer, fall, or combination 

of seasons), although spring turn-in dates would be 

later and grazing would be reduced to light stocking 

levels. Early spring use would be ended.

The use of livestock grazing as a management tool 

would provide habitat conditions to benefit particular wildlife species. In years of below-average forage 

production due to drought, fire, insects, or other natural causes, grazing permits might be suspended in 

whole or in part to minimize damage to habitat and 

wildlife resources.

About 425 miles of fence have been constructed 

between 1986 and 2009, and more fence may be 

required. Fence would be constructed where necessary to achieve objectives; the location of fences 

would be decided after consultation among the concerned parties.

About 34 percent of the refuge is now considered 

to be managed prescriptively (see figure 16 in chapter 4). Based on the rate of change since 1990 when 

habitat management plans were initially completed, 

it is estimated that, within 15 years, 50 percent or 

more of the refuge’s habitat units would be managed 

prescriptively. 

Strategies for Upland A1–A4 Many of these strategies 

are the tools selected in the record of decision from 

the 1986 EIS.

R■ By 2013, fence at least one habitat unit. Fence 

other parts of the boundary if problems arise 

with unauthorized livestock use. Construct only 

a limited amount of interior fencing. 

R■ Over 15 years, continue a gradual move toward 

prescriptive grazing (on 50 percent or more of 

the refuge). Make the transition only when units 

become available through sale of a ranch to a 

third party or habitat evaluations are completed, 

or both, and when prescriptive grazing is identified as necessary to meet wildlife or habitat objectives. (Refer to the prescriptive grazing text box 

for a definition and description.)

R■ Over 15 years, use grazing at current levels to 

keep existing plant communities at desired habitat conditions at light livestock grazing levels.

R■ Over 15 years, conduct a monitoring program to 

figure out if more changes in grazing would need 

to be made on specific areas not responding to 

upland management.
64 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

R■ Construct fences where necessary to achieve 

agency objectives, with locations to be decided 

after consultation among the concerned parties 

from when HMPs were written. 

R■ Construct fences in the best and most practical 

locations. 

R■ Construct boundary fence to be 42 inches high 

and three-strand with 12 inches between wires. 

In areas where pronghorn would likely encounter 

fences, place the bottom wire 18 inches above the 

ground and use smooth wire (Paige 2008).

R■ Potentially locate new water facilities or apply 

grazing systems designed to meet objectives for 

both the Service and BLM in suitable common 

pastures.

R■ Upgrade habitat evaluation criteria as information becomes available.

R■ Continue inventorying and monitoring wildlife 

and habitat at existing levels including monitoring of residual cover and sentinel plants.

R■ Establish sampling techniques to monitor at prescribed intervals the long-term changes in wildlife habitat and range conditions. Use different 

treatments for habitat if evaluations show that 

wildlife objectives were not met. 

R■ Phase out cooperative farming and haying along 

bottomlands of the Missouri River. Use lure cropping (planting crops to draw elk to those areas) 

on the refuge’s west end to decrease elk depredation on adjoining private croplands. Install about 

6 miles of fence (900 acres) to protect selected 

riparian areas from livestock and enhance shrub 

reproduction.

R■ End sheep grazing on the refuge unless needed on a 

prescriptive basis to manipulate vegetation.

R■ Continued to emphasize big game management, 

annual livestock grazing, fencing, invasive species control, and water development. 

Objectives for Upland Habitat, Alternative B

The Service would manage the upland grassland–

shrub mosaic and conifer–grassland mosaic with 

prescriptive grazing and prescribed fire. The management emphasis would be on single target wildlife species or focal bird species in separate uplands 

of the refuge, largely based on the recommendations 

of Olaus Murie’s original biological assessment (refer 

to chapter 4). Management criteria would focus on the 

food, protection, and water needs of each target wildlife species or focal bird species (refer to bird objectives, which follow habitat objectives, for a description 

of focal bird species). Where needed, using artificial 

food resources would be provided to promote wildlife 

populations. Refer to the prescriptive grazing explanation in the introduction for “Habitat—Upland” 

objectives. 

Upland B1. Within 3 years, develop new HMPs for 

target or focal bird species (primarily elk, pronghorn, and sharp-tailed grouse) that are defined in 

Olaus Murie’s 1935 biological assessment (refer to 

chapter 4). Base HMPs on habitat units that are ecologically similar. Develop specific habitat evaluation 

and management plans for each sentinel and target 

species or focal bird species. 

Upland B2. Within 3 years, in cooperation with universities, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and other partner scientists and 

statisticians, continue to develop and modify methods to identify, inventory, and monitor habitat needs 

and management actions for target species or focal 

bird species.

Upland B3. Over 15 years on 30–50 percent of the refuge, improve overall habitat conditions based on 

HDPs and sentinel plant monitoring where 70-percent residual cover is achieved with viable populations of sentinel plant species by managing herbivory 

through time and place (to achieve 25–50 percent of 

selected populations of sentinel species that reach the 

height and fruit-bearing potential in locations without physical protection on all four sides of plants).

Upland B4. Within 5 years, work with range ecologists 

and biostatisticians to establish a protocol to assess 

wildlife habitat conditions. Every 7–10 years, monitor habitat health to evaluate conditions for meeting 

wildlife needs.

Upland B5. Over 15 years, maintain existing densities 

or populations of fire-intolerant big sagebrush on fire 

refugia to support sage-dependent species in each of 

the habitat units to restore shrub diversity in the 

shrub-steppe uplands.

Rationale for Upland B1–B5. Much of the focus for the 

upland objectives is based on the earliest assessment of the refuge and surrounding area. In August 

1935, Olaus J. Murie, a renowned wildlife biologist 

for the U.S. Biological Survey (eventually the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service), traveled to the proposed 

game range and filed his Report on the Fort Peck 

Migratory Bird Refuge (Murie 1935). This report 

was the first biological assessment of the existence 

and abundance of plants and wildlife species. Murie 

documented the abundance of many plants—yellow 

pine or ponderosa pine, cottonwood, willow, juniper, 

grasses including grama grasses, buffaloberry, and 

snowberry—along with wildlife species including 

mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, black-footed 

ferret, coyote, and sharp-tailed grouse. Additionally, 

Murie identified species (elk, bison, and Audubon 

bighorn sheep) for which he found evidence of earlier occupation, and he discussed whether they could 

or should be reintroduced. Murie’s biological assess-
Chapter 3—Alternatives 65

ment would be used to inform the basis for the target wildlife species or focal bird species emphasized 

under alternative B. 

While several habitat units have recovered from 

past abuse, current monitoring has identified several units that are not meeting their stated habitat 

objectives as identified in 1986 EIS and associated 

HMPs. Alternative B would remove annual livestock 

grazing from the refuge in all habitat units that are 

fenced separately from surrounding lands. Only prescriptive grazing would be permitted; the transition 

would occur within 4–7 years of plan implementation. 

Continuing construction of the refuge boundary fence 

would be a priority so that all refuge lands would have 

the potential for best wildlife management practices. 

Removal of interior fencing would also be a priority 

due to the ending of annual grazing; interior fences 

would be removed from units enrolled into prescriptive grazing to facilitate the movement of all ungulates. Prescriptive grazing practices could then be 

applied to larger areas if needed. Fence removal and 

construction would be an ongoing process that would 

take time and would need to be prioritized. As a 

result, the Service estimates that only 75 percent 

of the refuge would convert to prescriptive grazing; however, if money and resources allowed, more 

areas would be converted over 15 years.

Reducing the number of HMPs and developing 

HMPs along field station boundaries or units that are 

ecologically similar would increase efficiency in managing for a prescriptive grazing and fire regime. The 

habitat needs (food, water, and cover) for each target 

or focal species would be provided across large landscapes. Managing in larger habitat blocks instead of 

65 fenced units would (1) allow for increased longdistance animal movement (animals move greater 

distances to seek the best forage due to patch burns), 

and (2) enable the refuge to target the differing habitat needs (food, cover, and water) of each target species. 

Wildlife population surveys and habitat surveys 

would show improving or worsening conditions for 

focal wildlife populations. Additionally, surveys 

would provide measures of the success of habitat 

treatments using the HDP method and procedures 

developed to monitor the food, protection, and water 

needs of each focal wildlife species. The HDP method 

records the height of visual obstruction of plant cover. 

A measuring pole is observed at points along a line 

transect from a set distance and angle. It provides a 

measure of residual cover remaining after livestock 

grazing has occurred. 

Sentinel plant species (refer to appendix F) are 

early warning indicators for ecosystems—they are 

the first species to decline or vanish in ecological 

systems when evolutionary natural processes such 

as herbivory, predation, and fire change. The Service has been monitoring the health of these important plant species on the refuge since 2003 and has 

found that some are beginning to diminish due to 

the changes to natural processes that have occurred. 

Different species of sentinel plants are adapted to 

all the temperature, moisture, and physical gradients present on the refuge and are more sensitive to 

changes in management or environmental conditions 

than general plant communities.

Viable populations should include large collections 

of sentinel plants that are mature and bearing abundant fruit or seeds, young plants recently sprouted 

from seed, and all intermediate stages. While sentinel species would not be emphasized under this alternative, they would still be included. Service personnel 

are working with Oklahoma State University, WEST, 

Incorporated, and NRCS to develop monitoring techniques for sentinel plants. This work would identify the 

key sentinel plant species for fire and herbivory, evaluate various survey techniques, and develop methods 

for measuring changes in populations and robustness. 

Refer to the rationale under alternative D for more 

discussion about sentinel plants.

Upland habitat is important to the lazuli bunting. 

Dave Menke / USFWS
66 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Strategies for Upland B1–B5

R■ Within 4–7 years, develop a prescriptive livestock-grazing plan for 50–75 percent of the refuge 

in all locations where boundary fences or cooperative agreements with wildlife conservation partners exist. 

R■ Over 15 years, fence 50–75 percent of the unfenced 

refuge boundary or the boundary established 

with wildlife conservation partners. 

R■ Over 15 years, evaluate the success of management treatments with population surveys or 

habitat surveys (height–density plots [HDPs] or 

sentinel plants [refer to appendix F], or both). 

Develop adaptive management strategies (refer 

to section 3.12 and figure 11) if wildlife populations 

or habitats are not responding as anticipated.

R■ Within 2 years, determine the habitat needs and 

current conditions for focal wildlife species on 

specific sites. 

R■ Continue to work with range ecologists and use 

existing knowledge from current monitoring to 

develop adaptive management strategies as new 

information is acquired.

R■ Continue current HDP readings and conduct 

HDP surveys to measure residual cover within 

25–50 percent of the areas currently absent of 

livestock.

R■ Within 3 years, develop new HMPs based on recommendations found in Olaus Murie’s field notes. 

In HMPs, include effective implementation of 

new management strategies (such as prescriptive 

grazing, prescribed fire and wildfire return, habitat monitoring and enhancement, and food plots) 

that promote desired habitat conditions. 

R■ Within 4–7 years, carry out prescriptive grazing, 

prescribed fire, and habitat restoration and consider the use of artificial food resources to promote 

wildlife populations with emphasis on single-species management based on recommendations in 

Olaus Murie’s original biological assessment.

R■ In cooperation with universities, NRCS, and 

other partner scientists and statisticians, continue to develop and modify methods to identify, 

inventory, and monitor sentinel plant species. 

R■ Identify areas for implementing pyric herbivory 

to restore historical fire-return intervals and the 

fire–grazing interaction including concentrated 

herbivory coupled with long periods of abandonment (rest) to increase the amount and diversity 

of palatable plants to reduce selectivity for sentinel species.

R■ If monitoring for the population viability of herbivory-sensitive sentinel plant species within a 

unit shows a declining population, take the following actions: (1) stop prescriptive livestock 

grazing in the unit; and (2) cooperate with MFWP 

to manage elk, deer, and bighorn sheep to meet 

objectives in MFWP’s management plans for the 

Missouri River Breaks. Where monitoring shows 

habitat conditions and sentinel plants are stable, 

work with MFWP to manage for higher deer and 

elk populations (refer to objectives for big game).

R■ Evaluate success of habitat treatments by using 

HDPs and sentinel plant monitoring in permanently established trend sites to assess the population viability of all plant species and structural 

heterogeneity of the landscape.

R■ Over 15 years, remove 25–50 percent of the interior fences where prescriptive grazing is fully 

implemented and construct refuge boundary 

fences where absent, on priority basis. Possibly 

expand boundary fences to include partner lands 

that share the same objectives and strategies. 

R■ Hire seasonal employees for fence removal and 

professional fence builders for boundary fence 

construction of remaining fences (the remaining 

boundary fences are located in the most difficult 

terrain). 

R■ Implement prescriptive grazing across the refuge through the development and implementation of HMPs by working with BLM, DNRC, 

conservation districts, and permittees. Use prescriptive grazing only on Service-managed lands. 

Because it is possible that prescriptive grazing 

practices on Service lands may negatively affect 

current permittees that graze BLM, DNRC, and 

other Service lands, work with DNRC as budgets 

allow to mitigate any loss of revenue by assuming 

leases on these pastures. (Same as C and D).

R■ Manage with MFWP the total ungulate effects 

collectively rather than each species alone. 

Objectives for Upland Habitat, Alternative C

The Service would manage the present habitat units 

to improve habitat condition with domestic and wild 

ungulates as defined by NRCS ecological site condition and management guidelines.

Upland C1. Within 7 years, develop new HMPs (based 

on factors such as soil characteristics, historical fire 

occurrence, grazing, and field station boundaries) in 

cooperation with NRCS. Within HMPs, include fencing 

for better livestock distribution, water development, 

prescriptive grazing, and other management techniques designed to improve habitat condition. (Refer 

to the prescriptive grazing explanation in the introduction for “Habitat—Upland” objectives.)

Upland C2. Within 3–6 years, in cooperation with 

NRCS, conduct ecological site evaluations on habitat 

units with boundary fences that permit control over 

livestock numbers and management. Continue cur-
Chapter 3—Alternatives 67

rent HDP surveys and conduct surveys in 50 percent 

of the areas currently absent of livestock to measure 

residual cover.

Upland C3. Over 15 years, develop pyric herbivory 

(relying on fire and wildlife grazing interaction) programs for habitat units where boundary fences or 

cooperative agreements with wildlife conservation 

partners exist and where physical features allow for 

efficient use of fire as a management tool. 

Upland C4. Over 15 years, evaluate the success of prescriptive grazing and the pyric herbivory program 

with HDPs and sentinel plant monitoring in locations where the Service has the capability to manage ungulates effectively (no common pastures, 

and large enough refuge acreage). Measure success through a comprehensive monitoring program 

that evaluates changes in viability, distribution, and 

robustness of individual sentinel plants within established plots. Develop adaptive management changes 

if sentinel plants continue to decline (refer to section 

3.12 and figure 11). Adhere to the Service’s information quality guidelines and peer review of scientific 

information (FWS 2011a). (Same as Upland D3.)

Upland C5. Over 15 years, improve habitat conditions, 

based on HDPs and sentinel plant monitoring, on 

20–40 percent of the refuge. Manage habitat conditions for a minimum of 70-percent residual cover and 

viable populations of sentinel species where 30–60 

percent of selected sentinel species populations are 

able to reach height and fruit-bearing potential in 

locations without physical protection on all four sides 

of plants. 

Upland C6. Within 2–4 years, begin working with 

range ecologists and biostatisticians to develop and 

establish a protocol to assess the effectiveness of the 

sentinel species concept on select areas of the refuge 

absent of livestock. Every 7–10 years, monitor habitat health, heterogeneity, and ecosystem resilience 

(the ability to recover from disturbance or stress). 

(Same as Upland D4.)

Upland C7. Over 15 years, increase both the population viability and a 1- to 5-percent increase in coverage by winterfat, saltbush, grey rubber rabbitbrush, 

and other fire-adapted sentinel species on sites with 

remnants of these species.

Upland C8. Over 15 years, maintain existing stands or 

densities of fire-intolerant big sagebrush on fire refugia 

to support sage-dependent wildlife species in each of 

the habitat units while restoring shrub diversity in the 

shrub-steppe uplands (such as fire refugia, sage-grouse 

leks, and the UL Bend Refuge). (Same as Upland 

D6.)

Upland C9. Over 15 years, increase both the population viability and a 1- to 5-percent increase in coverage by purple prairieclover, white prairieclover, 

dotted gayfeather, purple coneflower, stiff sunflower, 

and other sentinel forb species as appropriate to 

sites with remnants of these species across 5–10 percent of the refuge.

Rationale for Upland C1–C9. Alternative C would keep 

livestock in habitat units that are currently permitted 

to local, family ranch operations. Some highly nutritious plant species such as saltbush, white prairieclover, and golden currant are highly preferred by both 

livestock and wild ungulates. These same plant species are also important to pollinators, birds (for seeds 

and insects), and other wildlife species. Livestock 

and wild ungulates are competitive for sentinel plant 

species, the first to decline from herbivory. To preserve and restore biodiversity to the extent possible, wild ungulate numbers may need to be reduced.

HMPs would include fencing for better livestock 

distribution, water development, rotational grazing, 

and other management techniques designed to 

improve range condition.

As habitat units become vacant (no livestock), they 

may be combined with other vacant or permitted 

units to carry out a prescriptive grazing program, 

prescribed fire, or other habitat restoration tools to 

achieve excellent range condition, based primarily 

on the health of the grass community. Range condition would be improving if range communities were 

kept at, or moving toward, an ecological site condition 

rating of high (NRCS 2003). Ecological sites that are 

similar to the historical or potential community have 

a higher condition rating than dissimilar sites. Ecological sites are based on soil, moisture, and vegetation 

potentials of different parts of the landscape. 

Strategies for Upland C1–C9

R Over 15 years, carry out a prescriptive grazing 

program on up to 50 percent of the refuge by continuing the practice of holding grazing permits as 

ranches sell their lands to outside parties. 

R Within 3–6 years, determine the species of plants 

first to decline (sentinel species) due to herbivory 

and fire and due to lack of herbivory and fire in 

areas absent of livestock. Continue current HDP 

surveys and conduct HDP surveys within 50 percent of the areas currently absent of livestock to 

measure residual cover.

R In cooperation with universities, NRCS, and other 

partner scientists and statisticians, continue to 

develop and monitor methods to identify, inventory, and monitor sentinel plant species. 

R Over 15 years, carry out a prescriptive grazing program on about 50 percent or more of the 

habitat units by continuing the practice of holding grazing permits as ranches sell their lands to 

outside parties.
68 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

R■ Improve the population viability of herbivorysensitive sentinel plant species in three ways: 

ungulate number control, prescribed fire, and 

periods of rest.

R■ If monitoring for the population viability of herbivory-sensitive sentinel plant species shows a 

declining population, cooperate with MFWP to 

manage deer, elk, and bighorn sheep to meet the 

objectives in MFWP’s management plans for the 

Missouri River Breaks.

R■ Manage all species of ungulates (wild and domestic) collectively and work cooperatively with others to address the effects of all ungulates rather 

than address each species alone. Where annual 

livestock grazing is permitted, compensate for the 

livestock forage use where and when possible by 

reducing the wild ungulate population levels.

R■ In habitat units with prescriptive livestock grazing only, manage the landscape with pyric herbivory to restore historical fire-return intervals and 

the fire–grazing interaction. 

R■ In habitat units with prescriptive livestock grazing only, use concentrated herbivory coupled 

with long periods of abandonment to increase 

the amount and diversity of palatable plants to 

reduce selectivity for sentinel species. 

R■ Evaluate the success of habitat treatments (to 

achieve population viability of all species and structural heterogeneity of the landscape) with a focus 

on sentinel plant species, HDPs, and population 

viability analysis at permanently established trend 

sites.

R■ As HMPs for prescriptive grazing are developed 

for vacant habitat units, remove interior fences 

within the units where only prescriptive livestock grazing is permitted and construct refuge boundary fences where absent. Potentially 

expand boundary fences to include partner lands 

that share the same objectives and strategies. 

Coordinate the construction of boundary fences 

to facilitate a move to a prescriptive grazing program with BLM, DNRC, and local ranches.

R■ Hire seasonal employees for fence removal and 

professional fence builders for boundary fence 

construction of remaining fences, which are 

located in the most difficult terrain.

R■ Implement prescriptive grazing across the refuge 

through the development and implementation of 

HMPs by working with BLM, DNRC, conservation districts, and permittees. Use prescriptive 

grazing only on Service-managed lands. Because 

it is possible that prescriptive grazing practices 

on Service lands may negatively affect current 

permittees that graze BLM, DNRC, and Service 

lands, work with DNRC as budgets allow to mitigate any loss of revenue by assuming leases on 

these pastures. (Same as B and D.)

Objectives for Upland Habitat, Alternative D

The Service would promote ecological resilience, 

restore the pyric herbivory, promote animal movement with long periods of abandonment to reduce 

plant species selectivity, and increase landscape species and structural heterogeneity, and improve wildlife diversity. The objectives also address the goals 

identified in the Service’s Climate Change Strategic Plan (FWS 2010c). Although the upland habitat 

objectives are intended to improve conditions for a 

broad range of resident and migratory wildlife species that use the refuge, the objectives would complement the Service’s efforts toward bird conservation 

and protecting and enhancing threatened and endangered species and species of concern (refer to chapter 1, section 1.4). The Service has identified six focal 

bird species for monitoring the health of uplands: 

long-billed curlew, Sprague’s pipit, Baird’s sparrow, brown creeper, sharp-tailed grouse, and greater 

sage-grouse (refer to the objectives for birds that follow the habitat section and section 4.3 in chapter 4).

Upland D1. Within 5 years, develop new HMPs including inventory and monitoring plans based on soil 

characteristics, historical fire occurrence, and hunting district boundaries. Include effective implementation of new management strategies (prescriptive 

pyric herbivory, prescribed fire and wildfire return, 

and sentinel plant monitoring and enhancement) 

that achieve desired habitat conditions and restore 

ecological resilience. (Refer to Upland D7 and its 

rationale for a definition of success. Refer to the prescriptive grazing explanation in the introduction for 

“Habitat—Upland” objectives.)

Upland D2. Within 6–9 years, consolidate the 65 habitat 

units into 3–8 units for restoration of the pyric herbivory, long-distance animal movement, long periods 

of abandonment, reduced selectivity for sentinel species, and increased landscape species and structural 

heterogeneity (diversity or dissimilar species within 

a landscape) to promote resilience and stability of 

ecological systems.

Upland D3. Same as Upland C4.

Upland D4. Same as Upland C6. 

Upland D5. Over 15 years, increase both the population viability and a 10- to 15-percent increase in 

coverage by winterfat, saltbush, grey rubber rabbitbrush, and other fire-adapted sentinel species on 

sites with remnants of these species across 20–30 

percent of the refuge. (See the end of Upland D7 for 

criteria for successful implementation.)

Upland D6. Same as Upland C8. 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 69

Upland D7. Over 15 years, increase both the population viability and 10- to 15-percent increase in coverage by purple prairieclover, white prairieclover, 

dotted gayfeather, purple coneflower, stiff sunflower, 

and other sentinel forb species as appropriate to the 

sites with remnants of these species across 20–30 percent of the refuge to restore diversity, promote the 

ecological resilience of highly palatable, summergrowing forbs, and enhance the required habitat of 

the focal bird species identified in the bird objectives.

Successful implementation of Upland D5–D7 objectives 

would be defined as follows: 

■■ Fifty percent of populations of winterfat, saltbush, grey rubber rabbitbrush, and other fireadapted sentinel shrub species are able to reach 

their height and fruit-bearing potential and successfully recruit young plants into the populations on uplands without physical protection 

during normal weather conditions.

■■ Fifty percent of populations of chokecherry, 

golden currant, redosier dogwood, green ash, silver buffaloberry, aspen, cottonwood, limber pine, 

and other fire-adapted sentinel species are able to 

reach their height and fruit-bearing potential and 

successfully recruit young plants into the populations in coulees and riparian areas.

■■ Populations of purple prairieclover, white prairieclover, dotted gayfeather, purple coneflower, stiff 

sunflower, Maximilian sunflower, and other sentinel forb species increase in coverage on remnant 

sites by approximately 10 percent over 15 years. 

■■ Fire-intolerant species are maintained in areas 

that did not burn or where there is a low firereturn interval. 

■■ Habitat is enhanced to meet the needs of focal 

bird species (refer to bird objectives below).

Rationale for Upland D1–D7. As described under alternative B, while several existing habitat units have 

recovered from past abuses, there are currently several units that are not meeting their stated habitat 

objectives as identified in the 1986 EIS and associated HMPs. A principal focus of alternative D is the 

directive found in the Service’s Biological Integrity, 

Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (FWS 

2001). Additionally, using the concepts of resilience 

management (Resilience Alliance 2007), the Service 

would strive to improve the resilience in the refuge’s 

ecological systems. Key components of resilience 

management include major ecological processes or 

disturbances, alternate stable states, thresholds 

between states, adaptive cycles, cross-scale interactions, interventions, and management. 

The concept of sentinel species monitoring is not 

new. In 1947, Aldo Leopold discussed diagnostic 

plant species that were early to respond to ungulate 

grazing pressure (Leopold et al. 1947). More recently, 

focal species are understood to be the individual wildlife species that have the most stringent limitations 

for area, dispersal, or resources or are limited by ecological processes (Lambeck 1997). While animal species are clearly the best indicators of habitat area 

and dispersal needs, plant species (as suggested by 

Landsberg and Crowley, 2004) are important indicators of habitat quality and the ecological processes 

that sustain it. An important limiting component for 

many, if not most, animals is the availability of quality foods (White 1978). Even generalist herbivores 

prefer the highest quality plants (Mysterud 2006), 

which are the first to decline or disappear. Sentinel 

plant species include the most valuable wildlife forage, fruit, and pollen-producing food plants. Sentinel 

species are also important indicators for monitoring biological diversity (Cousins and Lindborg 2004, 

Cushman et al. 2008, Gibson and Bosch 1996, Noss 

1990, Rogers and Biggs 1999, Simberoff 1998), which 

are a critical component of wildlife conservation and 

a defining purpose of the Refuge System. Monitoring 

for sentinel plants is a key measure of success or failure of the Service’s desire to promote ecological resilience by managing for natural and diverse processes.

Resilience is the ability to absorb disturbances, to 

be changed, and then to reorganize and still have the 

same identity, that is, keep the same basic structure 

and ways of functioning. A resilient system is forgiving of external shocks; a disturbance is unlikely 

to affect the whole. As resilience declines, the magnitude of a shock from which it cannot recover gets 

smaller. A resilient habitat (1) sustains many species 

of plants and animals and a highly variable structural composition; (2) is asymmetric; (3) exemplifies 

biological integrity, biological diversity, and environmental health; and (4) adapts to climate change 

(Resilience Alliance 2007). 

In contrasting stability and resilience, Holling 

(1973) writes, “A management approach based on 

resilience, on the other hand, would emphasize the 

need to keep options open, the need to view events in 

a regional rather than local context, and the need to 

emphasize heterogeneity. Flowing from this would 

be not the presumption of sufficient knowledge, but 

the recognition of our ignorance; not the assumption that future events are expected, but that they 

will be unexpected. The resilience framework can 

accommodate this shift of perspective, for it does not 

require a precise capacity to predict the future, but 

only a qualitative capacity to devise systems that 

can absorb and accommodate future events in whatever unexpected form they may take.” 

The following sources have more information 

about managing ecological resilience: Gunderson and 

Holling (2002), Walker and Salt (2006), Norberg and 

Cumming (2008), and the Resilience Alliance (2007).
70 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Maximilian Sunflower

Jeff McMillian / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

As part of the actions needed to improve the resiliency of the refuge’s habitats, alternative D emphasizes restoration of the environmental processes, 

plants, and animals that have been damaged. This 

alternative calls strongly for the return of the evolutionary forces of fire and herbivory that shaped this 

landscape during the past 6,000 years (Higgins et al. 

1986). Total ungulate effects and fire effects on plant 

communities would be measured with sentinel species. More discussion on sentinel plants is in chapter 4, section 4.3. A list of the sentinel species is in 

appendix F. 

When declining trends are found or when competition for resources results in habitat damage, livestock numbers would be reduced or eliminated before 

wild ungulates. The Service estimates it could convert 

about 75 percent of the refuge to prescriptive grazing 

due to the need to add or remove fences. Much of the 

fencing work that remains is in rugged terrain, and 

the work would need to be prioritized. As money and 

resources allowed, the refuge would continue to convert to prescriptive grazing over 15 years. 

Since the demise of the wild bison in 1881 (FWS 

2010d), the fire-return interval has lengthened on 

the refuge, and the fires that do occur are often more 

intense than commonly happened historically (Frost 

1998). Figure 18 in chapter 4 shows the fire frequency 

intervals found on the refuge. This map would continue to be checked and updated for accuracy, but it 

currently provides a good representation of fire frequency. The fire–grazing interaction (which included 

intense herbivory after fire, long-distance movement, 

and years of abandonment) was replaced by constant 

grazing and no fire with the transition to ranches, 

fences, and livestock. The landscape changed from 

patches of diverse habitats to a more uniform landscape as a result of constant fire suppression and 

annual grazing within fenced pastures (Fuhlendorf 

and Engle 2001). Today, many species of plants that 

are fire-adapted, fire-dependent, or highly palatable 

have been locally eliminated or reduced to remnants. 

In the uplands, the formerly diverse shrub-steppe 

community now supports extremely low populations 

of fire-adapted, palatable shrub species such as saltbush, winterfat, silver sagebrush, and grey rubber 

rabbitbrush. The landscape today is almost a monoculture of relatively unpalatable and fire-intolerant 

big sagebrush. In addition, highly palatable forbs 

such as white prairieclover are gone from most sites. 

Introduced plants such as Japanese brome and yellow 

sweetclover have prospered in this environment and 

have replaced native species that are more valuable. 

The lack of variety in management strategies has 

additionally reduced the heterogeneity of plant community structure.

These changes have affected wildlife populations. 

For example, grassland bird species have declined 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 71

at a faster rate than any other guild of terrestrial 

birds in North America (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001, 

Knopf 1994). Particularly affected are the focal bird 

species and sentinel habitats that are positioned at 

the ends of natural processes such as those species 

that live in the wake of recent fire or require long 

periods of no disturbance, such as Baird’s sparrow 

(Green et al. 2002) and Sprague’s pipit (Robbins et 

al. 1999, FWS 2010e). Also affected are species that 

require a wide diversity of vegetation structure, 

plant species, and insect species within their home 

ranges such as sharp-tailed grouse and greater sagegrouse. There are similar concerns for some small 

mammals, invertebrates, and other wildlife groups. 

See the bird objectives below for more literature 

about focal birds.

Upland health would be restored on the refuge 

by reestablishment of historical fire-return intervals 

and the historical fire–grazing interaction. There 

would be careful control of the numbers of all ungulate species (both wild and domestic) to compensate 

for the overgrazing effects of the last 100–150 years. 

However, the Service would protect sagebrush areas 

that are important for greater sage-grouse (refer to 

prescribed fire objectives below).

Inventory and monitoring procedures would 

focus on sentinel plant species and focal bird species 

that have been most severely affected. Monitoring 

would also include the grasses and other plants to 

ensure that all species’ populations are viable.

Strategies for Upland D1–D9

R■ Within 2–4 years, fully determine the species of 

plants that are first to decline and the cause of the 

decline (refer to appendix F for the list of existing 

sentinel species). Tie habitat monitoring to focal 

bird species monitoring (for more information, 

refer to bird objectives below; chapter 4, section 

4.3; and appendix F).

R■ Continue to work with range ecologists and use current monitoring results, along with newly acquired 

information, to develop adaptive management strategies. Make sure monitoring protocols meet Service 

information quality guidelines (FWS 2011a).

R■ In cooperation with universities, NRCS, and other 

partner scientists and statisticians, continue to 

develop and monitor methods for identification, 

inventory, and monitoring of sentinel plant species. 

Reduce HDP monitoring as sentinel plant–monitoring procedures are developed that efficiently 

and consistently monitor habitat conditions. 

R■ In cooperation with NRCS, reestablish populations of sentinel plant species on 50 percent of the 

sites where they have been eliminated.

R■ Evaluate important habitat areas for focal bird 

species where fire would be detrimental and protect those areas (refer to prescribed fire objectives in the next section).

R■ Improve the population viability of herbivorysensitive sentinel plant species in four ways: 

(1) control numbers of ungulates (domestic and 

wild); (2) coordinate management of ungulates 

and fire; (3) reduce selectivity by ungulates for 

sentinel species through pyric herbivory; and (4) 

manage for long (several-year) periods of rest or 

abandonment.

R■ When monitoring of the population viability of 

herbivory sensitive sentinel plant species indicates a declining population, manage livestock 

grazing by reducing AUMs or the season of use 

or by resting areas. If sentinel plant populations 

continue to decline after elimination of livestock 

grazing, explore opportunities to promote periods of rest or abandonment for sensitive areas. 

If sentinels continue to decline due to herbivory 

pressure, work with MFWP to reduce the numbers of large ungulates throughout the Missouri 

River Breaks to levels lower than objectives in 

MFWP’s management plans.

R■ Manage the landscape with pyric herbivory to 

restore historical fire-return intervals and the 

fire–grazing interaction including concentrated 

herbivory coupled with long periods of abandonment to increase the amount and diversity of 

palatable plants to reduce selectivity for sentinel 

species. 

R■ Evaluate the success of habitat treatments (the 

population viability of all species and the structural heterogeneity of the landscape) using 

methods developed by universities, NRCS, the 

Service, or other scientists. Focus on viability 

analysis of sentinel plant species populations at 

permanent trend sites.

R■ As HMPs for prescriptive grazing are developed, 

conduct fence projects based on defined priorities 

to achieve removal of interior fences on about

10–25 percent of the refuge and construction of 

boundary fences where absent. Use practical 

fencing strategies in cooperation with other landowners in areas where topography is too rugged. 

Hire seasonal employees for fence removal and 

professional fence builders for boundary fence 

construction; the remaining boundary fences are 

located in the most difficult terrain.

R■ Within 6–9 years, implement prescriptive grazing and pyric herbivory across 50–75 percent of 

the refuge to restore the resilience and stability 

of ecosystems on the refuge through the development and implementation of HMPs by working with BLM, DNRC, conservation districts, 

and permittees. Use prescriptive grazing only on 

Service-managed lands (refer to the prescriptive 
72 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

grazing explanation in the introduction for “Habitat—Upland” objectives). Because it is possible 

that prescriptive grazing practices on Service 

lands may negatively affect current permittees 

that graze BLM, DNRC, and Service lands, work 

with DNRC as budgets allow to mitigate any loss 

of revenue by assuming leases on these pastures. 

(Same as C and D).

R■ Coordinate the construction of boundary fences 

to facilitate moving to prescriptive grazing with 

BLM, DNRC, and local ranches. Communicate 

with permittees as HMPs are developed so they 

can make plan and adjust their operations for 

future grazing needs.

HABITAT—RIVER BOTTOM

River bottoms are areas above high pool of the lake 

exclusively on the west end of the refuge and within 

the original floodplain of the Missouri River. These 

areas consist of former agricultural fields that are now 

infested with invasive plants. There are 17 river bottoms totaling 5,000–7,000 acres on the west end of 

the refuge. Two river bottoms are undergoing restoration, and the other 15 areas have about 4,500–6,000 

acres that need the removal of invasive plants (refer 

to figure 20 in chapter 4). The plant communities left 

on the river bottoms have now mostly been invaded by 

Russian knapweed, leafy spurge, smooth brome, and 

quackgrass, which have very little value to wildlife. 

Restoration of the river bottoms would consist of 

a healthy native plant community including those that 

would have occurred on the river bottoms 150 years 

ago. Climax river bottom communities include, but are 

not limited to, Maximilian sunflower, diamond bark willow, sand bar willow, redosier dogwood, green ash, 

cottonwoods, and grasses. 

Objectives for River Bottom Habitat, 

Alternative A

Refuge staff started restoring 160 acres of bottomlands in 2005 and an additional 160-acre project 

began in 2009 on the west end of the refuge.

River Bottom A1. Over 15 years, continue working 

with partners and pursuing outside funding to restore native plants to river bottoms.

Rationale for River Bottom A1. A healthy diverse native 

plant community in the river bottoms would enhance 

wildlife diversity and populations in addition to promoting biological diversity, ecological integrity, and 

environmental health. Healthy stands of native plants 

withstand or outcompete many nonnative species 

and create many more niches than that of monoculture food plots or invasive plants.

Restoring river bottoms with native species would 

allow these areas to perform their natural ecological 

function of trapping sediment during floods, which 

promote cottonwood regeneration. In addition, these 

native plants provide valuable wildlife habitat for 

numerous species. Vibrant native species would promote resilience and resist invasive species invasions 

in the future.

Strategies for River Bottom A1

R■ Start five to seven small, bottomland, restoration 

projects over 15 years. 

R■ Continue to restrict livestock from all bottomlands. 

Objectives for River Bottom Habitat, 

Alternative B

Similar to upland objectives for alternative B, three 

bird species, all migratory birds, were selected as 

focal species for monitoring the health of river corridors: red-eyed vireo, Brewer’s blackbird, and veery. 

For more information about the objectives for these 

species, refer to the bird objectives for alternatives 

B and D below; chapter 4, section 4.3; and appendix F.

River Bottom B1. Within 1–3 years, identify and rank 

according to priority and resource value all former 

farm fields on river bottoms that have been invaded 

by invasive plants for food plot potential. Develop 

a comprehensive plan that identifies methods and 

timeframes for completing each phase. 

River Bottom B2. Within 2–4 years, work with NRCS 

and cooperators to develop treatment plans for each 

bottomland, which address equipment needs, grants, 

partnerships, and a farming plan and identify types 

of food plots to be planted at each site to maximize 

game populations. 

River Bottom B3. Within 3–5 years, begin implementing the approved management plan on the first river 

bottom on the priority list.

River Bottom B4. Over 15 years, complete a minimum 

of 30–40 percent of the identified projects for invasive plant removal. If time, personnel, and funding 

allows, start one new river bottom per year until all 

identified bottoms have a food plot present.

River Bottom B5. Over 15 years, continue to monitor and 

spot treat all invasive plants that may become established after removal of invasive plants is completed. 

Rationale for River Bottom B1–B5. An aggressive 

approach toward removing invasive plants would be 

taken. Work would include burning, discrete spraying with herbicides and planting wildlife food crops 

to clear invasive plants (Anderson 1985). An herbicide such as Roundup® would be used initially to kill 

invasive grasses such as smooth brome and quackgrass. Following this, a broadleaf herbicide could 

be used if needed, unless invasive grasses encroach 

again. A short-term grazing application could be nec-
Chapter 3—Alternatives 73

essary in areas where herbicides cannot be used or 

where it would be beneficial to control invasive species (FWS 2011b). When the bottoms are treated and 

replanted to wildlife food crops, they would attract 

elk, deer, upland birds, and waterfowl. Wildlife numbers should increase with food plots and, therefore, 

allow for more hunting opportunities. 

Strategies for River Bottom B1–B5

R■ Plant the lower priority bottoms to nongenetically modified organism alfalfa or grain crops to 

remove invasive plants and provide wildlife value. 

R■ Continue restricting domestic livestock grazing 

from the river bottoms unless a short-term grazing application is needed to control invasive species.

R■ Continue to seek partnerships for projects already in progress to remove invasive plants in 

river bottoms.

R■ Continue to seek outside funding opportunities 

such as grants from The Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation and other cooperators to secure necessary money to acquire equipment and supplies 

as needed.

R■ Hire a grant writer to pursue more funding avenues 

to secure money for weed removal projects. 

R■ Clean former river bottoms through the application of herbicides and farming. If money permits, 

hire a biological technician who is knowledgeable 

in planting crops to start work on the first river 

bottom on the priority list. 

R■ Work with NRCS and cooperators using knowledge gained from prior projects and experiences 

to establish methods of operation.

R■ Coordinate work with the road maintenance staff 

to fix roads necessary to safely access river bottoms. Some areas would have to be accessed by 

foot or horse. 

R■ Initially burn areas to be planted and have the 

Service’s weed strike team spray invasive plants. 

Plant areas with wildlife food crops to clear invasive plants. Follow with native plantings after 

invasive plants have been removed to meet 

national and regional priorities.

R■ Over 15 years, continue to monitor and spot treat 

all invasive plants that may become established. 

Objectives for River Bottom Habitat, 

Alternative C

River Bottom C1. Within 4–6 years, identify all river 

bottoms in need of invasive plant removal and develop 

plans for each. Include use of cooperative farmers to 

complete invasive plant removal work using a variety of methods including seeding of native plants 

and possible nongenetically modified organism crops 

such as alfalfa or other cereal grain (use Roundup® 

initially to treat an area before planting).

River Bottom C2. Over 15 years, complete 50–60 percent 

of the identified projects for invasive plant removal 

(to restore these areas to healthy, native plant communities that are essential for wildlife habitat and 

resistance to invasive plant invasions; Colorado State 

Parks 1998). 

Rationale for River Bottom C1–C2. The Service would 

rely on partnerships with cooperative farmers to 

restore the river bottoms. The use of cooperative 

farmers with the necessary equipment and knowledge would allow the Service to treat more areas in 

less time and with fewer refuge resources. Initially, 

there could be a short-term increase in the use of 

chemicals like Roundup® to kill invasive grasses like 

smooth brome or quackgrass, but this would soon be 

eliminated so plants would not build up a resistance 

to it. Other herbicides like MilestoneTM would be 

used for spot spraying. Only nongenetically modified 

organism crops would be allowed for planting, due to 

the likelihood of weeds becoming resistant to treatment. The number of weed removal projects would 

depend on the number of local farms interested in 

entering into cooperative farming contracts with the 

refuge. Short-term livestock grazing could be used 

in areas where herbicides cannot be used or where it 

would be beneficial to control invasive species (FWS 

2011b).

The refuge would reinstate farming on river bottoms for up to 15 years so local individuals could get 

an economic benefit from the crops produced while 

weed seeds were eliminated. A contract inspector 

would be hired to discuss options with contractors 

and ensure that the terms of the special use permit 

were being followed. 

Wildlife and people would benefit from the reduction in invasive plants and the eventual return of a 

healthy native plant community.

Strategies for River Bottom C1–C2

R Continue restricting domestic livestock grazing 

in the river bottoms. 

R Continue invasive plant removal of river bottoms 

already in progress.

R Solicit interested parties to farm river bottoms 

in need of invasive plant removal, and, if money 

permits, hire a biological technician knowledgeable in invasive plant removal work to oversee all 

removal of these plants in river bottoms.

R After invasive plant removal plans are developed, solicit and identify individuals and cooperators interested in farming the river bottoms in 

need of invasive plant removal and develop cooperative farming contracts (contracts to contain 

acceptable methods to be used for invasive plant 
74 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

removal of river bottoms, for example, the area 

to be plowed on each individually identified river 

bottom, herbicides acceptable for use, crops that 

can be planted, invasive plant reduction necessary, time tables for replanting native seed mixtures, and penalties to be incurred if the contract 

is not fulfilled). 

R■ Identify the native plant mixture to be planted 

at the end of the contract and use penalties if the 

contractor defaults on the contract.

R■ Maintain roads and repair access roads to river 

bottoms as needed (some may be service roads 

only).

R■ On the third year, contract holders begin reducing 

the invasive plants present by spraying or plowing predetermined areas and by planting them 

with mutually agreed-on crops (crop production 

becomes the property of the contract holder following compatibility determination).

R■ Use ecological site descriptions prepared by 

NRCS as a baseline for determining grass and 

forb planting mixture, but change as necessary to 

promote sustainable big game populations. Purchase seed mixture for planting by a contractor 

or cooperator.

R■ On contract completion, plant native shrubs and 

trees and protect the new plantings from browsing with exclosures until they are able to grow 

out of the browse zone.

R■ Over 15 years, monitor and spot treat all invasive 

plants that may become established. 

Objectives for River Bottom Habitat, 

Alternative D

Similar to upland objectives for alternative D, three 

bird species, all migratory birds, were selected as 

focal species that are important for monitoring the 

health of river corridors: red-eyed vireo, Brewer’s 

blackbird, and veery. For more information about the 

objectives for these species, refer to the bird objectives for alternatives B and D below; objectives for 

threatened and endangered species and species of 

concern below; chapter 4, section 4.3; and appendix F.

River Bottom D1. Similar to B1, except food plots would 

not be used for restoration, but work could be contracted. 

River Bottom D2. Within 2–4 years, work with NRCS 

and cooperators to develop restoration plans for each 

bottomland necessary to carry out the comprehensive restoration plan. Address in treatment plans the 

equipment needs, invasive species control, a farming plan, native plant composition mix for planting, 

grants, and partnerships.

River Bottom D3. Within 3–5 years, begin implementing the approved restoration plan on the first river 

bottom on the priority list.

River Bottom D4. Over 15 years, develop and carry out 

a habitat-monitoring plan to determine success of 

invasive plant removal efforts. Make adjustments to 

ensure successful native plant restoration.

River Bottom D5. Over 15 years, complete 20–30 percent 

of the identified restoration projects (more if funding 

is available). If time, personnel, and funding allows, 

start one new river bottom project every 2 years until 

all are restored to healthy native plant communities. 

Rationale for River Bottom D1–D5. The approach toward 

removing invasive plants in river bottoms would be 

slightly less aggressive than in alternative B and 

would be more gradually carried out. This is due 

to the expense and time needed to establish native 

plants.

Native plant communities that once existed on 

these bottoms have been unable to reestablish themselves. This is most likely due to a lack of viable seed 

sources and competition from nonnative species. 

Once established, the correct combination of native 

forbs, shrubs and grasses, such as Maximilian sunflower, wild licorice, basin, wildrye, green needlegrass, redosier dogwood, and silver buffaloberry 

would be highly competitive with nonnatives (Riley 

and Wilkinson 2007). NRCS’ ecological site description has a complete list of native plants that most 

likely occurred on these sites (NRCS 2009). 

Refuge staff would continue to consult with NRCS 

range specialists and design a restoration program 

that includes prescribed fire, herbicide application, 

short-duration grazing to reduce invasive species 

(FWS 2011b), tilling, and native seed planting. 

Strategies for River Bottom D1–D5. Similar to B, 

except:

R When native forbs and grasses are reestablished, 

plant native shrubs in the fields and protect them 

from browsing by total exclosures until they 

are able to grow out of the browse zone. Water 

shrubs and trees four to six times during the first 

summer they are planted.

HABITAT—RIPARIAN AREA and WETLAND

Riparian habitat areas include wetland and upland 

vegetation associated with rivers, streams, and other 

drainage ways. Riparian and wetland areas provide 

important habitat for a variety of wildlife species, ranging from reptiles and amphibians to upland mammals 

and many birds. While riparian areas occupy a small 

proportion of the landscape, wildlife and livestock 

depend on these areas more than any other habitat 

type (Kaufman and Krueger 1984, Johnson et al. 1977, 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 75

Ames 1977). The ability of a riparian site and its associated stream reach to perform normal riparian functions determines the health of the site. Other important 

functions of riparian vegetation include sediment filtering, streambank stabilization, water storage and 

aquifer recharge, and dissipation of streamflows (Hansen et al. 1995). Considering the importance of riparian 

areas, the alternatives similarly emphasize the maintenance or restoration of healthy riparian zones.

Objectives for Riparian Area and Wetland 

Habitat, Alternative A

Alternative A would continue managing riparian 

areas according to actions or directions set in the 

1986 EIS, even though many have already been 

implemented. 

Riparian Area and Wetland A1. Over 15 years, continue 

managing migratory bird habitats (riparian areas) 

first for production and then for use during migration. 

Riparian Area and Wetland A2. Over 15 years, continue improving and maintaining riparian habitat on 

the Missouri and Musselshell Rivers and other suitable riparian areas in good to excellent condition to 

benefit wildlife species such as elk, white-tailed deer, 

raccoons, beaver, waterfowl, kingbirds, mourning 

doves, American kestrels, and turkeys.

Rationale for Riparian Area and Wetland A1–A2. Keeping 

with the priorities and direction set by the 1986 record of decision through HMPs, livestock grazing 

would be managed to promote waterfowl habitat in 

good or excellent condition. Livestock ponds would 

be maintained and new ones constructed.

Fencing would be used to exclude livestock from 

the vast majority of the riparian habitats along the 

Missouri and Musselshell Rivers. Livestock has been 

excluded by fencing in a few other important riparian 

areas (for example, Rock Creek in Phillips County and 

Bobcat Creek in McCone County). Through changes 

in ranch ownership, management changes, and other 

factors, livestock grazing has been reduced or eliminated from several other habitat units and conditions 

in these riparian habitats are improving. 

A contractor was hired in 1995–97 to evaluate 

riparian conditions and was hired for the 2009 season 

to conduct a survey that reevaluated current riparian 

conditions and function and compared them to earlier 

surveys (Ecological Solutions Group 2009). Another 

contractor was hired to monitor the effects of the exclosure on Rock Creek (refer to chapter 4). Restoration 

practices such as shrub and tree plantings were started 

in Rock Creek/Bug Creek Habitat Unit, Hawley Creek 

and Telegraph Creek areas. A local group of farmers 

and ranchers along the Lower Musselshell River hired 

the same contractor to design a riparian area monitoring plan and gather baseline data from Mosby to the 

refuge at Fort Peck Reservoir. Additionally, USGS 

conducted a 5-year study to gage streams on the refuge (Sando et al. 2009). Montana Department of Environmental Quality conducted water quality sampling 

on the refuge in 2006–07 (refer to chapter 4). 

Strategies for Riparian Area and Wetland A1–A2. None.

Objectives for Riparian Area and Wetland 

Habitat, Alternative B

Similar to upland and river bottom habitats, four 

focal bird species have been identified for monitoring the health of riparian areas and wetlands: ovenbird, Cordilleran flycatcher, black-billed cuckoo, and 

western wood-pewee. For more information about 

the objectives for these species, refer to the bird 

objectives for alternatives B and D below; objectives 

for threatened and endangered species and species 

of concern below; chapter 4, section 4.3; and appendix F. The following objectives are targeted toward 

improving riparian area and wetland conditions for 

all wildlife species on the refuge.

Riparian Area and Wetland B1. Within 2–4 years, 

carry out management actions to restore the health 

of those streams identified as “nonfunctional” 

(unhealthy), or “functional at risk” (healthy, but 

with problems). Reassess in 10–15 years using the 

Lotic Wetland Health Assessment Survey (Ecological Solutions Group 2011) to measure achievement 

of at least 85 percent of the 82 miles of stream and 

1,300 acres of riparian areas that, when resurveyed, 

have improved to the next category (“nonfunctional” improved to “functional at risk” and “functional at risk” improved to “functioning”). Maintain 

95 percent of the reaches assessed as “functioning” 

(healthy) in the 2009 survey (Ecological Solutions 

Group 2009) at that level.

Riparian Area and Wetland B2. Over 15 years, remove 

all reservoir and stock ponds that do not support 

species of concern (for example, northern redbelly 

dace and finescale dace) and, adhering to any permit requirements, begin restoration of the natural 

hydrology of the drainage. Determine if more stock 

ponds are needed to meet the needs of target species. Coordinate with Montana Department of Environmental Quality for impoundment plans to ensure 

consistency with the total maximum daily load 

assessments and water quality restoration plans. 

(Same as Riparian Area and Wetland D2.)

Any stock pond removal would depend on the 

outcome of the adjudication of water rights 

through the Montana Reserved Compact Commission (refer to chapter 4, section 4.2, “Water 

Resources”). Stock pond removal and riparian 

area restoration could require more permitting through USACE or through coordination 

with other Federal and State agencies.
76 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Riparian Area and Wetland B3. Within 4–6 years, 

for those reservoirs and stock ponds that cannot 

be removed due to species of concern, maintain or 

improve these areas for amphibian, reptile, bird, or 

fish use. (Same as Riparian Area and Wetland D3.)

Riparian Area and Wetland B4. Over 15 years, survey 

the current health of a representative sample of segments of the Missouri River using the “U.S. Lotic 

Wetland Health Assessment for Large River Systems” (Ecological Solutions Group 2011). (Same as 

Riparian Area and Wetland C5 and D4.)

Riparian Area and Wetland B5. Within 5–7 years, resurvey the current health of segments previously 

surveyed on the Musselshell River by the University of Montana, Riparian and Wetland Research 

Program, between 1999 and 2000 using the “U.S. 

Lotic Wetland Health Assessment for Large River 

Systems” (Ecological Solutions Group 2011). (Same 

as Riparian Area and Wetland C6 and D5.)

Riparian Area and Wetland B6. Over 15 years, construct 

wildlife-friendly fence based on highest need as determined by current river health assessments along 

Missouri and Musselshell Rivers where prescriptive 

livestock grazing would be occurring (Paige 2008). 

(Same as Riparian Area and Wetland C7 and D6.)

Riparian Area and Wetland B7. Over 15 years, identify 

locations along riverbanks in need of stabilization and 

revegetation and restore 50 percent of those locations. 

Adhere to all regulatory permitting requirements.

Riparian Area and Wetland B8. Within 7–10 years, describe the habitat requirements of the focal species 

and carry out the habitat and population monitoring 

protocol on 25–50 percent of the river. Over 15 years, 

further develop the program on 50–75 percent of the 

refuge and ensure monitoring is tied to focal bird 

species as described under the bird objectives below.

Rationale for Riparian Area and Wetland B1–B8. The 

first priority for riparian area restoration would 

be those sites already found to be nonfunctioning 

as identified by the latest riparian area study completed in the summer of 2009 (Ecological Solutions 

Group 2009). 

Restoration measures would vary depending on 

the condition and trend of the riparian-wetland habitat. Considerations should include the potential of 

the site; desired plant community; stabilization of 

streambanks and elimination of hoof bank-shearing 

(where impacts from hooves shear off bank segments); 

value of site for forage production; and amount of vegetation stubble required to trap and hold sediment 

deposits during runoff events. For instance, if one of 

the objectives for a riparian-wetland area is streambank stability, then woody vegetation vitality should 

be of utmost importance due to the vastly different 

streambank stability protection afforded by the woody 

vegetation when compared to the herbaceous vegetation (Hansen 1992). Also to be considered are water 

quality and quantity issues, wildlife, aesthetic values, 

amount of time for restoration, and reduction of erosion and maintenance of soil production (Hansen 1992). 

Key species vary with the potential of each site. 

The Riparian and Wetland Research Program, University of Montana, developed the key to riparian 

and wetland sites of the refuge (Hansen 1995, Parker 

et al. 1996). This reference should be used whenever 

possible. Willows and other large woody vegetation 

(such as trees) filter large waterborne organic material and their root systems provide streambank stabilization. Sedges, rushes, grasses, and forbs capture 

and filter out the finer materials while their root 

masses help stabilize streambanks and colonize filtered sediments (Hansen 1992). 

The objectives and strategies recognize the habitat value of stock ponds. Phytoplankton (algae) is 

consumed by zooplankton, insects, crustacean, and 

tadpoles that live in ponds. Larger invertebrates, 

amphibians, reptiles, fish and birds also will use a 

stock pond. (NRCS 2005b).

Fencing would be used to exclude livestock from 

the vast majority of the riparian habitats along the 

Missouri and Musselshell Rivers. Livestock has been 

excluded by fencing in a few other important riparian 

areas (for example, Rock Creek in Phillips County 

and Bobcat Creek in McCone County). Through 

changes in ranch ownership, management changes 

and other factors, livestock grazing has been reduced 

or eliminated from several other habitat units and 

conditions in these riparian habitats are improving. 

Strategies for Riparian Area and Wetland B1–B8

R Contract with a qualified riparian habitat consultant to resurvey riparian areas surveyed by 

Cook et al. (1996), Parker and Hansen (1996), 

Thompson and Hansen (1998 and 1999), Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality (2001), 

and Ecological Solutions Group (2009) to determine current health.

R Set priorities for stream restoration using 

Thompson and Hansen (1999) (functioning versus nonfunctioning streams) and USGS gauge 

information. Establish more permanent stream 

gauging stations on refuge. Identify species of 

concern that are being affected by nonfunctioning 

streams, and identify dams on private and BLM 

land off refuge that have the ability to influence 

stream health on the refuge. Define realistic and 

attainable management objectives for the site or 

stream reach.

R Set priorities for stream restoration based on 

water rights or the ability to influence stream 

health.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 77

R■ Locate key areas for monitoring in representative parts of the riparian-wetland areas as well as 

in the uplands.

R■ Determine the amount of vegetation stubble 

required to trap and hold sediment deposits during runoff events to rebuild streambanks and 

restore and recharge aquifers.

R■ Reestablish vegetation along streambanks using 

willow cuttings, tree revetments, perennial grasses 

or other streambank stabilization planting techniques. 

R■ Restore the refuge prairie streams by using exclosures in riparian areas, applying prescriptive 

livestock management, rehabilitating stock reservoirs that are no longer needed and planting 

riparian species, placing salt and mineral blocks, 

establishing or improving off-stream watering sites, installing stable access points to limit 

streambank trampling, requiring permittees to 

use riders to keep herds out of riparian areas, 

considering different turn-in locations, placing 

instream structures such as boulders to increase 

the water tables (Fitch and Adams 1998, Leonard 

et al. 1997, Kaufman and Krueger 1984, Ehrhart 

and Hansen 1997, Wyman et al. 2006).

R■ Restore the beaver colonization of perennial and 

intermittent streams.

R■ Seasonally restrict livestock access to wetlands or 

limit duration and intensity of use and establish 

water troughs with escape ramps (troughs should 

not be placed in locations that lead to unacceptable effects on important upland habitats (Pilliod 

and Wind 2008). Where livestock have to cross a 

stream, construct a bridge, water gap, or streambed crossing.

R■ Encourage livestock to move away from the 

stream through several methods such as conducting prescribed burns of uplands to regenerate 

desirable species or placing salt and supplemental feed in upland areas.

R■ Apply rangeland rest wherever and whenever 

possible.

R■ Incorporate applicable regulatory compliance (such 

as wetlands permitting or dam safety requirements) into stock pond removal efforts.

R■ Within stock ponds, incorporate logs for amphibians and turtles to bask; fish, frogs, and salamanders to lay eggs; and birds to perch.

R■ Provide a buffer of woody vegetation around part 

of constructed earthen livestock watering ponds.

R■ Design a monitoring plan that would evaluate the 

effectiveness of the management plan (grazing 

management must be flexible enough to accommodate changes).

R■ Monitor vegetation community change in response 

to management actions by using the U.S. Lotic 

Wetland Inventory (Ecological Solutions Group 

2011) to record species canopy and habitat type 

or community type covers on a reach of stream 

and its riparian zone. Quantify such vegetative 

variables as invasive plants, undesirable herbaceous species, and the structure and diversity of 

the plant community. 

R■ Determine site potential, existing vegetation types 

and desired plant community or desired future 

condition. Continue to exclude livestock from 

riparian areas if possible.

R■ Follow Hoitsma Ecological, Inc.’s (2006) recommendations for future riparian area efforts along 

Telegraph Creek as well as the refuge staff’s restoration efforts from 1991 to 1993 in the Rock 

Creek/Bug Creek Habitat Unit and Hawley 

Creek. 

R■ Supervise frequently to avoid adverse effects such 

as trampling damage to streambanks and excessive use.

Objectives for Riparian Area and Wetland 

Habitat, Alternative C

Riparian Area and Wetland C1. Within 2–4 years, 

carry out management actions to restore the health 

of those streams identified as “nonfunctional” 

(unhealthy), or “functional at risk” (healthy, but 

with problems). Reassess in 10–15 years using the 

Lotic Wetland Health Assessment Survey (Ecological Solutions Group 2011) to measure achievement 

of at least 60 percent of the 82 miles of stream and 

1,300 acres of riparian areas that, when resurveyed, 

have improved to the next category (“nonfunctional” improved to “functional at risk” and “functional at risk” improved to “functioning”). Maintain 

85 percent of the reaches assessed as “functioning” 

(healthy) in the 2009 survey (Ecological Solutions 

Group 2009) at that level.

Riparian Area and Wetland C2. Within 10 years, evaluate current stock ponds and determine which ponds 

need to be rehabilitated or eliminated and determine 

if more ponds are needed to meet NRCS range conditions across the unit. For those reservoirs and stock 

ponds that cannot be removed due to species of concern, maintain or improve these areas for fishing or 

livestock use. (See strategies for pond management.)

Riparian Area and Wetland C3. Within 5 years, determine the potential of selected sites and desired plant 

community to stabilize streambanks and eliminate 

hoof bank-shearing.

Riparian Area and Wetland C4. Over 15 years on priority streams, raise the elevation of the present water 

table; improve or maintain water quality and quan-
78 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

tity; stabilize the streambanks; and establish proper 

stream channels, streambanks, and floodplain conditions and functions. 

Riparian Area and Wetland C5. Same as Riparian Area 

and Wetland B4 and D4.

Riparian Area and Wetland C6. Same as Riparian Area 

and Wetland B5 and D5.

Riparian Area and Wetland C7. Same as Riparian Area 

and Wetland B6 and D6.

Riparian Area and Wetland C8. Same as Riparian Area 

and Wetland D7.

Rationale for Riparian Area and Wetland C1–C8. Similar to 

alternative B, except fewer miles of streams would 

improve to the next condition due to a slower transition to prescriptive grazing. Management of riparian 

resources is geared toward maximizing livestock grazing and recreation while keeping a balance with other 

needs. Service resources would be allocated with the 

priority on improving ponds for livestock and recreation, only indirectly benefiting wildlife. With those 

resources, more ponds could be established using 

pond management. Fewer resources under large 

river objectives would be available for revegetation, 

restoration, and monitoring. Also, no resources would 

go toward restoring natural hydrology of first-, second-, and third-order streams.

Historical grazing by large herds of wild bison 

and other ungulates included long periods of rest 

after intensive disturbance such as drought, fire, and 

grazing. Wild bison did not linger in riparian areas 

(Van Vuren 1981, Fuhlendorf et al. 2008) and did not 

use an area all season long. Cattle spend a disproportionate amount of time in riparian areas (5–30 times 

longer) (Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). 

Strategies for Riparian Area and Wetland C1–C8. Same 

as B, plus:

R Monitor utilization annually, but determine progress in reaching long-term resource objectives 

(such as streambank stabilization, rebuilding of 

the streamside aquifer, and the reestablishment 

of beaver or fish habitat) over a longer period. 

Develop targets for riparian-wetland areas that 

would do the following:

— maintain both herbaceous species and woody 

species, where present, in a healthy and vigorous state and promote their ability to reproduce and maintain different age classes in the 

desired riparian-wetland plant community

— leave sufficient plant residue necessary to 

protect streambanks during runoff events and 

provide for adequate sediment filtering, and 

dissipation of floodwater energy

— be consistent with other resource values and 

objectives such as for aesthetics, water quality, water quantity, and wildlife populations

— limit streambank shearing and trampling to 

acceptable levels

R■ Stock ponds with predatory largemouth bass 

and prey species such as bluegill, yellow perch, 

golden shiners, or fathead minnows (stocking 

rates are 100 2-inch largemouth bass per acre and 

500 l-inch bluegill per acre (FWS 1994b)). Protect 

populations for 5 years.

R■ Use techniques in “A Guide for Building and 

Managing Private Fish Ponds in Montana” 

(MFWP 2006a) to address water quantity and 

quality; watershed and soil analysis; design and 

construction including contour, depth, and water 

exchange; excavation; revegetation; stocking; and 

pond management.

Objectives for Riparian Area and Wetland 

Habitat, Alternative D

Similar to upland and river bottom, several focal 

bird species have been identified for monitoring the 

health of riparian and wetland areas: ovenbird, Cordilleran flycatcher, black-billed cuckoo, and western 

wood-pewee. Refer to the bird objectives for alternatives B and D below; objectives for threatened, and 

endangered species and species of concern below; 

chapter 4, section 4.3; and appendix F.

Riparian Area and Wetland D1. Within 2–4 years, carry 

out management actions to restore the health of those 

streams identified as “nonfunctional” (unhealthy) or 

“functional at risk” (healthy, but with problems). 

Reassess in 10–15 years using the Lotic Wetland 

Health Assessment Survey (Ecological Solutions 

Group 2011) to measure achievement of at least 75 

percent of the 82 miles of stream and 1,300 acres of 

riparian areas that, when resurveyed, have improved 

to the next category (“nonfunctional” improved to 

“functional at risk” and “functional at risk” improved 

to “functioning”). Maintain 90 percent of the reaches 

assessed as “functioning” (healthy) in the 2009 survey (Ecological Solutions Group 2009) at that level.

Riparian Area and Wetland D2–D3. Same as Riparian 

Area and Wetland B2–B3.

Riparian Area and Wetland D4. Same as Riparian Area 

and Wetland B4 and C5.

Riparian Area and Wetland D5. Same as Riparian Area 

and Wetland B5 and C6.

Riparian Area and Wetland D6. Same as Riparian Area 

and Wetland B6 and C7.

Riparian Area and Wetland D7. Over 15 years, provide alternate water sources for cattle away from 

riparian areas and sensitive upland sites, on a pri-
Chapter 3—Alternatives 79

ority basis, where prescriptive grazing is needed to 

accomplish habitat objectives.

Riparian Area and Wetland D8. Over 15 years, identify locations along riverbanks in need of stabilization and revegetation, and restore 50–75 percent of 

those locations.

Riparian Area and Wetland D9. Over 15 years, restore 

natural hydrology of five first-, second-, and thirdorder streams that would normally flow into the Missouri and Musselshell Rivers.

Rationale and Strategies for Riparian Area and Wetland 

D1–D9. Similar to B, but slightly fewer miles may be 

improved due to a less aggressive schedule for implementing prescriptive grazing. All restoration would 

be incorporated into focal bird species monitoring.

HABITAT—SHORELINE

The shoreline is a highly dynamic area that fluctuates 

based on lake levels. Shoreline habitat is defined as 

the vegetation found between current lake level and 

high pool elevation. This habitat type is used by wildlife during periods of drought when lake levels drop.

Objectives for Shoreline Habitat, 

Alternative A

No objectives were developed for the 1986 EIS for 

shoreline management. Currently, the Service does 

not manage the shoreline but does cooperate with 

USACE in their efforts to treat invasive species 

along the shoreline.

Shoreline A1. When completed, cooperate with USACE 

and others in implementing the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan, to address habitat needs 

for threatened and endangered species and other 

species along the shoreline. (Same as Shoreline B1, 

C1, and D1.)

Rationale for Shoreline A1. USACE has primary jurisdiction for management of the lakeshore areas 

including treating saltcedar infestations; therefore, 

the refuge does not take the lead role in managing 

the shoreline. The Service would defer to the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan to guide 

management of this habitat and provide aid as 

requested. The Service is working in cooperation 

with USACE and other partners to develop the plan 

(USACE 2009b) to meet the habitat needs of various 

threatened and endangered species such as piping 

plover, least tern, and pallid sturgeon. Once this restoration plan is completed, refuge staff would cooperate to carry out any recommendations that come 

out of the plan.

Continual water fluctuations and changes in 

shoreline exposure result in constant infestations of 

saltcedar along the exposed shoreline. The Service 

would continue to collaborate with USACE in treating saltcedar, both above and below the high water 

line. The invasive species discussion below has more 

details.

(Same as B, C, and D.)

Strategies for Shoreline A1. None.

Objectives for Shoreline Habitat, 

Alternative B

Focal bird species were not selected for shoreline 

habitat because the shoreline is a highly dynamic 

area that fluctuates based on lake levels. Potential 

focal bird species such as piping plover and least 

tern are totally dependent on the shoreline for nesting and the adjacent water for food. USACE has primary jurisdiction for management of the lakeshore. 

Shoreline B1. Same as Shoreline A1, C1, and D1.

Shoreline B2. Over 15 years, continue to cooperate 

with USACE and other partners—such as nongovernmental organizations, neighboring counties, and 

the State of Montana—in treating a minimum of 200 

acres of invasive plant species per year that colonize 

Fort Peck Reservoir and the Missouri River shorelines. (Same as Shoreline A2, C2, and D2.)

Rationale for Shoreline B1–B2. The actions would be 

similar to alternative A, but treating invasive species would be more aggressive.

Strategies for Shoreline B1–B2

R Maintain water gap structures as the shoreline 

recedes.

R Coordinate invasive plant control by meeting and 

cooperating with USACE and other partners to 

share information and discuss control strategies. 

The spotted sandpiper uses shoreline habitat.

Dave Menke / USFWS
80 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

R■ Use integrated pest management and review literature for updated information on control techniques.

R■ Map all treatment sites.

R■ Monitor and re-treat areas to prevent reinfestation. 

R■ Restore bare areas resulting from saltcedar 

removal to native plant cover and monitor results.

R■ Obtain help with invasive plant control and monitoring by pursuing additional funds through partnerships, grants, and invasive species programs. 

R■ Deploy early detection and rapid response strategies to attack newly found infestations before 

they become large and costly initiatives. 

R■ Within 1 year, invite all parties who have an 

interest in invasive plant control to pool their 

resources and to coordinate control and restoration methods.

R■ Over 15 years, when funds are available, continue to help USACE in controlling saltcedar and 

restoring cottonwood.

R■ Over 15 years, continue to help USACE with 

historical plover and tern surveys so that data 

remains consistent.

Objectives for Shoreline Habitat, 

Alternative C

Shoreline C1. Same as Shoreline A1, B1, and D1.

Shoreline C2. As funding permits, cooperate with 

any potential partners—such as USACE, nongovernmental organizations, neighboring counties, and 

the State of Montana—in treating a minimum of 250 

acres of invasive plant species per year that colonize 

Fort Peck Reservoir and Missouri River shorelines.

Rationale for Shoreline C1–C2. Same as A, except the 

Service would work with others to treat more areas 

of the shoreline.

Strategies for Shoreline C1–C2. Same as B.

Objectives for Shoreline Habitat, 

Alternative D

Shoreline D1. Same as Shoreline A1, B1, and C1.

Shoreline D2. Same as Shoreline B2.

Rationale and Strategies for Shoreline D1–D2. Same as B.

HABITAT—FIRE MANAGEMENT

Fire management and habitat management are inseparable, thus objectives for prescribed fire and 

wildfire were developed to support the achievement 

of habitat objectives for the four vegetation categories—upland, river bottom, riparian area and wetland, and shoreline.

The terms and concepts for wildland fire, prescribed fire and wildfire, are based on Federal interagency policy (National Wildfire Coordinating Group 

2011, USDA and DOI 2009). Wildland fire is any nonstructure fire that occurs in the wildland including 

prescribed fire and wildfire. Response to wildland 

fire is based on consideration of a full range of fire 

management actions. These include allowing a fire 

to be managed to achieve benefits where possible 

and taking suppression action when those benefits 

are not attainable or when there is a likely negative effect on important resources or adjacent lands. 

Fire management actions may include controlling 

the fire’s perimeter, protecting a specific area with 

highly valued resources, and monitoring fire conditions and activity.

Prescribed Fire

A prescribed fire is any fire ignited by management 

actions to meet specific objectives. A prescribed fire 

is conducted under a project-specific prescription of 

needed conditions such as weather, fuel moisture, 

and soil moisture. The prescription is designed to 

confine the fire to a predetermined area and produce 

the intensity of heat and rate of spread required for 

the fuel consumption that would accomplish objectives.

The Service is a member of the Montana/Idaho 

Airshed Group. The group comprises State, Federal, 

tribal, and private member organizations who are 

dedicated to the preservation of air quality in Montana and Idaho. Members work cooperatively to prevent smoke impacts while using fire to accomplish 

land management objectives. Each member that 

conducts prescribed burns in Montana is required to 

have an annual air-quality, major, outdoor-burning 

permit issued by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 

Objectives for Prescribed Fire, Alternative A

Prescribed Fire A1. Continue with the 1986 record of 

decision strategy of treating existing plant communities with prescribed fire to achieve desired habitat 

conditions.

Rationale for Prescribed Fire A1. Habitat analysis 

shows some deciduous shrubs have diminished on the 

refuge, and historical accounts indicate shrubs were 

once more abundant than they are today. A combination of actions would be taken to improve the present 

situation; these actions could include adjustments in 

livestock grazing, burning, and planting.

Strategies for Prescribed Fire A1

R (From the 1986 EIS) Increase the quality and 

quantity of deciduous shrubs by prescribed burning 525 acres per year. Following burning or 

planting, allow no livestock grazing for 2–3 years 

or longer, if necessary, to ensure successful establishment of desired vegetation.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 81

R■ Carry out a prescribed fire program to protect 

fragile habitats, valuable coniferous areas, important wildlife habitats, recreational developments, 

and other private and refuge developments.

Objectives for Prescribed Fire, Alternative B

Prescribed Fire B1. Within 2–4 years, revise the fire 

management plan.

Prescribed Fire B2. Within 5 years, determine priority units where prescribed fire would be used to 

meet the habitat needs of target species or focal bird 

species or where needed to reduce hazardous fuel. 

(Same as Prescribed Fire D2.)

Prescribed Fire B3. Develop a patch-burning system 

using wildland fire to annually improve at least 2,500 

acres of habitat suitable for target species and focal 

bird species. Additionally, reestablish the natural fire 

regimes (fire occurs on average every 8–70 years) for 

fire refugia on about 30,000 acres using prescribed 

fire and wildfire managed for resource benefit. (Same 

as Prescribed Fire D3.)

Prescribed Fire B4. Within 5–7 years, develop prescribed fire plans for the major habitat units.

Prescribed Fire B5. Within 1–2 years, work with the 

Ecological Services branch of the Service to identify 

what, and how, critical habitat for threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern would be 

adversely affected by prescribed fire and incorporate into the fire management plan. (Same as Prescribed Fire C4 and D5.)

Prescribed Fire B6. Over 15 years, use prescribed fire 

and wildfire managed for resource benefit to restore 

the natural ecological process of fire and to reduce 

the encroachment of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir 

into the dry needlegrass–wheatgrass prairie by 5–10 

percent. (Same as Prescribed Fire C5 and D6.)

Prescribed Fire B7. Over 15 years, reduce 5 percent 

of hazardous fuel on forested slopes, with an emphasis on protecting old-growth forests that have a firereturn interval of 75–100 years from catastrophic fire. 

(Same as Prescribed Fire C6 and D7.)

Prescribed Fire B8. Over 15 years, establish partnerships with nongovernmental organizations, local governments, and private cooperators to identify and 

reduce 200–400 acres of hazardous fuel in the wildland–urban interface. (Same as Prescribed Fire D8.)

Rationale for Prescribed Fire B1–B8. See the rationale 

under “Habitat—Upland” for alternative B for a 

description of landscape changes since the demise of 

wild bison in 1881.

The Service has long recognized fire as a unique 

process that shapes wildlife habitat structure and 

function, and the agency has managed and used fire

extensively for the past 70 years. Guiding principles 

of fire management in the Service include responsible 

stewardship, habitat management strategies based 

on conserving ecological integrity, reducing hazardous fuel, and establishing effective partnerships. 

The emphasis of the refuge’s fire management 

program has switched from a strict suppression orientation to a program that uses prescribed fire and 

wildfire as management tools to achieve habitat 

objectives and large, landscape-level change. 

The sagebrush flats in the UL Bend Refuge 

are critical nesting and wintering habitat for sagegrouse. Wildland fire in an area such as this could 

dramatically alter the habitat and result in severe 

negative effects on associated wildlife (Connelly et 

al. 2000, MFWP 2005b). While the literature generally urges caution when applying prescribed fire to 

sage-grouse habitats, the literature also stresses the 

importance of providing a mosaic of habitats for different seasons including winter, summer, and brooding seasons (Connelly et al. 2000). Breeding habitats 

would be protected from fire when possible. Within 

1–2 years, refuge biologists would evaluate such 

areas and provide fire managers with a detailed map 

of the essential habitat to be protected, which would 

be taken into account in prescribed fire and wildfire 

plans. For example, prescribed fire would be used to 

create a mosaic only when the lack of the mosaic is 

known to be limiting local sage-grouse populations.

Sprague’s pipit has evolved with fires on the landscape and may be limited by reduced fire frequencies (FWS 2010e). Reduced fire frequency has led 

to encroachment by woody vegetation and invasive 

grasses and forbs, excessive growth of vegetation, 

and excessive accumulation of litter (FWS 2010e). 

Timing is important because fire can have shortterm negative effects but, in the long term, can also 

be beneficial to Sprague’s pipit.

There are large tracts of old-growth forest on the 

western half of the refuge that have not burned in 

the last 75–100 years (Douglas-fir and ponderosa 

pine). If a late-season, wind-driven wildfire were to 

occur in these areas, as has occurred throughout the 

central section of the refuge during the past decade, 

these old-growth forests would be practically eliminated, possibly forever. The refuge fire staff would 

evaluate these areas for possible reduction of hazardous fuel and treat identified areas with prescribed 

fire or mechanical thinning, or both.

Similar to C, with exceptions described under 

alternative C. Same as D.
82 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Strategies for Prescribed Fire B1–B8

R In cooperation with universities, partner scientists, and staff biologists, evaluate suitable areas 

for using prescribed fire as a habitat management 

tool to promote the abundance and viability of 

focal species. 

R Enhance the fire organization with an increase 

of fire staff and prescribed fire competency: two 

prescribed fire burn bosses (type 1 and type 2), 

15 prescribed fire seasonal employees, and one 

prescribed fire specialist (the seasonal employees 

and prescribed fire specialist would be additions to 

the current staff). These individuals would write 

burn plans and carry out an aggressive prescribed 

fire program. If increased money through the fire 

program is not available, work to secure funding 

through the refuge program to hire the above fire 

staff. (Same as D.)

R Using research, fire-history data, and fire-scar 

evidence, conduct an inventory of sites that have 

exceeded average fire intervals. Set priorities for 

a burn rotation of hazardous fuel in these areas, 

taking into account habitat and wildlife objectives. (Same as D.)

R Evaluate critical habitat across the refuge and 

provide the fire management officer with a 

detailed map of the critical habitat to be protected 

within 1 year of plan approval. (Same as C and D.)

R Evaluate old-growth forest areas that have a 

fire frequency of 75–100 years for possible fuel 

reduction and treat identified areas with fire or 

mechanical thinning. (Same as C and D.)

R■ Contract a fire planner to develop plans pertaining to the use of wildland fire that would cover all 

burnable acres on the refuge. (Same as C and D.)

R■ With the use of historical photos, aerial photos, Geographic Information System (GIS), and 

onsite evaluation, identify areas where conifer 

encroachment into grasslands has been the greatest. Manage these areas with fire or mechanical 

treatment. (Same as C and D.)

R■ Using the refuge’s 2005 Hazardous Fuels Assessment and, in cooperation with USACE and local 

cooperators and private landowners, carry out 

fuel reduction projects in wildland–urban interface 

areas including the Pines, Hell Creek, Rock Creek, 

and Nelson Creek Recreation Areas. Support the 

acquisition of community assistance grants for 

mechanical treatment of wildland–urban interface 

areas. (Same as C and D.)

A small, low-intensity prescribed fire in 2008.

USFWS

Objectives for Prescribed Fire, Alternative C

Prescribed Fire C1. Within 5 years, develop prescribed fire plans for habitat units with prescriptive 

livestock grazing to apply pyric herbivory management for sentinel plants.

Prescribed Fire C2. Within 15 years, initiate a prescribed fire program in habitat units where vegetation palatability and composition has been identified 

as fair to poor or where there are large amounts of 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 83

hazardous fuel, or both, to improve range health and 

increase use of plant biomass by grazing ungulates.

Prescribed Fire C3. Over 15 years, work with partners 

and cooperators to reduce the risk of wildfire and 

negative economic effects to permittees by reducing 

the fuel load in habitat units through a combination 

of prescriptive livestock grazing and prescribed fire. 

Strike a balance between the needs of wildlife and 

improved forage for livestock.

Prescribed Fire C4. Same as Prescribed Fire B5.

Prescribed Fire C5. Same as Prescribed Fire B6 and D6.

Prescribed Fire C6. Same as Prescribed Fire B7 and D7.

Rationale for Prescribed Fire C1–C6. Similar to B, except 

there is more emphasis given to the economic effects 

of burning large units and units with active livestock 

grazing systems. Pastures without permit holders 

or where the permittee has taken voluntary nonuse would be the primary criteria for selecting prescribed fire units.

Strategies for Prescribed Fire C1–C6. Same as B, plus:

R■ In cooperation with universities, partner scientists, and staff biologists, evaluate declining rangelands for the feasibility of using prescribed fire as 

a habitat management tool to improve range conditions and increase the use of plant biomass by 

grazing ungulates. 

R■ Enhance the fire organization with an increase 

of fire staff and prescribed fire competency: two 

prescribed fire burn bosses (type 2) and five prescribed fire seasonal employees. These additions 

to current staff would write burn plans and carry 

out a prescribed fire program.

R■ Within 5 years, contract with private vendors for 

2,000 acres of mechanical fuel reduction in oldgrowth forests that are prone to a fire frequency of 

70–150 years, with emphasis on habitat units that 

have the highest risk of loss to catastrophic wildfire.

Objectives for Prescribed Fire, Alternative D

Prescribed Fire D1. Same as Prescribed Fire B1.

Prescribed Fire D2. Within 5 years, identify priority habitat units where sentinel plant species have 

declined due to lack of fire, and develop burn plans to 

apply prescribed fire in those areas.

Prescribed Fire D3. Same as Prescribed Fire B3.

Prescribed Fire D4. Within 2 years, identify critical 

habitat for threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern that could be adversely affected 

by fire. In addition, use prescribed fire in conjunction 

with research to determine if there would be any 

negative effects on species or critical habitat.

Prescribed Fire D5. Same as Prescribed Fire B5.

Prescribed Fire D6. Same as Prescribed Fire B6 and C5. 

Prescribed Fire D7. Same as Prescribed Fire B7 and C6.

Prescribed Fire D8. Same as Prescribed Fire B8.

Rationale for Prescribed Fire D1–D8. Same as B.

Strategies for Prescribed Fire D1–D8. Similar to B, 

except: 

R■ Manage the landscape with a coordinated program 

of prescribed fire (patch burns) and livestock grazing to restore historical fire-return intervals and 

the fire–grazing interaction. This includes concentrated herbivory (grazing and fire) coupled with 

long periods of abandonment and reduced selectivity for important sentinel species.

R■ In cooperation with universities, partner scientists, 

and staff biologists, evaluate areas with declining sentinel plant species due to lack of fire for 

the feasibility of using prescribed fire as a habitat 

management tool to promote the abundance and 

viability of sentinel plant species.

R■ Use prescribed fire to establish a seminatural 

mosaic of burned patches that would (1) reestablish a more natural fire–browsing–grazing 

interaction, (2) promote long-distance animal 

movement, (3) cause long periods of abandonment from grazing and browsing ungulates, (4) 

reduce the selectivity for sentinel species by all 

ungulates, (5) increase landscape species and 

structural heterogeneity, and (6) improve habitat 

for focal bird species (refer to the bird objectives 

below).

Wildfire

Wildfire ignitions are unplanned, such as fire started 

by lightning or an unauthorized or accidental fire 

started by humans. The response to a natural ignition 

fire is based on an evaluation of risks to firefighter and 

public safety and the circumstances under which a fire 

occurs including weather and fuel conditions, natural 

and cultural resource management objectives, values 

to be protected, and protection priorities.

Objectives for Wildfire, Alternative A

Wildfire A1. Within 15 years, revise the fire management plan and carry out a fire program that provides 

for a response strategy for wildfire with the primary 

objective of protecting fragile habitats, valuable 

coniferous areas, critical wildlife habitats, recreational developments, and other private and refuge 

developments consistent with resource objectives.

Rationale for Wildfire A1. Wildfire is a natural component 

of a healthy ecosystem. The Service has long recognized the many ecological benefits of fire in restoring, 

maintaining, and enhancing refuge lands. Keeping this 
84 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

capability is critical to the Service mission because 

most Service lands, including the refuge, evolved 

with fire as a natural disturbance. Not all wildfires 

are detrimental, nor should they be suppressed at all 

costs. It is important to evaluate wildfires for opportunities to use modified suppression tactics to promote natural processes.

Strategies for Wildfire A1

R Evaluate each wildfire to determine the safest and 

most economical and beneficial manner for suppression. This strategy may entail allowing a fire to burn 

toward natural barriers such as the river, lake, or 

bare clay ridges, while taking full suppression action 

on other areas of the fire (FWS 2004b). In addition, 

this strategy may result in a larger fire but could provide resource benefits. 

R Aggressively suppress that part of any fire that 

threatens to burn off the refuge unless there is an 

agreement in place to do otherwise.

Objectives for Wildfire, Alternative B

Wildfire B1. Within 2 years, revise the fire management plan using the most current information. Incorporate a full spectrum of fire management actions for 

response to wildfire, knowing that managing fire is a 

dynamic process, including management of wildfire 

for resource benefit. (Same as Wildfire D1.)

Wildfire B2. Within 10 years, develop maps to identify 

areas with the highest potential of success for reestablishment of fire on the landscape, using available 

scientific data on natural fire intervals, prescribed 

fire plans, and recent fire data.

Wildfire B3. Within 5 years, identify the locations 

with the highest valued resources, such as houses 

or wellheads, and ensure those values are not lost. 

Additionally, develop databases with maps that are 

readily available for managers to use in making 

sound decisions. (Same as Wildfire C3 and D3.)

Wildfire B4. Within 5 years, identify areas where 

perimeter control is needed to preserve public safety 

and to protect both natural and human-made values 

at risk. Categorize these as hazardous fuel reduction areas, which would protect them as high-value 

resources (often called “point protection”). (Same as 

Wildfire C4 and D4.)

Wildfire B5. After revision of the fire management 

plan, use a full spectrum of management responses 

on natural ignitions and, in general, control the southern perimeter of fires south of the Missouri River 

that have the potential of escaping refuge lands. Initiate a full suppression response in the wildland–

urban interface areas, which are the highest priority 

for hazardous fuel reduction. (Same as Wildfire D5.)

Wildfire B6. Within 2 years, update and execute cooperative agreements with neighboring agencies—

BLM, DNRC, the six counties, nongovernmental 

organizations, and neighboring landowners—for 

consideration of all fire management options when 

determining the management response to wildfires. 

(Same as Wildfire D6.)

Wildfire B7. Within 1 year, identify areas of critical 

habitat for endangered species and species of concern that would be adversely impacted by fire. Fully 

suppress fires in these areas. (Same as Wildfire D7.)

Rationale for Wildfire B1–B7. Consideration of the full 

spectrum of management response to wildfire does 

not replace, supersede, or give emphasis to any one 

particular strategy or tactic. Instead, the Service 

would consider all available strategies and tactics 

to form a calculated response based on the circumstances of a particular fire at a particular time with 

particular characteristics. There is often more than 

one way to respond to a set of circumstances. (Northern Rockies Coordinating Group [NRCG] 2008).

Practices included here give the refuge the tools 

needed to manage wildfire for achieving multiple 

objectives. Fire has a role in maintaining the characteristics of an ecosystem (The WILD Foundation 2006) and in sustaining species. Sentinel plants 

and fire-return intervals have been studied on the 

refuge, showing that both have been interrupted 

by human activity (Frost 1998). Using the proper 

fire management actions to manage wildfire would 

help return natural processes to the Missouri River 

Breaks ecosystem. Wildfire management, in concert 

with a monitoring program and aggressive use of 

prescribed fire, would ensure the protection of areas 

with higher fire-return intervals. 

The Service would use intensive suppression 

strategies where perimeter areas are threatening to burn off the refuge. While not all of the refuge’s neighbors and cooperators share the Service’s 

vision for wildfire, the refuge staff would continue to 

explore opportunities to incorporate the full range 

of fire management strategies on lands next to the 

refuge where there is no mutual agreement between 

the Service and landowner.

Strategies for Wildfire B1–B7

R■ Take necessary actions, according to an approved 

fire management plan, to maintain public and firefighter safety above all else. (Same as C and D.)

R■ Using historical fire frequency data, evaluate the 

full range of fire management options and apply 

appropriate actions to use wildfire as a naturally 

occurring component of the patch-burn program, 

in adherence with an approved fire management 

plan. (Same as D.)
Chapter 3—Alternatives 85

R■ Monitor the effects of fire on habitat and wildlife 

populations. (Same as D.)

R■ Use natural wildfire occurrence within the scope 

of a full range of fire management options and 

an approved fire management plan to improve, 

enhance, and restore native wildlife habitat. 

(Same as D.)

R■ Over 15 years, increase public awareness in surrounding communities and refuge users about the 

full range of fire management options and how 

the Service evaluates and identifies strategies to 

manage wildfire and prescribed fire to increase 

sentinel plants and reduce catastrophic wildfire 

risk. (Same as D.)

R■ Over 15 years, monitor the response of sentinel 

plants to both wildfire and prescribed fire; adjust 

fire management as needed to meet habitat objectives. Use monitoring data to update map databases and fire information for future planning. 

(Same as D.)

Objectives for Wildfire, Alternative C

Wildfire C1. Within 2 years, revise the fire management plan to retain, improve, or expand the refuge’s 

capabilities to protect refuge resources and assist in 

local fire management.

Wildfire C2. Over 15 years, manage wildfires to aggressively suppress to the smallest acreage in the most 

cost-effective manner.

Wildfire C3–C4. Same as Wildfire B3–B4 and D3–D4.

Wildfire C5. Within 2 years, review, update, and execute cooperative agreements with BLM, DNRC, the 

six counties, and nongovernmental organizations. 

Conduct an annual meeting to discuss the capabilities of each partner.

Rationale for Wildfire C1–C5. Although wildfire is a natural function in the refuge’s ecosystems, it can also be 

the biggest threat to those ecosystems. Natural fire 

regimes have been altered extensively on the refuge and have been replaced by frequent, large, and 

intense wildfires. This alteration is due to humans. 

A subsequent effect has been the infestation of invasive plants such as cheatgrass, which cures earlier in 

the year than native bunchgrasses and can lengthen 

the fire season. 

An effective fire management plan is crucial to 

the long-term conservation of refuge resources and 

protection of private property. The existing plan 

would require revision. Wildfires on the refuge could 

potentially have negative economic, habitat, and 

resource effects that could threaten life, property, 

and sensitive resources. Having adequate resources 

to contain and extinguish large fires is critical to the 

long-term preservation of natural, cultural, and recreational resources.

Strategies for Wildfire C1–C5

R■ Aggressively respond to wildfire by using the 

full range of suppression resources to keep fires 

at the smallest acreage possible and have at 

least 97 percent of the fires controlled within 24 

hours of reported ignition. Use whatever means 

possible—such as heavy air tankers (retardant), 

single-engine air tankers (retardant, foam, or 

water), aviation personnel, smokejumpers, and 

hand crews—to ensure fires do not escape initial 

attack.

R■ Within 5 years, increase permanent and seasonal 

firefighting personnel by 50 percent. 

R■ Within 5 years, increase the Sand Creek fire cache 

of firefighting equipment to an amount sufficient 

for the staff to respond to at least two major fires 

per year. 

R■ Within 10 years, build fire caches at the Jordan 

and Fort Peck Field Stations to house fire engines 

and firefighting equipment sufficient to respond 

to suppression needs. 

R■ Over 15 years, upgrade the fleet of fire engines by 

adding at least one new engine every 5–7 years to 

replace old engines, and add one engine. 

Objectives for Wildfire, Alternative D

Wildfire D1. Same as Wildfire B1.

Wildfire D2. After revision of the fire management 

plan, evaluate a full range of fire management options 

and carry out appropriate actions on natural ignition 

fires on the north side of the Missouri River. Within 

5–7 years, evaluate the suitability of various fire management options to consider for all ignitions within 

the refuge boundary.

Wildfire D3–D4. Same as Wildfire B3–B4 and C3–C4.

Wildfire D5–D7. Same as Wildfire B5–B7.

Rationale for Wildfire D1–D7. Same as B.

Strategies for Wildfire D1–D7. Same as B, plus:

R■ Within 5 years, increase staff qualifications to 

include a strategic operational planner, field 

observer, and incident commander. Increase fire 

staff to include 5–7 new permanent employees 

and 50- to 60-percent more seasonals, based on 

2009 personnel.

R■ Within 5–7 years, contract the development of a 

GIS overlay of the refuge for use in producing fire 

management strategies for each habitat unit. 

R■ Within 3–5 years, work with cooperators to fully 

coordinate the determination of management 

responses to wildfires using historical fire occurrence data to delineate areas that may be right for 

each of the various fire management options.
86 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

HABITAT—INVASIVE SPECIES

Invasive species objectives apply to both woody and 

nonwoody invasive plants and aquatic invasives such 

as zebra mussels.

Objectives for Invasive Species, Alternative A

Invasive Species A1. Over 15 years, maintain the 

existing invasive species control program including 

mapping, use of biocontrol and chemical spraying, 

weed wash stations, and requiring horse users to use 

weed-seed-free hay. (Same as Invasive Species B1, 

C1, and D1.)

Rationale for Invasive Species A1. Invasive species 

such as Russian knapweed, spotted knapweed, leafy 

spurge, saltcedar and other species are increasing 

on refuge due to spread from illegal off-road vehicle 

use, infestations from upstream sites, and changes 

in lake levels that expose bare lakeshore areas. In 

2008, about 1,431 upland acres of undesirable plant 

species, excluding saltcedar below the high-watermark, were mapped on the refuges. 

The Service has been treating new infestations, 

working with partners to treat high public use areas, 

sponsoring weed wash stations, promoting education 

among users toward identifying weeds, and exploring 

other ways to reduce their spread. The Service would 

continue to work with partners to improve overall habitat conditions across the refuge. Healthy ecosystems 

with a diversity of native plants are resilient to new 

infestations of invasive species (Kennedy et al. 2002).

Long-term control requires the cooperation of 

public and private land managers throughout the 

area. A joint effort by all partners is needed to conduct research on finding the best management practices to control or eliminate individual species.

Strategies for Invasive Species A1. None.

Objectives for Invasive Species, Alternative B

Invasive Species B1.Same as Invasive Species A1, C1, 

and D1.

Invasive Species B2. Within 1–3 years, develop an 

integrated pest management plan (stepdown plan) 

for control of invasive plants. (Same as Invasive Species C2 and D2.)

Invasive Species B3. Within 5–7 years, map current 

infestations, and develop a strategy to achieve a 25-

percent reduction in acres affected by noxious nonwoody plants. (Same as Invasive Species C3 and D3.)

Invasive Species B4. Over 15 years, achieve a 25- to 

50-percent reduction in acres affected by noxious 

nonwoody plants. (Same as Invasive Species C4 and 

D4.)

Invasive Species B5. Within 5–7 years, target further 

encroachment of invasive woody plants (such as saltcedar and Russian olive) on Fort Peck lakeshores 

and bays. (Same as Invasive Species C5 and D5.)

Invasive Species B6. Within 5 years and with adequate funding, reduce the occurrence of invasive, 

woody plants in riparian areas, primarily the Missouri River and Musselshell River corridors above 

the full-pool elevation by 10–25 percent. (Same as 

Invasive Species C6 and D6.)

Invasive Species B7. Over 15 years, measure trends 

of invasive species not classified as noxious including Japanese brome, sweetclover, and cheatgrass. 

Implement adaptive management as appropriate. 

(Same as Invasive Species C7 and D7.)

Invasive Species B8. Over 15 years, work with partners to increase public awareness of invasive plants 

on the refuge and surrounding lands by establishing 

an improved, coordinated signage system at major 

entrance points. (Same as Invasive Species C8 and 

D8.)

Invasive Species B9. Continue current educational 

and monitoring efforts in cooperation with MFWP 

and USACE (same as Invasive Species C9 and D9). 

Prevent further spread of aquatic invasive species 

through 2027. 

Rationale for Invasive Species B1–B9. Shrub-steppe, 

grassland mosaic areas throughout western North 

America continue to decline in quantity and quality 

due, in part, to invasion by exotic plant species (Samson and Knopf 1994, Bragg and Steuter 1995). River 

bottoms, lakeshore, and, now, the refuge uplands are 

experiencing an increase in invasive species. To date, 

only a small part of the uplands has been mapped for 

invasive species, and numerous acres could be infested. 

Studies suggest that shrub-steppe, grassland mosaic 

bird species favor areas dominated by native vegetation. These bird species include focal species such as 

grasshopper sparrow, Baird’s sparrow, long-billed curlew, upland sandpiper, mountain plover, lazuli bunting, 

chestnut-collared longspur, burrowing owl, and greater 

sage-grouse (Davis and Duncan 1999, Dhol et al. 1994, 

Fairfield 1968, Johnson and Igl 2001, Kantrud and Higgins 1992, Lindmeier 1960, Maher 1974, Owens and 

Myres 1973, Stewart 1975, Wilson and Belcher 1989). 

The degradation of remaining grassland areas in the 

northern Great Plains is a principle factor in the declining populations of grassland bird species and is likely 

due to inadequate or improper management.

Monotypic stands of invasive or nonnative species 

not only have the ability to negatively affect biodiversity but they also alter the flow energy and nutrients 

in the ecosystem and reduce the resilience of the system.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 87

Strategies for Invasive Species B1–B9

R Continue work with partners to provide at least 

one weed wash station during the hunting season.

R Work with partners to explore options for boatwashing stations.

R Continue to provide educational materials to all 

contacted hunters and develop additional outreach methods to educate various users on the 

threat of invasive species to wildlife habitat. 

R Work with partners and assess traffic-count data 

to prioritize areas for location of informational 

invasive species signage. 

R Over 15 years, in cooperation with USACE, treat 

200 acres of Service lands plus other USACE 

acres of saltcedar along the shoreline each year, 

depending on funding by contractor and strike 

team members. Maintain native vegetation in 

treated areas. 

R Emphasize efforts to test and introduce biological 

controls for saltcedar.

R Continue to work with Service’s invasive species 

strike team, county weed boards, neighbors and 

conservation organizations to maintain and update 

mapping of weed infestations. Review and update 

the integrated pest management plan every 5 years.

R Employ hunters in weed monitoring efforts by 

encouraging them to use their GPS devices to 

mark infestation sites.

R Prepare annual progress reports or have meetings to share current treatment techniques and 

results. In annual updates, include information on 

what treatment protocols may, or may not, have 

been successful in achieving stated objectives 

and any future plans.

R Conduct inventories, following the Service’s invasive 

species strike team operational guidelines, and 

include mapping criteria. 

R■ Store all inventory data in the refuge land Geographic Information System (RLGIS). 

R■ Repeat inventories at a minimum of 10-year 

intervals. 

R■ Apply early detection, rapid response strategies 

to attack new infestations before they become 

large and costly to treat. 

R■ Use GIS to predict areas at greatest risk of new 

infestations. 

R■ Conduct a surveillance program for new infestations of invasive plants every 2 years. 

R■ Every 5 years, complete surveys for invasive 

plants using GPS map locations. Create a baseline map and collaborate with partners to map 

records for neighboring lands. 

R■ Monitor change over time by collecting RLGIS 

cover-type data for all invasive plant species. 

R■ Map and store in RLGIS anecdotal observations 

of infestations made by Service staff while conducting other work activities. 

R■ Map sites of invasive plant treatment each year 

in RLGIS. 

R■ Monitor infestation rates and effectiveness of 

control efforts. 

R■ Share GIS layers of invasive plant infestations 

with partners. 

R■ Get help with invasive plants (applications and 

monitoring) by pursuing more money through 

partnerships, grants, and invasive plant programs. 

R■ Communicate with local, State, and Federal agencies and the public about invasive plant issues. 

Promptly make information known about new 

infestations, effective or ineffective treatment 

methods, and new treatment options. 

R■ Coordinate invasive plant control by meeting at 

least once per year with county weed boards, representatives from weed management areas, and 

other partners to share information and discuss 

control strategies. 

R■ Respond promptly to all landowner or other public complaints and address public complaints about 

invasive plants on Service lands, while using integrated pest management strategies. 

R■ Ensure seed used to restore habitat is certified 

weed-free. Avoid buying seed from sources known 

to have violated the weed-free seed regulation. 

R■ Begin habitat management treatments to develop 

habitat that would be more resilient to invasive 

plants. 

R■ Use short-term livestock grazing applications (prescriptive) to treat infested areas (FWS 2011b). 

Saltcedar is the most prolific invasive species found on 

the refuge.

USFWS
88 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Objectives for Invasive Species, Alternative C

Invasive Species C1. Same as Invasive Species A1, 

B1, and D1.

Invasive Species C2–C9. Same as Invasive Species B2–

B9 and D2–D9.

Rationale for Invasive Species C1–C9. Same as B and D.

Strategies for Invasive Species C1–C9. Same as B, plus:

R■ Increase law enforcement of weed-free hay regulations.

Objectives for Invasive Species, Alternative D

Invasive Species D1. Same as Invasive Species A1, 

B1, and C1.

Invasive Species D2–D9. Same as Invasive Species B2–

B9 and C2–C9.

Rationale for Invasive Species D1–D9. Same as B and C.

Strategies for Invasive Species D1–D9. Same as B.

HABITAT—CLIMATE CHANGE

Over the past century, human activities have led to 

increases in “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere. 

These gases are primarily carbon dioxide and methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbon emissions. Places 

where atmospheric carbon may be sequestered are 

the ocean and in plants. About half the carbon emitted during the last 50 years is now stored in these 

places. The rest has remained in the air. Global temperatures have risen, and sources and sinks of carbon 

will likely change as climate continues to warm. The 

following information summarizes information from 

a comprehensive report produced by the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program (Karl et al. 2009), which 

influenced the climate change objectives herein.

Global Climate Change

Global average temperature and sea level have 

increased, and precipitation patterns have changed. 

Global temperatures are expected to rise at least 

1 °F over the life of the CCP. Current climate change 

studies indicate that a further 2 °F increase will lead 

to severe, widespread, and irreversible negative 

effects. Global temperatures are expected to continue rising and precipitation patterns will change. 

Dry areas will be drier and wet areas will be wetter. Sea levels will continue to rise. Currently, rare, 

extreme weather events will become more common and abrupt changes are possible due ice level 

collapse, the thawing of frozen soil, and changes in 

ocean current circulation. 

National Climate Change

The average U.S. temperature has risen more than 

2 °F over the past 50 years and is expected to rise 

more in the future. Projections of future precipitation indicate that northern areas will be wetter and 

southern areas, particularly in the west, will be drier. 

Extreme weather events, such as heavy downpours 

of rain, heat waves, regional drought, and hurricanes, have increased in the past 50 years and likely 

will increase further in the future. Sea levels have 

risen along the United States’ coasts and will continue to rise. Cold-season storm tracks are shifting 

northward and the strongest storms are likely to 

become stronger and more frequent. Arctic sea ice is 

declining rapidly and this is very likely to continue.

Climate Change Influence in the Great Plains

The refuge is located in the northwestern Great 

Plains. As in much of the rest of the Nation, the 

Great Plains is projected to experience increases in 

temperature, evaporation, and drought frequency. 

The average temperature is expected to increase 

2–4 °F by the year 2020 in the plains. The final CCP 

will be in place in 2020. 

Agriculture and ranching will be stressed by an 

increasingly limited water supply. Drought- and 

grazing-adapted weeds will increasingly compete 

with native vegetation on rangelands. Wetland and 

riparian areas will decrease in size or be lost. Preservation of native vegetation, wetlands, and riparian 

areas will require increased vigilance, adaptation, 

and mitigation as the climate changes.

Objectives for Climate Change, Alternative A

Climate Change A1. Over 15 years, follow Secretarial 

Order 3289 (DOI 2009) and Executive Order 13514, 

and implement the Service’s climate change initiatives (FWS 2010c) as they apply to the refuge:

■■ biological planning and conservation design at 

broad landscape scales

■■ landscape conservation that supports climate 

change adaptations by fish, wildlife, and plant 

populations of ecological and societal significance

■■ monitoring and research partnerships

■■ achieving carbon neutrality by 2020

■■ building capacity to understand, apply, and share 

terrestrial carbon sequestration science, and 

work with partners to sequester atmospheric 

green house gases while conserving fish and wildlife habitat at landscape scales

■■ providing educational and training opportunities 

for Service employees about the implications and 

urgent nature of climate change as it relates to 

the Service mission and will engage them in seeking solutions

■■ public education

■■ partnerships—locally, nationally, internationally.

(Same as Climate Change B1, C1, and D1.)
Chapter 3—Alternatives 89

Rationale for Climate Change A1. The Service would 

implement climate change objectives within the 

existing habitat management practices.

Strategies for Climate Change A1

R■ Continue maintaining a small wind turbine, recycling effort, increasing energy efficiency, and 

adopting other ways to reduce the refuge’s carbon 

footprint.

R■ Consider what conditions precipitated by climate change that the refuge may deal with like 

increased drought, longer fire seasons, hotter 

fires, loss of plant and wildlife species, increase of 

other plant and wildlife species, change in migration patterns, and relocations of species. 

Objectives for Climate Change, Alternative B

Climate Change B1. Same as Climate Change A1, C1, 

and D1. 

Climate Change B2. Within 3 years, develop a climate 

change research project with other partners that can 

be carried out across the Great Plains, which looks at 

fire, sentinel plants, pollinators, riparian area health, 

and sentinel animal changes in behavior or use due to 

climate change. (Same as Climate Change C2 and D2.)

Rationale for Climate Change B1–B2. Ecological systems 

store large amounts of carbon in plants and soils, 

they regulate waterflow and quality, and they stabilize local climates. These functions are not accounted 

for financially, but society depends on them. Ecosystem processes underpin photosynthesis, the plant and 

soil processes that recycle nutrients from decomposing material and maintain soil fertility, herbivory, predation, natural fire, flooding, and the processes by 

which plants draw water from the soil and return 

water to the atmosphere. These ecosystem processes are affected by climate and the concentration 

of carbon in the atmosphere.

Biological diversity in ecological systems is, in 

and of itself, an important resource that maintains 

the ability of these systems to provide functions on 

which society depends. Many factors affect biodiversity including: climate conditions; the influences 

of competitors, herbivores, predators, parasites and 

diseases; and disturbances such as herbivory and fire. 

Human-induced climate change, in conjunction with 

nonclimate stresses, is exerting major influences on 

natural environments and biodiversity, and these influences are expected to grow with increased warming.

The following information is from the publication Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States (Karl et al. 2009). Large-scale shifts have 

occurred in the ranges of species and in the timing 

of seasons and animal migration. These factors are 

very likely to continue. The range and timing of each 

species shift would be in response to its sensitivity 

to climate change, its mobility, its lifespan, and the 

availability of the resources it needs, such as soil, 

moisture, food, and shelter. The speed with which 

species can shift their ranges is influenced by factors 

including their size, lifespan, and seed dispersal techniques in plants. Some migration pathways would be 

blocked by development and habitat fragmentation. 

All of these variations result in the breakup of existing ecosystems and the formation of new ones, with 

unknown consequences. Interactions among effects 

of climate change and other stressors would greatly 

increase the risk of species extinctions. At the same 

time, insect pests, disease pathogens, and invasive 

weeds have increased, and these trends are likely to 

continue.

A first step to mitigate climate change is to 

advance the management of ecological processes on 

the site to reduce nonclimate stressors (Hansen et al. 

2003). In many places, habitat fragmentation, over 

use, invasive species, and herbivory, are nonclimate 

stressors that are having a greater affect on species 

viability than climate change at this time. Reduction 

of nonclimate stressors would promote ecological 

resilience and insulate species from subtle changes 

in climate.

To reduce the effects of these stressors and the 

future effects of climate change, the refuge would 

improve heterogeneity of species and structure, 

protect grassland types across environmental gradients, promote connectivity and corridors to facilitate migration, restore natural fire regimes, promote 

riparian area health, and promote sustainable herbivory. 

The refuge staff is currently working with multiple partners to restore ecological processes, promote 

heterogeneity, and build habitat linkages and ecological resilience within the Missouri River Breaks 

and the northern Great Plains. Habitat linkages and 

corridors would be developed through partnerships 

with the landscape conservation cooperative sphere of 

influence (refer to chapter 1, section 1.5). 

The refuge would continue to take reactive and 

anticipatory approaches to managing landscapes for 

carbon sequestration and climatic resilience, heterogeneity of species, structure, and succession. Fire–

herbivory interactions are keys to resilience in this 

region. The focus would be on the research, monitoring, and management of carbon sinks and sources, 

black carbon, climate sentinel plants and dependent 

animals, and ecological-process sentinel plants and 

the food web that uses them, beginning with pollinators. 

The refuge would evaluate the response of ecosystems to fire, herbivory, and other ecological processes 

using sentinel plant species. These diagnostic plant 

species warn of impending ecosystem-wide changes 
90 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

to plant and animal populations and can guide adaptive management actions. They are the first to vanish. 

They serve primarily not as management goals themselves but as diagnostic lookouts for fully functional 

ecological processes. The sentinel approach to ecological systems management uses first-to-decline species 

as diagnostic and direct indicators of ecosystem wellbeing and management direction.

The refuge would assess and reduce carbon footprints associated with using adaptive management 

to achieve resilience to climate change, including the 

role of wildland fire. 

Because fire happens in the region as both wildfire and prescribed fire, the refuge would focus much 

of the research on pyrogenic carbon sequestered in 

the soil from fire. Fire is also important for the climatic resilience associated with diversity of species 

and succession (DeLuca and Aplet 2008, DeLuca et 

al. 2006, DeLuca and Sala 2006).

The refuge would serve as a model for other land 

management agencies and landowners to manage for 

wildlife first with best management practices for climate resilience and carbon sequestration. The components of this program would include a focus on 

carbon sequestration, monitoring, and management 

and on climate sentinels, ecological-process sentinels, and resilience adaptation. 

Strategies for Climate Change B1–B2

R Help with the implementation of the Service’s 

Climate Change Plan (refer to chapter 1).

R Monitor the effects of climate change on the spread 

of West Nile virus and the decline of buffaloberry. 

R In cooperation with universities and other partner scientists and statisticians, develop methods 

to identify, inventory, and monitor climate sentinel plant species and potentially affected wildlife 

species. 

R Evaluate climate sentinel plant species population viability analysis at permanently established 

trend sites.

R Continue to monitor wildlife populations that 

have been shown as “first to decline” for population trends within each species’ already established 

habitat zones. 

R In cooperation with partners, reestablish climate 

sentinel plant species populations on sites where 

they have been extirpated. 

R Reduce the carbon footprint of refuge operations 

and continue “greening” efforts to meet climate 

change initiatives (for example, upgrade offices to 

“green standards:” encourage teleconferencing, 

turning off lights, recycling, turning down heat, 

and installing solar panels or a small individual 

wind turbine for new facilities like that at the Sand 

Creek Field Station). Carefully locate any new 

structures or energy-efficient equipment to limit 

visual obstructions.

R■ Study the carbon sequestration benefits of the refuge.

R■ Incorporate the Service’s climate change messages in the refuge’s public use programs.

R■ Assess the vulnerabilities of refuge resources to 

climate change.

Objectives for Climate Change, Alternative C

Climate Change C1. Same as Climate Change A1, B1, 

and D1. 

Climate Change C2. Same as Climate Change B2 and D2. 

Rationale and Strategies for Climate Change C1–C2. Same

as B.

Objectives for Climate Change, Alternative D

Climate Change D1. Same as Climate Change A1, B1, 

and C1. 

Climate Change D2. Same as Climate Change B2 and C2.

Rationale and Strategies for Climate Change D1–D2. Same

as B.

WILDLIFE—BIRDS

The refuge has been designated an Important Bird 

Area by the National Audubon Society because “The 

site regularly holds significant numbers of a globally 

threatened species, or other species of global conservation concern” (National Audubon Society 2009). 

More than 250 species of birds have been documented on the refuge including both migratory birds 

and residents.

As described in chapter 1, the Service works 

closely with many partner organizations in achieving 

its bird conservation priorities and mandates (FWS 

2011c). Objectives for birds on the endangered species list are discussed following these bird objectives 

in the section on threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern.

Objectives for Birds, Alternative A

The 1986 EIS identified the following objectives.

Birds A1. Maintain existing migration habitat for bald 

eagles and determine the feasibility of establishing a 

breeding population.

Birds A2. Improve and maintain habitat for sharptailed grouse and associated species in good to excellent condition in the ponderosa pine–juniper, juniper, 

and grass–deciduous shrub types to support (on suitable areas) 30 spring breeding birds per square mile 

(males and females) over 15 years when weather, 

predation life cycles, and other natural factors permit.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 91

Birds A3. Improve and maintain riparian habitat on 

the Missouri and Musselshell Rivers and other suitable riparian areas in good to excellent condition 

to benefit waterfowl, kingbirds, mourning doves, 

American kestrels, and turkeys.

Birds A4. Over 15 years, maintain a minimum of two 

peregrine falcon eyries.

Birds A5. Over 15 years, improve waterfowl habitat so 

that it is in good to excellent condition on all suitable 

ponds.

Rationale and Strategies for Bird A1–A5. None.

Objectives for Birds, Alternative B

In 2005, the Service initiated the focal species strategy to better measure success in achieving its bird 

conservation priorities and mandates. The bird 

objectives are closely associated with the habitat 

objectives identified above.

Birds B1. Within 7 years, design and complete a bird 

atlas collection of data and information on the refuge 

to determine the existing composition, distribution, 

and relative abundance of breeding, nonbreeding, 

resident, and migratory bird species using the refuge during each season of the year. (Same as Birds 

C1 and D1.)

Birds B2. Within 8–15 years, repeat the bird atlas on 

the refuge and establish a permanent, refugewide 

bird-monitoring program and describe the sentinel plant associations and complete habitat requirements of 75 percent of priority focal bird species. 

Base the final list of focal bird species on the results 

of the bird atlas.

Birds B3. Within 10 years, complete bird management plans for each of the four habitat types (upland, 

river bottom, riparian area and wetland, and shoreline) for resident, wintering, breeding, and migratory bird species, with an emphasis on designated 

focal birds. (Same as Birds C3 and D3.)

Sharp-tailed grouse is one of the focal species for upland habitat.

USFWS

Rationale for Birds B1–B3. The land base within the refuge has never had a comprehensive baseline inventory of bird species present throughout the different 

seasons of the year. Collecting baseline inventory 

data and conducting monitoring on wildlife refuges 

are essential for identifying conservation targets, 

detecting climate-related system changes, identifying vulnerable species and habitats, and evaluating 

management choices (Defenders of Wildlife 2008).

To help plan management actions for the greatest 

benefit for migratory and resident birds in upland 

areas, Federal, State, and nongovernmental lists 
92 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 3. Focal bird species for uplands at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Breeding habitat* Sentinel plant 

association

BROWN CREEPER

Associated bird species*: No data available from the refuge

Species of concern lists: Montana Partners in Flight, Montana Natural Heritage Program, Montana Comprehensive 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

HABITAT: Late-successional stages of coniferous forests and mixed coniferous–deciduous forests

MICROHABITAT: Large trees and snags for foraging and nesting; late-successional stages of 

coniferous forests and mixed coniferous–deciduous forests

NEST SITE: Between the trunk and a loose piece of bark on a large, typically dead or dying, tree

FOOD: Variety of insects and larvae, spiders, and ants (no vegetation)

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Variety of insects and larvae, spiders, and ants and some vegetation; large trees and snags for foraging and nesting; late-successional stages of coniferous forests and mixed coniferous–deciduous forests

SHRUBS and TREES: 

Douglas-fir

ponderosa pine 

(fire sentinels)

LONG-BILLED CURLEW

Associated bird species*: gadwall, northern shoveler, marbled godwit, northern harrier, horned lark, mourning dove, 

vesper sparrow, lark bunting, Brewer’s sparrow, western meadowlark, brown-headed cowbird

Species of concern lists: Service Birds of Conservation Concern (focal species), Montana Partners in Flight, BLM, 

Audubon Watchlist 2007

HABITAT: Shortgrass or mixed prairie with flat to rolling topography

MICROHABITAT: Areas with trees; high density of shrubs and tall, dense grass generally 

avoided

NEST SITE: On the ground, in patchy areas and relatively dry, exposed sites; often near conspicuous objects

FOOD: Entirely carnivorous; terrestrial insects and benthic invertebrates; pecks for food on breeding grounds; feeds on ground-nesting bird eggs and young birds in the nest; forages in shortgrass

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Not applicable

FORBS:

purple coneflower

stiff sunflower

dotted gayfeather 

white prairieclover 

purple prairieclover

Maximilian sunflower

SPRAGUE’S PIPIT

Associated bird species*: Canada goose, upland sandpiper, mourning dove, American crow, horned lark, house wren, 

vesper sparrow, lark sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, western meadowlark, red cross-bill

Species of concern lists: Service Endangered Species list, Service Birds of Conservation Concern (focal species), 

Montana Partners in Flight, Partners In Flight Watchlist 2010, Montana Natural Heritage Program, BLM, Audubon 

Watchlist 2007, Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy

HABITAT: Native grasslands with no shrubs

MICROHABITAT: Intermediate grass height and thickness with moderate litter depth

NEST SITE: Open grassland, usually at the base of a dense tussock of grass

FOOD: Arthropods, primarily grasshoppers and crickets, including forb-eating insects such as 

leaf hoppers and caterpillars; forages on the ground in shortgrass

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Not applicable

FORBS: 

purple coneflower

stiff sunflower

dotted gayfeather

white prairieclover

purple prairieclover

Maximilian sunflower
Chapter 3—Alternatives 93

Table 3. Focal bird species for uplands at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Breeding habitat* Sentinel plant 

association

BAIRD’S SPARROW

Associated bird species*: ferruginous hawk, horned lark, clay-colored sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, western 

meadowlark, brown-headed cowbird

Species of concern lists: Service Birds of Conservation Concern, Montana Partners in Flight, Partners in Flight 

Watchlist 2010, Montana Natural Heritage Program, BLM, Audubon Watchlist 2007, Montana Comprehensive 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy

HABITAT: Mixed native-grass prairie with scattered low shrubs (<25%) and residual vegetation; 

returns to burns after 3 years

MICROHABITAT: Ungrazed to moderate grazing with high forb coverage

NEST SITE: On the ground in tall vegetation, oftentimes at the base of shrubs

FOOD: Insects and some seeds; insects gleaned from grass and forbs; forages on the ground 

between grass clumps

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Not applicable

FORBS: 

purple coneflower

stiff sunflower

dotted gayfeather

white prairieclover

purple prairieclover

Maximilian sunflower

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

Associated bird species*: No data available from the refuge

Species of concern lists: Service Endangered Species List (warranted but precluded), Montana Partners In Flight, 

Partners in Flight Watchlist 2010, Montana Natural Heritage Program, BLM, Audubon Watchlist 2007, Montana 

Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy

HABITAT: Mosaic of sagebrush habitats; tall sagebrush; low sagebrush; forb-rich mosaics of 

low and tall sagebrush; riparian meadows; native grass and forb steppe; scrub-willow; and 

sagebrush savannas with juniper, ponderosa pine, or quaking aspen

MICROHABITAT: Leks situated on broad ridgetops, grassy swales, and disturbed sites such as burns and 

dry lakebeds, all having less herbaceous and shrub cover than surrounding habitats; broods found in 

rich mosaics of sagebrush, riparian meadows, and greasewood bottoms, all rich in forbs and insects

NEST SITE: In relatively thick vegetative cover usually dominated by big sagebrush; also can be 

dominated by grasses or other species of shrubs such as rabbitbrush, greasewood, and bitterbrush

FOOD: Leaves (dominant throughout year), buds, stems, flowers, fruit, and insects; forbs are particularly important for prelaying females; insects such as grasshoppers, beetles, and ants are important for juveniles; forb use increases as juveniles age; forages on the ground and in open habitats

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Sagebrush—big, low, silver, and fringed—is essential for food 

with low sagebrush preferred over big sagebrush; areas are dominated by 6–43% cover of big 

sagebrush, low sagebrush, and silver sagebrush; variation in topography and height of sagebrush ensures the availability of sagebrush in different snow conditions

FORBS: 

purple coneflower

stiff sunflower

dotted gayfeather

white prairieclover

purple prairieclover

Maximilian sunflower 

SHRUBS:

big sagebrush (fire 

sentinel)

SHARP-TAILED GROUSE

Associated bird species*: mourning dove, vesper sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, western meadowlark

Species of concern lists: Montana Partners in Flight

HABITAT: Dense herbaceous cover and shrubs mixed with grass

MICROHABITAT: Leks occur on elevated areas with less vegetation; broods depend on areas 

with abundant forbs and insects with a high diversity of shrubs and cover types

NEST SITE: Under or near shrubs or small trees or thick and taller residual grass cover

FOOD: Forbs, grasses, insects (ants crickets, moths, grasshoppers, and beetles), fruits, and 

flowers; forages in areas dominated by forbs and sparse grass cover

WINTER FOOD AND HABITAT: Buds, seeds, herbaceous matter, and fruits and forages on the 

ground where succulent forbs or grains are available or in shrubs and trees on fruits and 

buds; riparian areas, deciduous hardwood shrub draws, and deciduous and open coniferous 

woods; deciduous trees and shrubs important for feeding, roosting, and escape cover

FORBS: 

purple coneflower

stiff sunflower

dotted gayfeather

white prairieclover

purple prairieclover

Maximilian sunflower 

SHRUBS and TREES:

silver buffaloberry

aspen

peachleaf willow

chokecherry

* Birds found in conjunction with Sprague’s pipit, Baird’s sparrow, long-billed curlew, and sharp-tailed grouse on refuge transects (Rocky 

 Mountain Bird Observatory data, 2009–10). Breeding habitat data is from Cornell Lab of Ornithology (2010).
94 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 4. Focal bird species for river bottoms at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Breeding habitat* Sentinel plant 

association

RED-EYED VIREO

Associated bird species*: American goldfinch, American kestrel, American redstart, American robin, blackcapped chickadee, brown-headed cowbird, black-headed grosbeak, Bullock’s oriole, common grackle, cedar 

waxwing, common yellowthroat, downy woodpecker, gray catbird, eastern kingbird, house wren, lazuli bunting, 

least flycatcher, mourning dove, ovenbird, northern flicker, red-winged blackbird, spotted towhee, song sparrow, 

tree swallow, warbling vireo, western wood-pewee, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler

Species of concern lists: Montana Partners in Flight

HABITAT: Deciduous and mixed deciduous–coniferous forest

MICROHABITAT: Absent from sites where understory shrubs sparse or lacking

NEST SITE: Terminal or subterminal fork of a branch in live midstory to understory trees or 

shrubs

FOOD: Mostly insects, particularly caterpillars; forages in the middle and upper third of trees; 

ground foraging rare

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Not applicable

SHRUBS and TREES:

chokecherry

green ash

plains cottonwood

redosier dogwood

boxelder

golden currant

peachleaf willow

BREWER’S BLACKBIRD

Associated bird species*: American goldfinch, American kestrel, American redstart, American robin, blackcapped chickadee, brown-headed cowbird, black-headed grosbeak, Bullock’s oriole, common grackle, cedar 

waxwing, common yellowthroat, downy woodpecker, eastern kingbird, house wren, lazuli bunting, 

least flycatcher, mourning dove, ovenbird, northern flicker, red-winged blackbird, spotted towhee, tree swallow, warbling 

vireo, western wood-pewee, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler

Species of concern lists: Montana Partners in Flight

HABITAT: Riverbanks

MICROHABITAT: Forages on relatively bare ground

NEST SITE: In colonies near water

FOOD: Insects and other invertebrates; some small fleshy fruits

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Not applicable

SHRUBS and TREES:

plains cottonwood

green ash

peachleaf willow

VEERY

Associated bird species*: No data from the refuge

Species of concern lists: Montana Partners in Flight, Montana Natural Heritage Program, Montana Comprehensive 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy

HABITAT: Deciduous riparian forest

MICROHABITAT: Requires dense understory, primarily shrubs or early successional trees

NEST SITE: On or near the ground in deciduous trees or shrubs, often near moist areas

FOOD: 60% insects and 40% fruits; feeds on the ground and in shrubs and trees

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Not applicable

SHRUBS and TREES:

boxelder

redosier dogwood

golden currant

peachleaf willow

plains cottonwood

* Birds found in conjunction with red-eyed vireo and Brewer’s blackbird on refuge transects (Avian Science Center, University of 

 Montana bird surveys within the refuge 2005–10). Breeding habitat data is from Cornell Lab of Ornithology (2010).
Chapter 3—Alternatives 95

Table 5. Focal bird species for riparian areas and wetlands at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Breeding habitat* Sentinel plant 

association

OVENBIRD Associated bird species*: Unknown

 Species of concern lists: Montana Partners in Flight, Montana Natural Heritage Program

HABITAT: Contiguous tracts of large, mature trees in deciduous or mixed deciduous-coniferous 

closed-canopy forest 

MICROHABITAT: Less ground cover; deeper leaf litter and high prey biomass

NEST SITE: Ground nester in sparse shrubs and small trees

FOOD: Forest invertebrates; forages low to the ground

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Not applicable

SHRUBS and TREES:

plains cottonwood

green ash

Douglas-fir

CORDILLERAN FLYCATCHER Associated bird species*: Unknown

 Species of concern lists: Montana Partners in Flight

HABITAT: Forest on or near streams

MICROHABITAT: Coniferous trees overhanging streams and steep banks; thick shrub undergrowth

NEST SITE: Cool, shaded areas associated with water and forest openings

FOOD: Exclusively insects caught in the air or from the foliage of trees and shrubs

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Not applicable

SHRUBS and TREES: 

ponderosa pine

Douglas-fir

aspen

plains cottonwood

peachleaf willow 

BLACK-BILLED CUCKOO Associated bird species*: Unknown

 Species of concern lists: Service Birds of Conservation Concern, Montana Partners in

 Flight, Montana Natural Heritage Program

HABITAT: Groves of trees and thickets frequently associated with water

MICROHABITAT: Thickets of small trees and scrubs. Usually feeds within canopy but occasionally takes prey from ground

NEST SITE: Thick bushes sometimes associated with streams and marshes, between branches 

or in the crotch against the main trunk

FOOD: Large insects

Consumes a variety of caterpillars

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Not applicable

SHRUBS and TREES:

chokecherry

boxelder

green ash

plains cottonwood

aspen

peachleaf willow

WESTERN WOOD-PEWEE Associated bird species*: American flicker, least flycatcher, yellow warbler, lazuli 

 bunting, spotted towhee, clay-colored sparrow, American goldfinch, eastern kingbird,

 common yellowthroat, field sparrow, Brewer;s blackbird, Say’s phoebe, western 

 meadowlark, northern oriole, American kestrel, mourning dove, black-headed grosbeak,

 chipping sparrow

 Species of concern lists: Montana Partners in Flight

HABITAT: Riparian woodland and forest, especially along the forest edge

MICROHABITAT: Large tree diameters, open understory, and dead trees or trees with dead 

limbs

NEST SITE: Trees, primarily cottonwoods and also mature aspens; both living and dead trees

FOOD: Flying insects, especially flies, ants, bees, wasps, beetles, moths, and bugs; forages in 

the upper 25% of the canopy

WINTER FOOD and HABITAT: Not applicable

SHRUBS and TREES:

plains cottonwood

green ash

aspen

* Birds found in conjunction with ovenbird, Cordilleran flycatcher, black-billed cuckoo, and western wood-pewee on refuge transects 

 (“Second Survey of Birdlife in Two Coulees near Bobcat Creek on Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge,” 1993; “Bird 

 Species Composition and Abundance in Two Riparian Areas with Differing Grazing Histories on Charles M. Russell National 

 Wildlife Refuge,” 1994; “Avian Community Composition and Nesting Productivity Relative to Cattle Grazing in North-Central 

 Montana,” 2001; and “Avian Species Detected during Point-Count Surveys on Riparian Sites,” 1998). Breeding habitat data is 

 from Cornell Lab of Ornithology (2010).
96 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

were reviewed to determine birds of conservation 

concern that use this habitat during breeding, nonbreeding, and migration. The refuge does not currently have a completed bird species list. However, 

based on a preliminary refuge list of 286 birds, one 

species is listed as endangered (least tern); one species is threatened (piping plover); two species are 

candidate species, meaning they are warranted but 

are currently precluded from listing (Sprague’s pipit 

and greater sage-grouse); and 21 birds are on the 

Service’s birds of conservation concern list.

Birds of conservation concern are the migratory 

and nonmigratory bird species beyond those already 

designated as federally threatened or endangered 

that represent the highest Service conservation priorities (FWS 2011c). The refuge is located within the 

Badlands and Prairies Bird Conservation Region 

“BCR 17”. Twenty-eight birds are listed for BCR 17, 

and 23 of these birds are on the refuge bird list. 

The Service’s migratory bird program has a focal 

species strategy from August 2005 that identifies 

migratory bird species in need of focused conservation action and leads targeted campaigns to return 

the species to healthy and sustainable levels (FWS 

2011c). Of 139 focal birds on the list, 39 are on the refuge bird list.

The refuge’s focal bird species (tables 3, 4, and 

5) are birds officially documented as being found on 

the refuge and have restrictive habitat needs that 

can serve as an umbrella for ecological processes 

as well as for other, generalist, bird species found 

in the same habitat type. For example, an area that 

supports Sprague’s pipit would also support western meadowlark. Whereas, an area that supports 

western meadowlark does not necessarily support 

Sprague’s pipit (Lambeck 1997).

Literature shows that 90 percent of birds rely 

on arthropods (insects, spiders, and other invertebrates) during at least one stage in their life. Pollinating insects are food for birds and, therefore, are 

a central part of a very important food web for resident and migratory birds. The resulting insect-pollinated seeds and fruits also feed birds, especially 

in the months when insects are not present. One 

very effective way to increase local pollinator numbers is to increase the native flower-producing forbs 

and shrubs, which not only increases the numbers of 

invertebrates that can be directly eaten by birds but 

also increases the amount of seed and fruit available 

for winter bird foods. By managing for the highly 

specialized butterflies and bees, other invertebrates, 

such as pollinating flies, beetles, spiders, and aphids, 

would also benefit. A landscape rich in quality nectar 

and pollen plants is central to any pollinator and bird 

conservation effort. (Mader et al. 2011) 

Unlike many forbs and shrubs, grass flowers are 

wind-pollinated. Therefore, they do not attract the 

insect pollinators needed by most birds. Grasses do 

attract specific arthropods because, unlike some forbs 

and shrubs, most grass species lack the variety of 

compounds that deter herbivory, so they are readily 

grazed by some insects. Grasses can be the hosts of 

many specialized endophagous insects, which are concealed inside leaf tissue for much of their life cycle, 

and ectophages insects, which feed externally on 

leaf tissue by chewing, scraping, and sucking. Birds 

take advantage of these during the breeding season. 

Grasses can serve as host plants for some butterflies 

as well as potential nesting sites for colonies of bumblebees and as overwintering sites for many insects. 

As with many grassland birds, heavy stocking with 

domestic animals negatively affects insect communities; whereas, a reduction of grazing pressure increases 

the insect species richness and abundance as well as 

bird species richness and abundance. Grassland management practices can enhance invertebrate diversity 

by increasing grassland diversity for healthy populations of forbs and fruit-producing shrubs as well as 

healthy stands of grass species (Tscharntke 1995).

Sentinel plants are the best food plants for wildlife, birds and many insects included, providing quality food in four ways: forage, pollen, fruits and seeds, 

and hosts to abundant insect species. Many of the 

refuge’s sentinel plants (refer to habitat objectives 

above and appendix F) are also designated as Montana pollinator-friendly plants (NRCS 2005a). Several 

sentinel plants are also included as “most important 

forage and most important browse” for mule deer 

and elk in the Missouri River Breaks (Mackie 1970). 

Sentinel plants and focal birds are those species first 

to vanish due to changes in ecological processes. They 

are indicators of complete flora and avifauna (birds 

of a specific region or period) communities. Focal 

birds often have the most restrictive needs within 

any given area; therefore, they can be indicators of 

a complete avifauna. Ultimately, they are dependent 

on a complete flora with its corresponding arthropod community. The tasks of management are to provide structural heterogeneity at multiple scales while 

sustaining the complete flora and avifauna. Sentinel 

plants and focal birds would be the measures of success or failure. Refer to chapter 4, section 4.3, for a 

complete discussion of habitat needs for focal birds.

Upland. Six bird species—three migrants and three 

residents—were selected as focal bird species (table 

3): long-billed curlew, Sprague’s pipit, Baird’s sparrow, brown creeper, sharp-tailed grouse, and greater 

sage-grouse. Each species was selected based on the 

following:
Chapter 3—Alternatives 97

■■ uses the refuge for breeding

■■ is identified as needing conservation action

■■ has the most demanding requirements (latesuccessional stage trees and abundant insectproviding forbs and fruit-bearing shrubs) and can 

represent a broader group of species sharing the 

same or similar needs

■■ contributes to meeting the primary purpose for 

the refuge of protecting sharp-tailed grouse, 

which is declining in most of its range

■■ represents winter habitat requirements, which 

are of concern for the two grouse species. At times, 

there may be an influx of greater sage-grouse in 

the winter from areas outside the refuge

River Bottom. Three focal species—red-eyed 

vireo, Brewer’s blackbird, and veery (table 4)—were 

selected based on the following:

■■ nests on the refuge

■■ is identified as needing conservation action

■■ has the most demanding requirements and can 

represent a broader group of species sharing the 

same or similar needs

Riparian Area and Wetland. Four focal species—

ovenbird, Cordilleran flycatcher, black-billed cuckoo, 

and western wood-pewee (table 5)—were selected 

based on the following:

■■ nests on the refuge

■■ is identified as needing conservation action

■■ has the most demanding requirements, such as 

late-successional stage trees and abundant insectproviding forbs and fruit-bearing shrubs, and can 

represent a broader group of species sharing the 

same or similar needs

■■ represents species that are primarily nocturnal 

flocking birds like the black-billed cuckoo, whose 

numbers have experienced severe declines, possibly due to pesticide use

Shoreline. Focal birds were not selected for the 

shoreline habitat because it is a highly dynamic area 

that fluctuates based on lake levels. Potential focal 

bird species, such as piping plover and least tern, are 

totally dependent on the shoreline for nesting and 

the adjacent water for food. USACE has primary 

jurisdiction for management of the lakeshore.

Bird monitoring, if done correctly, can quantify the 

status of bird populations, measure trends or changes 

in status, reveal effects of natural or human-induced 

changes, and aid in the development and evaluation 

of management decisions (Lambert et al. 2009).

Strategies for Birds B1–B3

R■ Conduct a refugewide bird atlas to collect data 

four times a year, during 24-hour blocks of time, 

for 7 years on the distribution, abundance, habitat use, and breeding and migratory phenology 

of the avifauna using each selected section of the 

atlas. Repeat the bird atlas during years 8–15 of 

the CCP.

R■ Work with partners, and gather historical data to 

add to the inventory database.

R■ Develop a data management system including a 

GIS database for recording bird sightings. Incorporate all habitat and management information 

into the bird data management system.

R■ Conduct studies to find specific connections 

between sentinel plant species and focal bird species.

R■ Carry out a vegetation monitoring program to 

assess if each focal bird’s habitat requirement is 

being met during each season of the year.

R■ Conduct a study to figure out the habitat needs of 

select focal birds from each of the refuge’s four 

habitat types, including evaluating the influence 

of herbivory and fire and the abundance and distribution of each species for each season of the 

year.

Objectives for Birds, Alternative C

Birds C1. Same as Birds B1 and D1.

Birds C2. Within 8–15 years, repeat the bird atlas on 

the refuge to help establish a permanent, refugewide, 

bird-monitoring program Determine and describe 

sentinel plant associations and habitat needs of 50 

percent of high-priority and focal bird species, which 

would be based on results of the bird atlas.

Birds C3. Same as Birds B3 and D3.

Birds C4. Within 5 years, determine greater sagegrouse and sharp-tail grouse distribution, nesting densities and nesting success in upland prairie areas of the 

refuge and relate these to the effects of management 

alternatives, such as burning and grazing, and sentinel 

species.

Rationale for Birds C1–C4. Same as B, plus designating 

sharp-tailed and greater sage-grouse as focal species for other grassland birds (Vodehnal and Haufler 

2007) because they are year-round residents and 

because they have relatively large home ranges and 

require vast acreages of quality grassland to sustain 

their populations. In February 2010, greater sagegrouse was listed as “warranted but precluded” 

under the Endangered Species Act (refer to chapter 

4, section 4.3). Although sharp-tailed grouse are not 

currently listed on any agency status lists, historical 

records show a marked decrease in this species. 

Greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse 

evolved with a diversity of ecological communities 
98 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

that were formed by two main influences: (1) many 

different ecological sites; and (2) the disturbances, 

such as fire and grazing by native species, on these 

sites. Restoring and keeping these species, as well as 

other high-priority grassland species, means understanding, managing, and restoring these diverse 

grass and shrub ecosystems (Vodehnal and Haufler 

2007).

Strategies for Birds C1–C4

R Conduct a refugewide bird atlas to collect data 

four times a year (during 24-hour blocks of time) 

for 7 years on the distribution, abundance, habitat use, and breeding and migratory phenology 

of the avifauna using each selected section of the 

atlas. Repeat the bird atlas during years 8–15 of 

the CCP.

R Work with partners and gather historical data to 

add to the inventory database.

R Develop a data management system including a 

GIS database for recording bird sightings. Incorporate all habitat and management information 

into the bird data management system.

R Conduct studies to find specific connections 

between sentinel plant species and focal bird species.

R Carry out a vegetation monitoring program to 

assess if each focal bird’s habitat need is being 

met during each season of the year.

R Within 2 years, work with partners to refine the 

current monitoring program for greater sagegrouse and sharp-tailed grouse and continue 

yearly monitoring of both species. 

R Within 5 years, determine, inventory, and monitor 

the needs for the current dancing ground and the 

nesting, brood-rearing, foraging, and fall–winter 

habitats for greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed 

grouse on a year-round basis, including habitat and 

management information in each of the four general habitat types on the refuge.

Objectives for Birds, Alternative D

Birds D1. Same as Birds B1 and C1.

Birds D2. Within 8–15 years, repeat the bird atlas of 

the refuge to help establish a permanent, refugewide, bird-monitoring program and determine and 

describe the sentinel plant associations and habitat 

requirements of 90 percent of high-priority species 

and focal bird species.

Birds D3. Same as Birds B3 and C3. 

Birds D4. Same as Birds C4.

Rationale and Strategies for Birds D1–D4. Same as B.

WILDLIFE—THREATENED and

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

and SPECIES OF CONCERN

Threatened and endangered species of importance 

that are found on the refuge are black-footed ferret 

(endangered), least tern (endangered), pallid sturgeon (endangered), and piping plover (threatened). 

This section also addresses grizzly bear (threatened), which is not currently found on the refuge but 

could migrate within the 15-year period. In addition, 

there are objectives for the following species of concern for the refuge: black-tailed prairie dog, greater 

sage-grouse (candidate), mountain plover, sicklefin 

chub, sturgeon chub, and Sprague’s pipit (candidate). 

Endangered Black-footed Ferret

USFWS

Objectives for Threatened and Endangered 

Species (TES) and Species of Concern, 

Alternative A

TES and Species of Concern A1 (black-footed ferret). 

Maintain habitat for, and maintain a minimum of, 30 

breeding pairs of black-footed ferrets on six or more 

prairie dog towns when animals are available and 

there is successful management of plague outbreaks. 

(Same as TES and Species of Concern B1, C1, and D1.)
Chapter 3—Alternatives 99

TES and Species of Concern A2 (black-footed ferret). 

Over 15 years, continue the black-footed ferret 

recovery effort including releasing animals, intensive 

monitoring, and disease and habitat management. 

TES and Species of Concern A3 (black-footed ferret). 

Maintain viable prairie dog towns of no less than 

5,000 acres and no more than 10,000 acres on suitable 

areas, with sizes and patterns desirable for blackfooted ferrets. 

Rational

A1–A3. 

e and Strategies for TES and Species of Concern 

None.

Objectives for TES and Species of Concern, 

Alternative B

TES and Species of Concern B1 (black-footed ferret). 

Same as TES and Species of Concern A1, C1, and D1.

TES and Species of Concern B2 (black-footed ferret). 

Over 15 years, continue to provide technical and scientific assistance where possible in black-footed ferret recovery to State, conservation organization, and 

private landowners interested in black-footed ferret 

recovery. (Same as TES and Species of Concern C2 

and D2.)

TES and Species of Concern B3 (black-footed ferret). 

Continue the monitoring of the existing UL Bend 

population and consider additional releases of captive-reared ferrets. (Same as TES and Species of 

Concern C3 and D3.)

Rationale for 

footed ferret).

TES and Species of Concern B1–B3 (blackWith successful management of plague 

and with partner cooperation, the refuge could produce sufficient prairie dog habitat to support a blackfooted ferret population that would contribute to 

recovery of the species. 

The Service has actively released and monitored 

ferrets at UL Bend Refuge since 1994. The refuge 

also built a captive-rearing and preconditioning facility near Malta that operated for several years, but has 

now been abandoned. The refuge staff have also helped 

with ferret reintroductions and monitoring on BLM 

lands, on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and 

on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation.

A self-sustaining ferret population has yet to be 

established in Montana. MFWP is the leader in prairie 

dog conservation in Montana, and the refuge staff 

would collaborate with them on ferret recovery 

activities where possible.

(Same as D.)

Strategies for TES and Species of Concern B1–B3 (blackfooted ferret)

R Cooperate with adjacent land managers to maintain, expand, and protect prairie dog colonies 

in configurations capable of supporting a viable 

black-footed ferret population. Continue to provide monitoring, management and research expertise by refuge staff.

R■ Provide technical and scientific expertise to State, 

counties, and other landowners interested in blackfooted ferret recovery efforts on their lands.

TES and Species of Concern B4 (least tern). Over 15 

years, work with USACE to maximize suitable nesting habitats that are attractive to least terns with 

the goal of maximizing annual productivity to promote recovery. (Same as TES and Species of Concern D4.)

TES and Species of Concern B5 (piping plover). Over 

15 years, work with USACE to maximize suitable 

nesting habitats that are attractive to piping plovers 

with the goal of maximizing annual productivity to 

promote recovery. (Same as TES and Species of Concern C5 and D5.)

Rationale for TES and Species of Concern B4–B5 (least 

tern and piping plover). Certain areas of the reservoir, 

some islands and shorelines, tend to be more attractive to nesting least terns and piping plovers. Once 

identified, it may be practical to manage those habitats to ensure their continued suitability. Recognizing that reservoir levels vary greatly, it may only 

be feasible to identify sites that, in most successive 

years, are attractive and available to these species. 

(Same as D.)

Piping Plover

Gene Nieminen / USFWS

TES and Species of Concern B6 (pallid sturgeon). Over 

15 years, work cooperatively with MFWP and other 

partners along the Missouri River to develop management actions, in compliance with the recovery 

plan, to benefit pallid sturgeon populations. (Same as 

TES and Species of Concern C6 and D6.)

TES and Species of Concern B7 (pallid sturgeon). Over 

15 years, work cooperatively with partners to mon-
100 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

itor populations of pallid sturgeons. (Same as TES 

and Species of Concern C7 and D7.)

TES and Species of Concern B8 (grizzly bear). Over 15 

years, develop a grizzly bear management plan, in 

cooperation with MFWP, for managing grizzly bears 

that could naturally colonize the refuge. (Same as 

TES and Species of Concern C8 and D8.)

Rationale for TES and Species of Concern B8 (grizzly bear).

This refuge-specific plan is being developed in case 

grizzly bear naturally recolonize the refuge. The philosophy of the plan under this alternative would be 

to promote grizzly bear abundance, within ecological 

constraints, and to provide for recreational viewing 

opportunities. Grizzly bears would provide natural 

predation pressure on large ungulates and influence 

their movement around the refuge. 

Strategies for TES and Species of Concern B8 (grizzly bear)

R■ Work with MFWP and others to document grizzly bear presence on the refuge and to monitor 

abundance, distribution, and population trends 

if grizzly bears become established, and educate 

user groups about the ecological role grizzly 

bears play in the environment. 

R■ If grizzly bears are documented on the refuge, 

take steps to minimize potential conflicts with 

livestock. However, on a case-by-case basis, permit approved agents to remove grizzly bears that 

are documented to be depredating livestock.

R■ Promote, help sponsor, and conduct research on 

grizzly bear ecology in the Missouri River Breaks.

R■ Refrain from establishing a hunting season for 

grizzly bears on the refuge if grizzly bears are 

delisted.

TES and Species of Concern B9 (black-tailed prairie 

dog). Over 15 years, continue protection, restoration 

and expansion of black-tailed prairie dog populations 

refugewide to maximize occupancy of potential habitat. (Same as TES and Species of Concern C9 and 

D9.)

TES and Species of Concern B10 (black-tailed prairie 

dog). Work with MFWP, conservation organizations, 

and neighbors to implement MFWP’s “Conservation 

Plan for Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dogs 

in Montana” (MFWP 2002b). Work to establish at 

least two 5,000-acre complexes that could support 

black-footed ferrets in which the refuge could contribute to the larger complex. (Same as TES and Species of Concern C10 and D10.)

TES and Species of Concern B11 (black-tailed prairie dog). GPS map all black-tailed prairie dog colonies 

on the refuge every 3 years, if funding and personnel 

allow. Continue research, monitoring, and treatment. 

(Same as TES and Species of Concern D11.)

Strategies for TES and Species of Concern B9–B11 (blacktailed prairie dog)

R■ Within 3 years, map and rank the quality of all 

potential and existing prairie dog habitats.

R■ Promote expansion by mechanically removing 

vegetation, targeted prescriptive grazing, and fire. 

R■ Coordinate with MFWP and others on how the 

refuge could best contribute to conservation of 

prairie dogs and associated species.

R■ Use current disease (plague) management tools 

and translocation procedures (Truett et al. 2001, 

Dullum et al. 2005) to promote prairie dog population growth and persistence in desired areas.

R■ Continue research and field trials on existing and 

developing plague management tools.

TES and Species of Concern B12 (greater sagegrouse). Over 15 years, assist MFWP in carrying 

out the State’s conservation strategies for greater 

sage-grouse and work with other partner agencies and organizations in sage-grouse conservation 

and research. Within 2 years, using MFWP’s sagegrouse core area map (MFWP 2005b) and existing 

research projects, delineate areas of the refuge that 

are of high importance to sage-grouse. Adjust proposed actions and responses to wildfires to minimize 

short-term negative effects and maximize long-term 

benefits for sage-grouse and other sage-steppe-associated species. (Same as TES and Species of Concern 

C12 and D12.)

Rationale for TES and Species of Concern B12 (greater 

sage-grouse). In 2010, the Service determined that 

the greater sage-grouse was warranted, but precluded, for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act. On the refuge, populations are generally stable. Greater sage-grouse has been identified as a 

focal species for the upland habitat, refer to the bird 

objectives above. The sagebrush flats in UL Bend 

National Wildlife Refuge provide critical breeding 

and wintering habitat for sage-grouse.

Greater sage-grouse is adapted to a mosaic of plant 

communities on the refuge, with its natural variation 

in plant species composition, topography, substrate, 

weather, and frequency of fire. Leks are normally 

found on sites with less herbaceous and shrub cover, 

surrounded by potential nesting habitat. Hens have 

been recorded nesting 2.5–4.8 miles from leks where 

they are first observed. Nests are placed in relatively 

thick cover dominated by big sagebrush, silver sagebrush, grasses, rabbitbrush, greasewood, and other 

shrubs. Broods also use a variety of habitats; however, brood habitat must be rich in forbs and insects. 

During the winter, greater sage-grouse will use the 

same areas as during breeding time but can move to 

areas dominated by a 6- to 43-percent cover of sagebrush, depending on snow conditions. Sagebrush 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 101

is essential for winter habitat, and it dominates the 

late autumn, winter, and early spring diet. However, 

plants must be tall enough in deep snow conditions to 

supply needed leaves or buds for food. At all times of 

the year, greater sage-grouse forages on the ground 

in open habitats (Schroeder et al. 1999). 

The Service would continue to protect essential 

habitat, particularly important breeding areas during prescribed fire and wildfire operations (refer to 

habitat and fire management objectives and strategies above for more details). The use of prescribed 

fire can result in a net loss of sagebrush and should 

be avoided in breeding areas, but it can be an effective tool for dense sagebrush cover and suppressed 

herbaceous cover. Wildfires are less predictable and 

unplanned, and they have had significant effects in 

upland areas on the refuge (refer to chapter 4, section 4.3). A primary objective in the CCP is to reduce 

severe wildfires, increase plant diversity, and provide 

a mosaic of habitats. The habitat objectives and strategies described above would benefit sage-grouse. 

This includes transitioning away from annual grazing 

and toward habitat-based prescriptive grazing strategies, reducing fencing, reducing invasive species, minimizing the severity of wildfire in sage-grouse habitat, 

continuing ongoing research, and improving overall 

habitat quality (Connelly et al. 2000, MFWP 2005b). 

The Service would continue to help MFWP in 

achieving the conservation strategies for sage-grouse 

(MFWP 2005b). Their 2005 plan identifies core areas 

and outlines strategies for wildfire suppression, 

prescribed fire, livestock grazing, hunting, noxious 

weeds, and development of energy resources. Hunting would continue to be allowed. Additionally, the 

Service would work with other partners across the 

region to protect and enhance sage-grouse habitat. 

Strategies for TES and Species of Concern B12 (greater 

sage-grouse) 

R Using existing lek locations and existing research 

telemetry data, combined with the many available GIS data layers, map and model sage-grouse 

habitat and rank its quality.

R Identify existing and potential threats to sagegrouse habitat and develop remedies.

R Protect brooding habitat on the refuge.

R Collaborate with private landowners and other 

land managers in protecting the region’s sagegrouse habitat.

TES and Species of Concern B13 (mountain plover).

Over 15 years, continue to promote prairie dog 

towns to provide habitat for mountain plovers and 

other prairie dog–dependent species. (Same as TES 

and Species of Concern C13 and D13.)

Strategies for TES and Species of Concern B13 (mountain 

plover)

R■ Promote the persistence and expansion of prairie 

dog colonies, especially those on ridges and with 

gravelly substrates, as such sites appear more 

attractive as nesting habitat for mountain plovers. 

R■ At least every 3 years, design and conduct population surveys for mountain plovers.

TES and Species of Concern B14 (sicklefin chub and 

sturgeon chub). Over 15 years, work with MFWP and 

other partners to improve monitoring of rare fish, 

such as the sicklefin chub and the sturgeon chub, and 

develop management actions to benefit pallid sturgeon populations. (Same as TES and Species of Concern C14 and D14.)

Rationale for TES and Species of Concern B14 (sicklefin 

chub and sturgeon chub). In 2001, the Service found 

that the sicklefin and sturgeon chub do not warrant listing as threatened or endangered. The sicklefin chub has been documented in the Missouri River 

above Fort Peck Reservoir, but little is known about 

its abundance or distribution. The Montana Chapter 

of the American Fisheries Society reports that the 

sturgeon chub is relatively common and widespread 

in eastern Montana, and populations appear relatively secure. The refuge has spent little effort on 

rare fish, but it is willing to work with others on their 

conservation. Neither of these species was encountered during a 1999 fishery of several streams on the 

refuge conducted by Robert Bramblett and Alexander Zale (1999). (Same as D.)

Strategy for TES and Species of Concern B14 (sicklefin 

chub and sturgeon chub)

R■ Meet with MFWP fishery staff to discuss the status 

of these fish species and what actions the refuge 

might consider for better management of them.

TES and Species of Concern B15 (general). Over 15 

years, protect, conserve, and enhance populations 

of special status species where the refuge and partners can make significant contributions to recovery efforts on the refuge. Give priority to species 

that are listed federally or by the State of Montana. 

(Same as TES and Species of Concern D14.)

Rationale for TES and Species of Concern B1–B15. The 

Service manages threatened and endangered species 

as trust species and is responsible for helping with the 

recovery of these species that occur within the Refuge System. To implement effective management for 

the protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species, a major goal of the Refuge System is to 

develop priorities for refuge management among species. Prioritization is important because limitations in 

money and staff time prevent targeting all special sta-
102 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

tus species for management. Limited resources are 

allocated, in part, based on inventories of special status species and prioritization of management needs.

Consistent with the theme of alternative B, 

resources would be directed toward maintaining, 

and enhancing where appropriate, population levels 

to the maximum extent possible and practicable for 

these special status species.

On October 4, 2011, the Service concluded that 

listing under the Endangered Species Act was not 

warranted for the northern leopard frog.

(Same as D.)

Strategies for TES and Species of Concern B1–B15. 

Same as C and D, except:

R By 2014, evaluate and prioritize the special status species that occur on the refuge to figure out 

which species require active management and 

the level and type of management needed. Use 

criteria for prioritization that includes listing status, implementation of actions identified in recovery plans, status within Montana, population size 

on the refuge, threats to survival, sensitivity to 

disturbance, and the ability of the refuge to contribute to recovery or conservation of the species.

R By 2015, compile all field surveys, literature, and 

historical records pertaining to the special status species that occur on the refuge. Incorporate 

MFWP’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy whenever possible. 

R By 2016, develop habitat management strategies 

to preserve and enhance populations of high-priority special status species on the refuge (including federally listed species such as black-footed 

ferret, piping plover, least tern, and pallid sturgeon). These strategies would include detailed 

prescriptions for habitat management, protocols 

to monitor the status of these species, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of management 

actions. Monitor the effects of public use on special status species. 

R Over 15 years, encourage research by refuge staff, 

graduate students or other organizations on priority special status species to better understand 

and promote their conservation. Continue to help 

USACE with historical plover and tern surveys 

so that the survey data remains consistent.

R Within 5 years, work with the Ecological Services 

branch of the Service to identify areas of critical 

habitat for endangered species and species of 

concern. Consider using prescribed fire in these 

areas to achieve specific resource objectives, 

as long as there were not significant negative 

effects. Identify these areas in the fire management plan as areas of special concern to be protected from wildfire.

R■ Collaborate with other interested parties and 

secure funds to hire more seasonal employees to 

conduct amphibian monitoring and turtle monitoring.

R■ See riparian area and wetland section above 

for strategies to improve riparian habitats that 

would benefit amphibians.

TES and Species of Concern B16 (Sprague’s pipit). Over 

15 years, map locations of Sprague’s pipit found on 

the refuge. (Same as TES and Species of Concern 

C16.)

Rationale for TES and Species of Concern B16 (Sprague’s 

pipit). In September 2010, the Service reviewed the 

conservation status of the Sprague’s pipit to determine whether the species warranted protection 

under the Endangered Species Act. The status 

review found that listing Sprague’s pipit as threatened or endangered is warranted, but is precluded 

by the need to complete listing actions of a higher 

priority (FWS 2010e). Although Sprague’s pipit has 

been documented on the refuge, areas where pipits are found are not mapped. This species would be 

monitored as part of the Service’s overall bird objectives and upland habitat objectives. 

Sprague’s pipit is an open-grassland bird and 

avoids poorly drained areas as well as areas with even 

low densities of shrubs. Pipits avoid roads and trails, 

requiring large patches of grassland (greater than, or 

equal to, 358 acres) with smaller edge-to-area ratios. 

These birds are most commonly found in native grasses 

of intermediate height and thickness with moderate litter depths. Due to the poor soils and low precipitation 

of the Missouri Breaks, intermediate heights are difficult to achieve when compared to their full potential in 

wetter areas in North Dakota and can only be accomplished by limited herbivory. Areas dominated by nonnative grasses and crested wheatgrass are not used. 

Sprague’s pipits forage for a wide array of arthropods 

on the ground in grass that is several inches tall. They 

usually nest in native grass of intermediate height and 

density with little bare ground. 

Sprague’s pipit is susceptible to habitat degradation due to high-intensity grazing and is affected 

by lack of fire and the subsequent increase in woody 

vegetation and increase in the accumulation of litter. 

Soon after a burn, numbers may decline but would 

increase in the years following a burn. For arid parts 

of the pipit’s range including the refuge, the literature states a fire interval of 8–20 years is recommended. Mowing has negative effects on Sprague’s 

pipits (Robbins 1999).

Strategies for TES and Species of Concern B16 (Sprague’s 

pipit)

R■ Identify locations where Sprague’s pipits occur 

on the refuge. 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 103

R■ Follow the Service’s recommendations in the conservation plan for Sprague’s pipit (FWS 2010e) on 

fire, grazing, and other tools to enhance habitat.

Objectives for TES and Species of Concern, 

Alternative C

TES and Species of Concern C1–C3 (black-footed ferret).

Same as TES and Species of Concern A1, B1–B3, 

and D1–D3.

Rationale and Strategies for TES and Species of Concern 

C1–C3 (black-footed ferret). Same as B and D.

TES and Species of Concern C4 (least tern). On plan 

approval and depending on lake levels, work with 

USACE to maintain suitable least tern nesting habitats.

TES and Species of Concern C5 (piping plover). Same as 

TES and Species of Concern B5 and D5.

Rationale and Strategy for TES and Species of Concern 

C4–C5 (least tern and piping plover). Same as B and D, 

except: 

R■ Do not restrict livestock grazing on beaches 

beyond current levels.

TES and Species of Concern C6–C7 (pallid sturgeon).

Same as TES and Species of Concern B6–B7 and 

D6–D7.

TES and Species of Concern C8 (grizzly bear). Same as 

TES and Species of Concern B8 and D8. 

TES and Species of Concern C9–C10 (black-tailed prairie 

dog). Same as TES and Species of Concern B9–B10 

and D9–D10. 

TES and Species of Concern 11 (black-tailed prairie 

dog). GPS map all prairie dog colonies on the refuge 

every 5 years.

Rationale and Strategies for TES and Species of Concern 

C9–C11 (black-tailed prairie dog). Same as B and D, 

plus:

R■ Continue attending Montana and local prairie dog 

management meetings and help MFWP carry out 

their conservation plans.

TES and Species of Concern C12 (greater sage-grouse). 

Same as TES and Species of Concern B12 and D12, 

except identify two leks near each field station suitable for public viewing (refer to public use objectives 

below).

TES and Species of Concern C13 (mountain plover). 

Same as TES and Species of Concern B13 and D13. 

TES and Species of Concern C14 (sicklefin chub and 

sturgeon chub). Same as TES and Species of Concern 

B14 and D14.

Rationale and Strategies for TES and Species of Concern C14 

(sicklefin chub and sturgeon chub). Same as B and D.

TES and Species of Concern C15 (general).Over 15 years, 

protect, conserve, and enhance populations of special 

status and their habitats. Give priority to species 

that are State- or federally listed. Expand on those 

opportunities to provide public view of special status species and other wildlife-dependent recreation.

Rationale for TES and Species of Concern C1–C15. Same 

as TES and Species of Concern B, plus there is less 

emphasis on habitat and population recovery and 

monitoring and more emphasis on getting the public involved in wildlife-dependent recreational activities associated with these special status species (see 

objectives for public use below). Given the emphasis 

in this alternative, fewer resources would be spent 

on species recovery, but the Service would fulfill the 

legal and policy requirements for these species and 

place more emphasis on public use and enjoyment of 

these species.

Strategies for TES and Species of Concern C1–C15

Similar to B, except there would be emphasis on 

public education. 

TES and Species of Concern C16 (Sprague’s pipit). Same 

as TES and Species of Concern B16.

Rationale and Strategies for TES and Species of Concern C16 

(Sprague’s pipit). Same as B and D.

Objectives for TES and Species of Concern, 

Alternative D

TES and Species of Concern D1–D3 (black-footed ferret). 

Same as TES and Species of Concern A1, B1–B3, and 

C1–C3.

TES and Species of Concern D4 (least tern). Same as 

TES and Species of Concern B4.

TES and Species of Concern D5–D10 (piping plover, pallid sturgeon, grizzly bear, and black-tailed prairie dog). 

Same as TES and Species of Concern B5–B10 and C5–

C10.

TES and Species of Concern D11 (black-tailed prairie 

dog). Same as TES and Species of Concern B11.

TES and Species of Concern D12 (greater sage-grouse). 

Same as TES and Species of Concern B12 and C12.

TES and Species of Concern D13–D14 (mountain plover, 

sicklefin chub, and sturgeon chub). Same as TES and 

Species of Concern B13–B14 and C13–C14.

TES and Species of Concern D15 (general). Same as 

TES and Species of Concern B15.

Rationale for TES and Species of Concern D1–D15. Same 

as B, except maintenance, restoration and enhancement of special status species would be used to 

restore natural ecological processes, which is the 

theme of this alternative.
104 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Strategies for TES and Species of Concern D1–D15 

Same as B. 

TES and Species of Concern D16 (Sprague’s pipit). Same 

as TES and Species of Concern B16 and C16.

Rationale and Strategies for TES and Species of Concern 

D16 (Sprague’s pipit). Same as B and C.

WILDLIFE—FURBEARERS 

and SMALL PREDATORS

Furbearers include beaver, muskrat, river otter and 

mink, raccoons, badgers, and other small mammals. 

Small predators include coyotes, swift fox, weasel, 

and civet cat (spotted skunk).

Objectives for Furbearers and Small Predators, 

Alternative A

No objectives currently exist for managing furbearers; under alternative A, there would be no objectives and strategies for managing these species.

Objectives for Furbearers and Small Predators, 

Alternative B

Furbearers and Small Predators B1. By 2016, work with 

partners to determine population levels and distribution of furbearers and small predators that currently occur on the refuge.

Furbearers and Small Predators B2. By 2017, evaluate habitat and determine the habitat suitability of reintroducing populations of swift fox to the 

refuge and, if so, the number of breeding population pairs that could be reintroduced into suitable 

habitat. If reestablishment does not occur by 2020, 

increase active management to establish a viable 

population on the refuge. (Same as Furbearers and 

Small Predators D3.)

Furbearers and Small Predators B3. As part of the Service’s programs for strategic habitat conservation 

and landscape conservation cooperatives (refer to 

chapter 1), evaluate the potential for natural colonization of extirpated species into suitable habitats by 

evaluating current corridors. If extirpated species 

naturally colonize the refuge, work with the State 

and others to ensure refuge management is compatible with State and Federal management plans. 

(Same as Furbearers and Small Predators D7.)

Rationale for Furbearers and Small Predators B1–B3. 

Protection from harvest should result in maximum 

abundance, consistent with the focus of this alternative. Little is known about the limiting factors for 

these species on the refuge, but habitat management for diversity and health should benefit them. 

Expanding suitable riparian habitats would provide 

the basis for increased populations of muskrat, beaver, river otter and mink.

A few swift fox sightings have been reported on 

or near the refuge and reintroduction into suitable 

habitat would help speed population establishment. 

A research project on bobcats conducted in 1979

and 1980 showed illegal hunting to be the largest mortality factor among radio-collared bobcats on the refuge (Knowles 1981). Current population numbers on 

the refuge remain relatively unknown; however, continued restrictions would help support a viable bobcat population in the Missouri River Breaks as areas 

around the refuge continue to be hunted. 

Strategies for Furbearers and Small Predators B1–B3

R Maintain current protection and do not permit 

any harvest. 

R Reintroduce swift fox. Fence areas to provide 

protection during the fox’s reestablishment. 

R Restore riparian communities in Missouri River 

tributaries to promote beaver, muskrat, river 

otter, and mink expansion. 

R Increase law enforcement to reduce potential illegal bobcat take. (Same as D.)

Objectives for Furbearers and Small Predators, 

Alternative C

Furbearers and Small Predators C1. By 2014, before 

initiating harvest opportunities for furbearer species, develop and carry out a monitoring program to 

determine relative densities of regulated and unregulated furbearing species.

Furbearers and Small Predators C2. By 2016, determine minimum population levels to support sustainable harvest opportunities for furbearing species 

regulated by MFWP (muskrat, mink, bobcat, and 

beaver) consistent with providing a moderate-toexcellent opportunity for public viewing of these furbearer species.

Furbearers and Small Predators C3. Maximize sustainable harvest opportunities for furbearing species not 

regulated by MFWP (red fox, coyote, raccoon and 

badger; excluding least weasel, long-tailed weasel 

,and striped skunk), consistent with providing reasonable public opportunities for viewing of these furbearer species. 

Rationale for Furbearers and Small Predators C1–C3. 

Currently, the take of State-regulated furbearing species is not permitted on the refuge. Creating opportunity for sustainable use of these wildlife species 

would increase public and economic use.

Currently, for unregulated furbearing or small 

predator species, the take of these (with the exception 

of coyotes) is not permitted on the refuge. Creating 

opportunity for hunting and trapping of these wildlife 

species would increase public and economic use.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 105

Strategies for Furbearers and Small Predators C1–C3

R■ Initiate studies and a monitoring program to 

determine populations, or indices of abundance, 

levels before initiating any action on opening any 

more furbearer species for harvest.

R■ Decide if trapping is appropriate and compatible 

with refuge purposes; if it is, complete trapping 

plans to allow trapping of MFWP-regulated furbearers on the refuge.

R■ Develop trapping plans for red fox, coyote, raccoon, and badger. Develop hunting plans for badger, raccoon, and red fox to allow the shooting of 

these species on the refuge.

Objectives for Furbearers and Small Predators, 

Alternative D

Furbearers and Small Predators D1. Within 5 years, 

begin a comprehensive monitoring program to determine density levels and distributions if considering 

opening furbearer species for harvesting by either 

hunting or trapping.

Furbearers and Small Predators D2. Over 15 years, 

maintain self-sustaining populations of furbearers 

by restricting and regulating harvest opportunities 

on the refuge when harvest begins for species regulated by MFWP (muskrat, beaver, mink, swift fox, 

and bobcat) and those unregulated by MFWP (least 

weasel, long-tailed weasel, striped skunk, badger, 

raccoon, red fox, and coyote).

Furbearers and Small Predators D3. Same as Furbearers and Small Predators B2.

Furbearers and Small Predators D4. Within 10 years, 

have viable beaver populations in a minimum of two 

tributaries of the Missouri River on the refuge.

Furbearers and Small Predators D5. Over 15 years, 

encourage research on priority furbearer species on 

the refuge to determine their ecological role. Universities or other organizations conduct research with 

refuge help in the form of money, supplies, volunteers, or technical assistance.

Furbearers and Small Predators D6. Within 1 year, end 

the taking of coyotes on the refuge by USDA Wildlife Services.

Furbearers and Small Predators D7. Same as Furbearers and Small Predators B3.

Rationale for Furbearers and Small Predators D1–D7. 

Same as B, except the Service would evaluate the 

harvest potential for furbearers and small predators 

to provide a wildlife-dependent recreational opportunity (refer to objectives under “Public Use—

Hunting” below). A stable or growing population of 

furbearers and small predators would be maintained 

for its contribution to the overall biological diversity 

and integrity and to the environmental health of the 

refuge.

Similar to the mountain lion, Federal law prohibits any hunting or trapping on a national wildlife refuge unless specifically authorized. To open the 

refuge for the hunting or trapping of furbearers or 

small predators, a proposal, or hunt plan, would need 

to be prepared that would include a justification with 

population status, determination of harvest levels, 

and monitoring results. The proposal would be subject to additional public input and National Environmental Policy Act compliance.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (Wildlife Services) conducts predator control activities along the 

southeast part of the refuge on private and BLM 

lands under cooperative agreements. This activity 

has declined in recent years due to fewer domestic sheep populations (personal communication with 

John Steuber, Wildlife Services on November 7, 

2011). Wildlife Services does not conduct predator 

control on the refuge unless they are in pursuit of an 

animal or are requested by the refuge for help (by 

earlier agreement with the Service); however, it is 

difficult to discern private lands from refuge lands, 

which may result in some taking that occurs on the 

refuge. This activity would not be appropriate (603 

FW1) under this alternative.

American Badger

© Diane Hargreaves

Strategies for Furbearers and Small Predators D1–D7

R■ Maintain current protection and do not permit any 

harvest until population surveys are completed 

and it has been found that a harvest strategy 

could be carried out without affecting the naturally occurring population dynamics. Reintroduce 

swift fox. Restore riparian communities in Missouri River tributaries to promote beaver, muskrat, river otter, and mink expansion. Increase law 
106 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

enforcement to reduce potential illegal bobcat 

take. (Same as B.)

R■ Maintain current oversight for those species 

already protected on the refuge. Allow hunting of 

red fox and coyotes.

R■ With stable population levels, allow furbearers 

and small predators (coyote, long-tailed and least 

weasel, swift fox, skunk, beaver, muskrat, mink, 

river otter, bobcat, badger, raccoon, and red fox), 

as defined by MFWP, to be managed for naturally 

occurring population dynamics.

R■ Develop a standardized data sheet to collect 

information on furbearing animals that would be 

input into a newly designed database to establish 

a GIS layer for mapping their locations.

WILDLIFE—AMERICAN 

BISON RESTORATION

The American bison historically ranged throughout 

the Great Plains, and the last wild bison was extirpated from this area in the late 1800s (FWS 2010d). 

Wild bison played a significant ecological role with 

fire to shape the landscape. Restoring historical firereturn intervals and wild bison would be a major 

step in restoring the biological integrity and natural ecosystem functions on the refuge and surrounding areas.

The momentum and interest in wild bison restoration in North America has increased substantially 

in recent years. The International Union for Conservation of Nature established the Bison Specialist 

Group, which was charged in 2005 with developing a 

“North American Strategy for Bison Conservation.” 

That comprehensive plan is expected to be released 

in the near future and will provide scientifically 

based guidelines for proponents interested in restoring wild bison at an ecologically functional scale.

The Wildlife Conservation Society has recently 

reestablished the American Bison Society to promote bison conservation. The society, originally 

active from 1905 to 1935, was largely responsible 

for keeping bison from going extinct and establishing the conservation herds that are managed today 

by the Service and the National Park Service for the 

American public. 

MFWP’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005a) lists the American bison as a priority, tier 1, species for conservation. 

MFWP and others have invested time and effort trying to produce brucellosis-free bison from the genetically valuable Yellowstone herd as stock to establish 

herds managed for conservation and ecological purposes elsewhere. In 2010, MFWP began a process to 

evaluate the opportunity for establishing a wild plains 

bison population in Montana. In 2011, MFWP published its findings. The purpose was not to make management decisions but to create the foundation for an

informed public dialogue about the future of bison in 

the State of Montana (Adams and Dood 2011).

There would be multiple agencies, partners, and 

cooperators in any proposed wild bison restoration 

effort. The Service has taken the position that it will 

not consider reintroducing wild bison on the refuge unless MFWP initiates an effort to restore wild 

bison (Adams and Dood 2011) on a large landscape. 

The Service recognizes the State’s role in managing 

native wildlife and would work cooperatively with 

MFWP in the development of a wild bison restoration plan. MFWP does not have any plans at this 

time to consider reintroducing a free-ranging herd 

of wild bison in the area. 

Objectives for American Bison Restoration, 

Alternative A

There are no objectives under alternative A. 

Objectives for American Bison Restoration, 

Alternative B

Bison B1. Over 15 years, continue to work with 

MFWP, conservation organizations, and neighbors 

to evaluate the economic, social, and biological feasibility of restoring wild bison as a natural component 

on the surrounding landscape.

Bison B2. On advancement of a MFWP proposal that 

includes refuge lands in a wild bison restoration 

effort, develop a stepdown framework defining the 

conditions under which the refuge would participate.

Bison B3. Within 1 year of framework development 

(see Bison B2), and in cooperation with MFWP and 

other partners, develop a wild bison management 

plan that specifies and ranks areas of suitable habitat; establishes abundance, composition and distribution targets based on habitat conditions and 

appropriate wildlife and recreation management on 

a national wildlife refuge; and details cooperative 

management responses to be applied to anticipated 

conflicts.

Bison B4. Over 15 years, continue to develop, and 

carry out, research proposals to better understand 

the interaction of wild bison, livestock, wild ungulates and other wildlife and vegetation in relation to 

fire and other life-threatening influences.

Rationale for American Bison Restoration B1–B4. Any 

reintroduction of wild bison would need to be a cooperative venture with MFWP. At this time, the State 

does not have an ongoing plan to reintroduce wild 

bison in the Missouri River Breaks.

The Service would cooperate with MFWP, BLM, 

DNRC, conservation organizations, and others to 

conduct the necessary biological, social and economic 

research to determine the feasibility of such a proposal.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 107

The Service recognizes the ecological importance 

of such an effort, but also recognizes the complexity 

and controversy that would be associated with any 

such effort. Therefore, the approach under this alternative is to work cooperatively and collaboratively 

with others as a full partner in any proposal, with full 

engagement of the public. 

The following strategies would be conducted concurrently with any proposal by MFWP for wild bison 

restoration in areas around the refuge. 

Strategies for American Bison Restoration B1–B4

R Work with MFWP, major universities, National 

Wildlife Federation, World Wildlife Fund, The 

Nature Conservancy, American Prairie Reserve, 

and others to develop and carry out research proposals to evaluate the biological, social, and economic feasibility of restoring free-ranging wild 

bison in and around the refuge.

R Work with a variety of economists to determine 

the potential economic benefits and negative 

effects of a free-ranging wild bison herd in the 

area.

R Before any wild bison reintroduction, complete a 

cooperative wild bison management plan developed 

and agreed-on by all involved management parties, 

which addresses population objectives and management, movement of animals outside restoration 

areas, genetic conservation and management, disease management, and conflict resolution procedures.

(Same as D.)

Objectives for American Bison Restoration, 

Alternative C

Bison C1. Over 15 years, if wild bison are restored 

to areas outside the refuge and animals migrate into 

the refuge as State-managed wildlife species, adopt 

MFWP’s management plan.

Rationale for American Bison Restoration C1. Under this 

alternative, the Service would not participate in 

an active restoration proposal for the refuge. This 

objective attempts to balance economic uses such as 

livestock grazing with wild bison restoration by not 

actively restoring wild bison on refuge lands, but by 

passively accepting wild bison as wildlife to be managed in accordance with MFWP management guidelines.

Strategy for American Bison Restoration C1

R Work with MFWP to manage habitat and population 

for any wild bison that migrate onto the refuge.

Objectives for American Bison Restoration, 

Alternative D

Bison D1–D4. Same as Bison B1–B4.

Rationale and Strategies for American Bison Restoration 

D1–D4. Same as B.

WILDLIFE—NORTHERN GRAY WOLF

Wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National 

Park in 1995 and have steadily increased in numbers 

to an estimated population of 566 wolves in Montana 

with at least 35 breeding pairs (MFWP 2011).

Objectives for Gray Wolf, Alternative A

Gray Wolf A1. Manage the northern gray wolf in cooperation with MFWP and in accordance with the 

State management plan and Service policy. (Same as 

Gray Wolf B1, C1, and D1.)

Rationale for Gray Wolf A1. Should the northern gray 

wolf naturally colonize the refuge, the Service would 

adopt the State’s plan and follow Service policies 

in monitoring and managing the species. Hunting 

would not be established until a proposal, or hunt 

plan, was developed in accordance with National 

Environmental Policy Act requirements and until 

regulations were published in the Federal Register. 

(Same as Gray Wolf B1, C1, and D1.)

Strategies for Gray Wolf A1

R■ Work with MFWP and others to document wolf 

presence on the refuge and to monitor abundance, 

distribution, and population trends if wolves 

become established. 

R■ Collaborate with others to educate the public and 

refuge users about the ecological role wolves play 

in the environment.

R■ On a case-by-case basis, remove wolves that are 

documented depredating livestock.

R■ Promote, help sponsor and conduct research on 

wolf ecology in the Missouri River Breaks.

(Same as B, C, and D.)

Objectives for Gray Wolf, Alternative B

Gray Wolf B1. Same as Gray Wolf A1, C1 and D1. 

Rationale and Strategies for Gray Wolf B1. Same as A, 

C, and D.

Objectives for Gray Wolf, Alternative C

Gray Wolf C1. Same as Gray Wolf A1, B1, and D1. 

Rationale and Strategies for Gray Wolf C1. Same as A, 

B, and D.

Objectives for Gray Wolf, Alternative D

Gray Wolf D1. Same as Gray Wolf A1, B1, and C1. 

Rationale and Strategies for Gray Wolf D1. Same as A, 

B, and C.
108 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

WILDLIFE—BIG GAME

There are six big game species of primary importance that are found on the refuge: Rocky Mountain 

elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep, and mountain lion.

Objectives for Big Game, Alternative A

The wildlife objectives and strategies listed for 

alternative A are the actions selected in the record of 

decision from the 1986 EIS. Alternative A would continue managing wildlife according to these actions; 

many have already been implemented. The 1986 EIS 

blended objectives and strategies, and these were 

separated to the extent possible to more closely follow the format used in current CCP documents. 

Big Game A1 (elk). Over 15 years, maintain elk habitat 

in good to excellent condition, and improve security 

cover to a level capable of maintaining a population 

of 2.5 overwintering elk per square miles in the coniferous and closely associated grassland communities. 

Big Game A2 (mule deer). Over 15 years, improve and 

maintain mule deer habitat on the refuge in sage–

grassland, ponderosa pine–juniper, and grassland– 

deciduous shrub vegetative types in good to excellent condition to support over wintering populations 

of 10 deer per square mile, in a manner that would 

also benefit sharp-tailed grouse. (Note: 10 deer per 

square mile refers to the total estimated population, 

not the density of deer observed during aerial surveys as not all deer are detected). Continue harvest 

management efforts that strive to achieve a posthunting-season, mature buck-to-doe ratio of at least 

20:100 (mature is defined as bucks having four or 

more points on at least one antler). 

Big Game A3 (pronghorn). Over 15 years, improve and 

maintain pronghorn winter habitat in good to excellent condition on suitable juniper and sage–grassland sites to support 1,500 wintering animals.

Big Game A4 (bighorn sheep). Over 15 years, continue 

to manage bighorn sheep populations and habitat to 

support a minimum of 160 observed animals with an 

average age of 7.5 years old for harvested rams. 

Big Game A5 (bighorn sheep). Over 15 years, expand 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep into suitable habitat.

Rationale for Big Game A1–A5. The focal issue addressed 

in the 1986 EIS was livestock grazing and its effects 

on wildlife habitat (refer to chapter 2). Although 

some of the objectives from the 1986 EIS were accomplished and other objectives evolved after the EIS, 

the management emphasis on big game would continue (refer to chapter 4 for a discussion of current 

conditions). At the time of the 1986 EIS, many of the 

species specifically addressed were listed under the 

Endangered Species Act, but the Service felt it was 

important to focus on some of the other ungulate species for maintaining balanced wildlife populations, 

supporting recreation, and contributing to the overall mission of the Refuge System.

Strategies for Big Game A1–A3. 

R Continue to respond to inquiries and provide 

information about refuge hunting opportunities. 

(Same as B, C, and D.)

R Continue listening to refuge users throughout the 

year and annually review refuge hunting regulations to ensure clarity, address any emerging 

issues or concerns and adjust as necessary to 

achieve refuge objectives. (Same as B, C, and D.)

R Continue to publish the refuge hunting regulations brochure to inform the public of hunting 

opportunities (including accessible opportunities) 

and refuge-specific regulations. (Same as B, C, and 

D.)

R Distribute the refuge’s brochure more widely.

R Continue to prohibit mountain lion and predator 

hunting. (Same as B, C, and D.)

R Permit limited coyote hunting (mid-October 

through March 1).

R Continue to prohibit trapping.

R Require nontoxic shot for waterfowl hunting to 

reduce the incidental poisoning of nontarget wildlife. Continue to allow nontoxic or lead shot for 

upland gamebird and mourning dove hunting. 

(Same as C.)

R Continue to monitor boat use for accessing hunting areas along the river to ensure that wildlife 

species using the habitat along the river are not 

negatively affected over the long term. (Same as 

B, C, and D.)

Objectives for Big Game, Alternative B

Big Game B1. Within 5 years, in cooperation with 

MFWP, develop and coordinate big game aerial surveys and research projects concerning basic ecology 

of all big game across the landscape surrounding the 

refuge.

Big Game B2 (elk and mule deer). Within 5 years of the 

plan’s approval, work with MFWP to manage elk and 

mule deer populations at the highest levels possible 

without negatively affecting habitat or other wildlife species (refer to “Habitat—Upland” strategies 

for objectives B1–B8 if monitoring indicates habitat 

conditions are declining).

Big Game B3 (elk and mule deer). Over 15 years, manage harvest levels to result in herd sex and age ratios 

similar to a lightly harvested population. Manage elk 

harvest levels to achieve a ratio of 35–40 brow-tined 

bulls per 100 cows posthunting season. Manage mule 

deer harvest levels to achieve 35–40 adult bucks per 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 109

100 does posthunting season (all bucks older than 1.5 

years old).

Big Game B4 (pronghorn). By 2015, develop winter 

and summer survey techniques to monitor pronghorn abundance and distribution with the aim of documenting use on the refuge by 1,500 pronghorn as 

called for in Executive Order 7509. (Same as Big 

Game C2.)

Big Game B5 (pronghorn). By 2015, collaborate with 

partners to begin a pronghorn ecology research 

study with a focus of documenting movements, habitat use, and what role refuge lands play in pronghorn ecology in a landscape context. (Same as Big 

Game C3.)

Big Game B6 (bighorn sheep). Over 15 years, work 

with MFWP, landowners and cooperators to expand 

the huntable bighorn sheep population (at least 45 

rams per 100 ewes with at least 30 percent of rams 

having a 3/4 curl and an average age of at least 6.5 

years) in suitable and unoccupied habitat. (Same as 

Big Game C4.)

Big Game B7 (bighorn sheep). Over 15 years, manage 

harvest levels to result in herd sex and age ratios similar to a lightly harvested population and at the highest 

densities possible that do not negatively affect habitat 

or result in elevated risks to disease outbreaks. (Same 

as Big Game C5.)

Big Game B8 (bighorn sheep). Within 5–7 years, establish a huntable bighorn sheep population east of Timber Creek out onto Harpers Ridge. (Same as Big 

Game C6.)

Big Game B9 (bighorn sheep). Within 7–15 years, work 

with MFWP, cooperators, and private landowners 

to establish a huntable bighorn sheep population 

south of the Missouri River where there is about 200 

square miles of suitable habitat, of which 90 percent 

is in public ownership (65 percent is on the refuge). 

(Same as Big Game C7.)

Big Game B10 (mountain lion). By 2015, with support 

from MFWP and other cooperators, develop the 

methodology and conduct a study of mountain lion to 

determine population levels, abundance, distribution 

and population trends.

Rationale for Big Game B1–B10. In 1935 Olaus Murie 

surveyed the Missouri River Breaks area to determine the potential for creating a refuge (refer to 

upland sections in chapters 3 and 4). Amid his many 

observations, Murie believed the west end of the 

refuge could support 2,000–2,500 elk, and he predicted that mule deer would continue to flourish in 

the pine uplands. He also believed that the 22,000-

acre area on the south side of the refuge could support 400–500 bighorn sheep (Murie 1935). With this 

alternative focused on maintaining abundant wildlife 

populations, management would focus on producing 

relatively large populations of big game relative to 

surrounding areas and expanding distribution where 

possible. The allowable abundance of big game animals would be determined by habitat monitoring 

that demonstrates any negative effects of big game 

on other species or their habitats. 

Big game populations are highly dynamic and 

cover large areas in their daily and seasonal movements. Cooperation with landowners and wildlife 

managers is necessary to ensure that big game populations are healthy to support wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities. Coordination of surveys and 

research would ensure these populations would continue to be robust and provide the opportunity for 

sustained harvest. Research studies would focus on 

movement of animals, interaction with other ungulates, response to patch burns, browse availability, 

and use the data to build habitat suitability models.

Mule deer populations on the refuge fluctuate, and the 

Service has several units with more restrictive hunting 

regulations.

USFWS

Strategies for Big Game B2–B3 (elk and deer) 

R■ In collaboration withe partners, use previous survey data and habitat modeling to tailor big game 

density objectives to specific ecological regions of 
110 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

the refuge based on the ability of different areas 

to support big game. Regulate and monitor harvest levels. (Same as D.)

R■ Develop habitat monitoring programs to detect 

when, where, and which ungulate populations 

negatively affect habitats.

R■ Continue or enhance current ungulate population 

monitoring surveys to document deer and elk 

abundance, distribution, and herd composition.

R■ Continue to meet with MFWP and other cooperators to implement habitat and population monitoring procedures to adjust management based 

on monitoring data.

R■ Continue throughout the life of the CCP with 

monitoring for chronic wasting disease in cervids, and respond as needed to the detection of 

chronic wasting disease as specified in the refuge’s chronic wasting disease management plan 

(FWS 2007b). (Same as C and D.)

Strategies for Big Game B4–B5 (pronghorn)

R■ Establish pronghorn survey areas based on habitat potential modeling using GIS.

R■ Conduct aerial surveys and adjust as needed with 

information resulting from research studies.

R■ Based on pronghorn research results and habitat 

monitoring specific to pronghorn, manage livestock grazing and fire to maintain or enhance 

pronghorn habitat.

Strategies for Big Game B6–B9 (bighorn sheep)

R■ Develop habitat potential maps using GIS, published literature and field surveys to delineate 

what is thought to be bighorn sheep habitat.

R■ Develop and carry out reintroduction plans in 

conjunction with MFWP to stock areas with bighorn sheep.

R■ Use GPS collars on current residents in established areas and newly translocated individuals 

into new areas to monitor survival, sightability, 

habitat use, and movement.

R■ Continue monitoring bighorn sheep populations with aerial winter and summer counts and 

ground-based surveys.

R■ Establish monitoring programs for habitat and 

disease risk to evaluate habitat and herd health 

conditions.

R■ Continue to restrict ewe permits east of Timber 

Creek until all available habitat is occupied and 

population levels suggest a need for reduction.

R■ Harvest ewes (in any area) when there is a demonstrated need to reduce sheep density for herd 

health (disease potential) or because of habitat 

degradation.

Strategy for Big Game B10 (mountain lion) 

R■ Maintain and monitor GPS and very high frequency (VHF) collars on 5–10 percent of the estimated lion population on the refuge.

Objectives for Big Game, Alternative C

Big Game C1 (elk and mule deer). Over 15 years, manage elk and deer populations at levels consistent 

with MFWP objectives, the capacity of adjacent 

private lands, and the tolerance of adjacent private 

landowners. 

Big Game C2–C3 (pronghorn). Same as Big Game B4–B5.

Big Game C4–C7 (bighorn sheep). Same as Big Game 

B6–B9.

Big Game C8 (bighorn sheep). Over 15 years, manage 

population levels for rams and ewes as outlined in 

MFWP’s conservation strategy for bighorn sheep. 

Big Game C9 (mountain lion). Within 10 years, use population monitoring data to evaluate and implement, 

if warranted, a mountain lion hunt program.

Rationale for Big Game C1–C9. With the focus on recreation and public uses, management of big game 

resources is geared toward maximizing harvest and 

recreation opportunities while keeping a balance 

with other needs. MFWP management is geared 

toward achieving this objective (MFWP 2004).

Strategy for Big Game C1–C9

R■ Adopt MFWP population objectives and hunting

seasons and regulations for those species for 

which harvest is currently allowed on the refuge. 

Adjust harvest levels in response to habitat conditions, sporting group desires, and social tolerance of adjacent landowners.

Strategies for Big Game C1 (elk and deer)

R■ Adopt MFWP adaptive mule deer harvest 

approach, basing conservative, standard or liberal harvest regulations on long-term average 

densities and fawn recruitment trends.

R■ Continue with chronic wasting disease monitoring. (Same as Big Game B and D.)

Objectives for Big Game, Alternative D

Big Game D1. Develop cooperative big game population and habitat monitoring programs with MFWP 

by 2015. Establish population levels, sex and age 

composition targets, and harvest strategies that are 

jointly agreed to and tailored to the varied habitat 

potential on the refuge during the development of 

HMPs. To provide a variety of quality recreational 

opportunities, design hunting regulations to include 

population objectives with diverse male-age structures not generally managed for on other public 

lands.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 111

Big Game D2 (elk and deer). Within 5 years, work with 

all partners to begin ecological studies of elk and 

mule deer habitat selection and response to management actions (for example, prescribed fire) and natural disturbances.

Big Game D3 (bighorn sheep). Manage bighorn sheep 

ram harvest levels to result in a minimum age of 6.5 

years old for harvested rams (MFWP’s objective is 

at least 6.5 years old). Manage ewe harvest in the 

Mickey/Brandon Buttes area to maintain a population of 25–30 ewes (same as MFWP objective). Manage harvest levels to maintain a population of about 

225 sheep for the currently occupied sheep habitat in 

hunting district 622. Establish more bighorn sheep 

in suitable habitat.

Big Game D4 (mountain lion). Same as Big Game B10, 

except consider harvest if monitoring shows a limited harvest could be sustained (refer to objectives 

and rationale under “Public Use—Hunting”).

Rationale for Big Game D1–D4. In accordance with 

national policy, striving to the extent practicable to 

achieve consistency with State management objectives and regulations (MFWP 2001, 2004, 2009a), refuge-specific objectives for abundance and population 

composition would be established through habitat 

management plans and tailored to regional habitat 

conditions, productivity, and other considerations. 

The objectives would consider naturally functioning 

ecosystem processes, biological integrity, hunting 

opportunities, and quality of recreational experiences.

Early explorers left vivid accounts of the abundant big game populations that inhabited the region 

(Moulton 2002). With restoration of natural ecological processes the focus of this alternative, the aim is 

to restore such game abundance and diversity within 

the current limits of habitat capability. Before those 

visits of early explorers, the intensity of human harvest of big game was different than today, as likely 

there was not the active selection for killing the largest antlered males possible that is the norm of some 

hunting programs today. 

National wildlife refuges are the only Federal 

lands managed specifically for wildlife conservation, 

and the objectives reflect an emphasis on sustaining abundant and healthy wildlife populations. Such 

wildlife-priority management is not generally possible elsewhere because of multiple use mandates 

on other Federal lands and conflicting priorities on 

State and private lands. The big game objectives 

reflect the wildlife-priority emphasis and for providing quality opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, which are described in the Improvement 

Act and the Service’s hunting policy (FWS 2006f).

Big game hunting is the dominant public use activity on the refuge and surrounding lands, accounting 

for nearly 90,000 hunter visits (refer to section 4.5 

in “Chapter 4—Affected Environment”). Between 

Service lands, BLM lands, and MFWP block management areas, there are huge areas open to public hunting. Such free and open access to such large 

blocks of land is becoming increasingly valued by 

the hunting public as access to some private lands 

becomes more restrictive. The Service, together 

with its partners, would work to provide access and 

quality recreational experiences for hunting big 

game populations throughout the refuge. However, 

some limitations may need to be imposed, but the 

Service believes there would be public support for 

this approach.

The Missouri River Breaks region including the 

refuge is recognized throughout Montana as a highly 

valued wildlife recreation sites anywhere in Montana (Dickson 2008) (for more information, refer to 

figure 37 in “Chapter 4—Affected Environment”). 

Comparatively conservative harvest levels for 

bull elk by MFWP in the Missouri River Breaks has 

likely contributed to the popularity (statewide and 

nationally) of the big game resources in this area. The 

long-term average adult bull-to-cow ratio in hunting 

district 410 is 32:100 (Tom Stivers, personal communication, June 2010). The objective in MFWP’s elk 

management plan for the Missouri Breaks calls for a 

minimum of 30:100, or three times the objective of a 

minimum of 10:100 found in many western Montana 

areas. In many years the actual bull-to-cow ratio in 

the Missouri Breaks is substantially higher, averaging around 45:100 in Phillips County (Mark Sullivan, 

personal communication, June 2010). Such management for quality elk herds and recreational opportunities is one reason why the Missouri Breaks are 

valued by the public.

Bighorn sheep are a highly valued big game animal, and ram harvest levels across Montana are 

managed conservatively with an emphasis on having opportunities to harvest older rams. As stated in 

MFWP’s Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy, the 

goal for Missouri River Breaks bighorn sheep is to 

manage for healthy and productive populations with 

a diverse age structure of rams. 

Alternatively, harvest guidance from MFWP’s 

Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy could be followed that is based on population size, ram:ewe ratio 

and number of 3/4+ curl rams observed. 

 The refuge views sex and age structure of big 

game populations as important considerations in 

managing human harvest of native ungulates to 

achieving ecological resilience and biological integrity (FWS 2001). Ungulate population management considers densities, social structures, and 

population dynamics. The aim is to strike the right 
112 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

balance between managing for natural wildlife populations (as called for in the Executive orders that 

established game ranges back in the 1930s), wildlifedependent public uses, and other needs and responsibilities.

A mountain lion study is ongoing within the refuge, Missouri Breaks, Bear Paws, and Little Rocky 

Mountains to determine density, movement, habitat, 

and causes of mortality. If the results show mountain 

lion populations are robust and healthy, the Service 

would consider a limited harvest (refer to objectives 

for “Public Use—Hunting” and chapter 4, section 

4.3). Federal law prohibits any hunting or trapping 

on a national wildlife refuge unless specifically authorized. To open the refuge for a mountain lion hunt, a 

proposal (hunt plan) would need to be prepared that 

would include a justification including the population 

status, determination of harvest levels, and monitoring results. The proposal would require compliance 

with National Environmental Protection Act.

Strategies for Big Game D1–D4. Similar to B, except:

R■ In collaboration with partners, use previous survey data and habitat modeling to tailor big game 

density objectives that reflect varied habitat 

capabilities. 

R■ Regulate harvest to keep big game populations at 

levels that promote healthy sentinel plant populations and other species. Consider effects on 

adjoining landowners. 

R■ Identify and protect important wintering habitat for pronghorn by reducing hazardous fuel in 

these areas using prescribed fire.

WILDLIFE—OTHER WILDLIFE

Many species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, 

fish, and small mammals are found on the refuge and 

serve as key indicators in evaluating the environmental health of the ecosystem. 

Objectives for Other Wildlife, Alternative A

There are no objectives under alternative A. 

Objectives for Other Wildlife, Alternative B

Other Wildlife B1. Within 1–2 years, assess the need 

for baseline inventory plans, surveys, or research 

for fish, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, or 

other small mammals found on the refuge. Prioritize 

the highest needs (for example, top 7–10) particularly those that support or are tied to the monitoring efforts for upland, river bottom, and riparian 

area objectives. Within 5 years, begin and complete 

inventory plans or baseline surveys for about 30–50 

percent of the highest priority needs. Over 15 years, 

complete 75–100 percent of the top 10 priorities. Prioritize monitoring needs based on sentinel species 

that support habitat goals and objectives or climate 

change effects. (Same as Other Wildlife C1 and D1.)

Rationale for Other Wildlife B1. Limited information is 

available on the diversity of fish, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and other small mammals such as 

bats and rodents that are found on the refuge including the composition and distribution of these species. 

As part of implementing the objectives for uplands, 

river bottoms, and riparian areas, baseline information or more survey work is needed to monitor and 

evaluate the success of the habitat objectives. While 

the need for understanding baseline information is 

important for habitat monitoring, money limitations and other staff priorities require the prioritization of these plans and surveys and coordination 

with MFWP, including getting necessary permits. 

The refuge staff currently helps with the large-scale 

North American Amphibian Monitoring Program 

and a refuge-specific monitoring strategy would be 

patterned on that effort.

The Missouri River Breaks provide unique habitats for the many nongame species including fish, 

amphibians, invertebrates, and small animal in the 

northern plains due to the topographic features and 

forest outliers present. This region has not had a 

comprehensive baseline inventory of species present. Establishing the species present is the foundational first step in species conservation. This step 

would lead to species and habitat associations and 

adaptive management actions that are tied to the 

habitat objectives.

Terrestrial small mammals have limited distributions and small home ranges and require relatively 

high densities to maintain viable populations (Silva 

2001). Therefore, they are susceptible to population 

declines resulting from habitat degradation or loss at 

many scales including local disturbances (Van Dyke 

2003, Gaines et al. 1997, Rossenberg et al. 1997). 

However, detailed data about specific habitat influences on abundance and distribution are lacking, and 

this limits the ability of managers to effectively sustain healthy populations across the landscape. 

Important habitats for plants and animals can be 

restricted or otherwise modified by prescribed fire, 

rotational grazing, or other types of habitat management such as thinning, reseeding, and chemical or 

mechanical weed control. Because populations can be 

sampled relatively easily, small mammal communities 

are often used as indicators for monitoring ecosystem 

responses to habitat restoration and management 

(Douglass 1984, Olson et al. 1994). As a prerequisite of 

using small mammals in such a conservation program; 

however, it is critical to identify and understand the 

structure and composition of small mammal communities in areas exposed to management. 

(Same as D.)
Chapter 3—Alternatives 113

Strategies for Other Wildlife B1

R■ Conduct stream surveys based on refuge priorities (functioning and nonfunctioning streams) 

using qualified aquatic ecologists versed in prairie stream survey techniques and methods. 

R■ Work in partnership with Federal, State, nongovernmental organizations, and others to write 

management plans and incorporate other plans or 

planning efforts such as the Missouri River Fish 

Management Plan, strategic habitat conservation 

and land conservation cooperatives, and the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy.

R■ Document fish inhabiting the refuge’s ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial streams using Bramblett and Zale (1999) as a baseline.

R■ In cooperation with BLM, restore degraded 

riparian areas by limiting expansion of existing 

stock ponds or limiting additional stock ponds and 

other water developments. 

R■ Remove fish passage impediments such as culverts, grade-control structures, or diversion 

structures on case-by-case basis.

R■ To preserve and enhance populations of nongame 

species on the refuge, develop habitat management strategies such as detailed prescriptions for 

habitat management, protocols to monitor species’ status, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions. 

R■ Hire more refuge staff and encourage universities or other organizations to conduct surveys 

on the effects of public use, wildland fire (wildfire and prescribed fire), and other management 

strategies throughout the calendar year on a 

yearly basis to determine changes in use.

R■ Establish standardized reporting methods for 

incidental sightings to include species, date, property, specific location, and habitat type as minimum information; and size, sex, and age data as 

additional information where possible.

R■ Develop and maintain a GIS database to record 

distribution and locations of incidental sightings 

of all nongame species.

R■ Continue to monitor and identify nongame species with limited distribution or specific habitat 

needs (for example, snake den sites and bat rookery or roosting sites) using 3-year rotation surveys.

(Same as D.)

Objectives for Other Wildlife, Alternative C

Other Wildlife C1. Same as Other Wildlife B1 and D1.

Other Wildlife C2. Over 15 years, place a management 

emphasis on those species of fish, amphibians and 

reptiles that are of recreational interest.

Other Wildlife C3. Over 15 years, work with partners 

to enhance populations of paddlefish, and increase 

fishing opportunities by stocking livestock ponds and 

reservoirs that would support a fisheries. 

Rationale for Other Wildlife C1–C3. Same as B and D 

plus, in 2006, recreational sport fishing to the refuge contributed 2.1 million dollars in revenue to local 

communities (Carver and Caudill 2007). Providing 

more fishing opportunities should increase recreational fishing visits to the area. Restoring riparian areas with native reptiles and amphibians would 

promote ecological health of the area. The secondary 

benefit of this restoration would promote diversity 

of other wildlife, which would lead to more wildlifeviewing opportunities. 

Strategies for Other Wildlife C1–C3. Same as B and D.

Objectives for Other Wildlife, Alternative D

Other Wildlife D1. Same as Other Wildlife B1 and C1.

Rationale for Wildlife D1. Same as B.

Strategies for Wildlife D1. Same as B and C.

Silver Buffaloberry

R.A. Howard Image Collection / Smithsonian Institution
114 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

PUBLIC USE—HUNTING

Hunting is permitted on the refuge for elk, mule 

deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, 

coyotes, waterfowl, and upland gamebirds. It is 

used both as a management tool for improving habitat conditions and as an appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activity (refer to 

hunting compatibility determination in appendix C). 

In some areas of the refuge, big game hunting seasons and harvest quotas on the refuge could be more 

restrictive than State regulations. All other wildlife is protected. Trapping is not allowed, and recreational shooting of prairie dogs is prohibited. 

Objectives for Hunting, Alternative A

Hunting A1. Within 2–5 years, develop a visitor services plan that includes a hunting plan. (Same as 

Hunting B1, C1, and D1.)

Hunting A2. Over 15 years, maintain current hunting programs for ungulates, upland birds, waterfowl, 

and coyote, and prohibit trapping.

Hunting A3. Over 15 years, continue to facilitate the 

hunting program by allowing access on open refuge 

roads, camping as designated under refuge rules, 

and boat access.

Rationale for Hunting A1–A3. Hunting has long been an 

important cultural and social component to the lands 

that make up the refuge. It is also an important tool 

for managing wildlife populations. 

Interest in experiencing the natural and wild 

wonders of the area has been focused in large part 

on participating in a variety of hunting opportunities. The refuge would continue to provide for many 

quality and diverse hunting experiences.

This alternative would continue with the existing strategies as long as they are deemed compatible 

with refuge purposes.

Strategies for Hunting A1–A3

R Continue to respond to inquiries and provide 

information about current refuge hunting opportunities. (Same as B, C, and D.)

R Continue yearly review of refuge hunting regulations to ensure clarity and to address any 

emerging issues or concerns, and give the public an opportunity to review and comment on any 

changes. (Same as B, C, and D.)

R Continue to publish and update the refuge hunting regulations brochure to inform the public 

of hunting opportunities, including accessible 

opportunities, and refuge-specific regulations.

(Same as B, C, and D.)

R■ Distribute the refuge brochure more widely. 

(Same as B, C, and D.)

R■ Continue to prohibit most predator hunting, 

except permit limited coyote hunting mid-October through March 1.

R■ Continue to monitor boat use for accessing hunting areas along the river to ensure that wildlife 

species using the habitat along the river are not 

negatively affected over the long term. (Same as 

B, C, and D.)

R■ Continue to permit camping within 100 yards of 

roads to facilitate harvest opportunities. (Same 

as C and D.)

Objectives for Hunting, Alternative B

Hunting B1. Same as Hunting A1, C1, and D1.

Hunting B2. Over 15 years, continue to facilitate the 

hunting program by allowing access on open refuge roads, horseback riding, camping as designated 

under refuge rules, and boat access.

Hunting B3. Within 5 years, work with partners to 

create diverse, quality hunting opportunities that 

represent a diversity of all age classes. Within 5 

years, 60–70 percent of hunters report a reasonable 

harvest opportunity and satisfaction with the overall experience.

Hunting B4. Within 5 years, evaluate the demand for 

more access for hunters with mobility impairments. 

If warranted, within 10 years, provide one additional 

hunting access for hunters with mobility impairments.

Hunting B5. Within 4 years, working with MFWP 

and within the State’s hunting-season framework, 

expand opportunities for young people to hunt with 

at least one new hunt that is available to only young 

hunters.

Hunting B6. Over 15 years, maintain the furbearer 

hunting policies as found in alternative A: no trapping and wildlife is protected.

Hunting B7. Over 15 years, work with MFWP to 

increase hunting opportunities by opening additional 

populations (i.e., bighorn sheep that have expanded 

to new areas).

Rationale for Hunting B1–B7. Similar to A, except hunting activities are primarily focused on strategies 

associated with maximizing wildlife populations 

within the capacities of healthy habitats.

OBJECTIVES for PUBLIC USE
Chapter 3—Alternatives 115

For many hunters, unique hunting opportunities 

on the refuge could be the result of mature bull elk in 

the 8- to 10-year class, where a population of mule deer 

that can reach 8 years and bighorn sheep that may 

reach the age of ten. Some natural fluctuations of population age structure would occur due to random events, 

but overall representative age classes would be available to refuge visitors. Some game animals of both 

male and female would be expected to die from old age. 

Strategies for Hunting B1–B7

R Adopt MFWP hunting seasons and regulations 

for those species for which harvest is currently 

allowed (except for mule deer) on the refuge (elk, 

white-tailed deer, and pronghorn). Continue with 

the 3-week mule deer season, or consider other 

alternatives until the buck-to-doe ratio as identified in wildlife objectives is achieved.

R Work with MFWP to figure out the appropriate 

level of hunting permits for elk for achieving habitat objectives related to herd populations and 

herd composition. Take into account both biological integrity and landowner tolerance when setting permit levels for elk.

R Evaluate hunting district 652 (special-draw area 

for mule deer bucks) for mule deer home ranges, 

hunting district size, harvest strategy, permit 

numbers, habitat quality, and access and assess 

effects on management objectives. 

R Initiate an annual tooth survey to evaluate age 

structure for all hunted species. 

R Within 2–5 years, complete a survey on user preferences, and include questions needed to evaluate 

big game harvest on the refuge. 

R Use annual wildlife surveys, car count data, and 

trail-cams to monitor and evaluate hunting use. 

R Evaluate motorized access for hunting and decide 

where seasonal road closures may be needed to 

promote walk-in opportunities for quality hunting 

or where roads could remain open for retrieval to 

promote harvest in remote areas. 

R Through visitor contact and hunting information, 

encourage hunters to walk in to hunt. 

R If necessary due to increasing hunting pressure 

and overharvest of certain species, use a refuge 

permit system to control the number of hunters. 

R Work with the State to establish and coordinate 

hunter days or events for hunters with special 

needs. 

R Work cooperatively with MFWP to conduct law 

enforcement patrols at the refuge to ensure compliance. 

R Develop a policy for addressing the use of tree 

stands. Address the number of stands permitted and the timeframe they can be up (how many 

days before, during, and after a hunt). 

R■ Require nontoxic shot for all bird hunting to reduce 

the incidental poisoning of nontarget wildlife. 

R■ Work with the State of Montana to establish a 

special, permitted, weekend hunt for elk and deer 

in all hunting districts covering the refuge that is 

available to only young hunters. 

Strategies for Hunting B2 (boat use and camping)

R■ Continue to monitor boat use for accessing hunting areas along the river. (Same as A, C, and D.)

R■ Working with USACE and others, begin monitoring the amount of boat access occurring in 

popular hunting areas. If monitoring shows that 

increased access is negatively affecting wildlife 

populations using river bottoms, make recommendations and work with users to reduce the 

negative effects (for example, limit motor size or 

number of boats allowed on river). 

R■ Continue to permit minimally disturbing, pack-in 

and pack-out, backcountry camping throughout 

the entire refuge. 

R■ Allow visitors to drive within 50 yards of public 

use roads to access campsites for wildlife-dependent recreational activities. 

R■ Within 5 years, designate the most popular public 

use areas for camping and harden those sites to 

minimize erosion and negative effects on habitat. 

R■ If an area is overly affected by camping, make 

temporary closures or create hardened access 

points.

R■ Define current camp areas along the river to prevent campground “creep” into the riparian habitat.

R■ Allow boat camping along the beaches of the lakeshore.

R■ Continue working with USACE to restrict boat 

camping on islands in the river. 

Strategies for Hunting B4 (hunters with mobility impairments)

R■ Work with partners (such as Wheeling Sportsmen and Wilderness on Wheels) to improve the 

current accessible blind in the Sand Creek Unit. 

R■ Identify where potential accessible sites are 

needed and where they could be developed if the 

demand arises.

R■ Increase outreach about the refuge’s accessible 

hunting opportunities by developing a one-page 

tearsheet that explains the accessible hunting 

opportunities and facilities. Post information on 

the Web site.

Objectives for Hunting, Alternative C

Hunting activities are primarily focused on those 

legitimate strategies that also provide an economic 

benefit to local communities.
116 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Hunting C1. Same as Hunting A1, B1, and D1.

Hunting C2. Over 15 years, continue to facilitate the 

hunting program by allowing access on open refuge 

roads, camping as designated under refuge rules, 

and boat access.

Hunting C3. Within 5 years, in combination with 

achieving the habitat objectives already defined, 

work with partners to create hunting opportunities 

on the refuge that are not achieved on other public lands including harvesting big game animals that 

represent all age classes. Within 7 years, 70–85 percent of hunters report a reasonable harvest opportunity and satisfaction with the overall experience.

Hunting C4. Within 5 years, provide two additional 

hunting accesses for hunters with mobility impairments.

Hunting C5. Within 4 years, expand opportunities for 

young people (under 17 years old) to hunt with at 

least one new hunt each in areas 400, 600, and 700 

that are available to only young hunters, in conjunction with MFWP.

Hunting C6. Over 15 years, if supported by a monitoring program, adopt MFWP harvest strategies 

and opportunities for hunting or trapping furbearing species regulated by MFWP (muskrat, mink, and 

bobcat) and not regulated by MFWP (red fox, coyote, raccoon, and badger; but excluding least weasel, 

long-tailed weasel, and striped skunk).

Hunting C7. Same as Hunting B7.

Rationale for Hunting C1–C7. Similar to A, except the 

refuge would look to expand opportunities for all 

hunters including youth and hunters with mobility 

impairments. Increasing hunting and trapping 

opportunities on the refuge and promoting the refuge’s hunting program would increase license sales 

for MFWP and boost economic activity in the surrounding communities. This could increase the value 

of leased private lands within and next to the refuge. Additionally, this could increase leases values of 

State lands within the refuge that can be acquired by 

outfitters who have a permit to work on the refuge. 

Providing that monitoring supports allowing for 

a harvest, the Service would cooperate with MFWP 

to open up hunting or trapping opportunities for furbearer species both regulated (muskrat, mink, and 

bobcat and unregulated (red fox, coyote, raccoon, 

and badger) that are not currently open to hunting or 

trapping. For big game, the Service would also cooperate with the State to maximize the number of cow 

elk tags when the numbers are above objective levels and not restrict antlerless tags for mule deer and 

white-tailed deer. As the bighorn sheep population 

expanded in areas where they were reintroduced, 

this would provide more harvest opportunities.

Through promotions and information, more hunters would be encouraged to hunt on the refuge, 

which in turn could provide for more economic benefit to the local communities. Although there could 

be more hunters than what is currently found in 

alternative A, it is anticipated that the vast majority would report satisfaction with their overall experience.

Hunting is one of the most popular activities on the refuge.

Brett Billings / USFWS

Strategies for Hunting C1–C7

R Adopt MFWP hunting seasons and regulations 

for species for which harvest is currently allowed 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 117

(except for mule deer) on the refuge (elk, whitetailed deer, pronghorn). Continue with a 3-week 

mule deer season until the buck-to-doe ratio identified in wildlife objectives is achieved. (Same as B.)

R■ Use annual wildlife surveys, hunter surveys, car 

count data, and trail-cams to monitor and evaluate hunting use. (Same as B.)

R■ Develop a policy for use of tree stands (less 

restrictive than B). Address the number of 

stands permitted and timeframe they can be up 

(how many days before, during, or after a hunt).

R■ Work with the State of Montana to establish a 

special, permitted, weekend hunt for elk and deer 

in all hunting districts that is available to only 

young hunters.

R■ Maximize cow elk tags when numbers are above 

population objectives, allowing A9/B12 to be valid 

on the refuge and not restricting antlerless mule 

deer and white-tailed deer tags on the refuge.

R■ Develop hunt plans to create harvest opportunities for those species present but not currently 

open for hunting (mountain lion, moose, and black 

bear), if biologically supported.

R■ If wolves arrive and establish a resident refuge 

population that a refuge biologist finds is huntable, consider establishing a limited wolf-hunting 

season. 

R■ Increase outreach to hunters and create more 

outlets for promoting hunting opportunities to 

outside audiences.

R■ Create new partnerships, and maintain and 

expand existing partnerships, with hunters and 

hunter groups to increase awareness of hunting 

opportunities and habitat conservation. 

R■ Require nontoxic shot for all bird hunting to 

reduce the incidental poisoning of nontarget wildlife.

Strategies for Hunting C2 (boat use and camping)

R■ Continue to monitor boat use for accessing hunting areas along the river. (Same as A, B, and D.) 

R■ Within 5 years, designate and develop camping 

areas to accommodate the number of recreationists. Include conveniences such as location from 

the river for easier access, toilets, and possibly 

tie-downs for horse camps.

R■ Continue to restrict all camping to within 100 yards 

of a numbered route. (Same as A and D.)

R■ If an area is overly affected by camping, make 

temporary closures or create hardened access 

points. (Same as B.)

R■ Harden current camp areas along the river to 

prevent campsite “creep” into riparian areas.

R■ Cooperate with USACE to allow camping on river 

islands and along the lakeshore beaches. 

R■ Within 5 years, evaluate the potential effects of 

camping on the islands along the Missouri River 

corridor. 

Strategies for Hunting C4 (hunters with mobility impairments). 

Same as B, plus:

R■ Restrict access by others at specific times to 

increase harvest opportunities for hunters with 

mobility impairments. 

R■ Allow motorized vehicle access on seasonally 

closed roads for hunters with mobility impairments.

R■ Provide priority to hunters with mobility impairments for use of the accessible blind. 

R■ If a demand is identified, develop a second accessible blind.

R■ Plant crops to attract more wildlife and increase 

harvest opportunities.

Strategy for Hunting C5 (young hunters)

R■ Expand hunting opportunities for young people 

to hunting districts 417, 410, and 700 to recruit 

and promote a quality opportunity for young 

hunters (2015 biannual season setting process). 

Strategies for Hunting C6 (trapping)

R■ Develop trapping plans to allow trapping of furbearers that are regulated by MFWP. Do not permit trapping of beaver and swift fox.

R■ Require furbearer trappers to tag traps with 

proper identification and report harvest within 30 

days after the end of the season.

R■ Develop trapping plans to allow trapping of red fox, 

coyote, raccoon, and badger. 

R■ Develop hunting plans for badger, raccoon, and 

red fox to allow shooting these species.

R■ Adjust current regulations to allow coyote hunting year-round. 

R■ Provide outreach to all visitors to advise them of 

where trapping is allowed. 

Objectives for Hunting, Alternative D

Hunting D1. Same as Hunting A1, B1, and C1.

Hunting D2. Over 15 years, continue to facilitate the 

hunting program by allowing access on open refuge 

roads, camping as designated under refuge rules, 

and boat access.

Hunting D3. Within 5 years, work with MFWP and 

other partners to create diverse, quality, hunting 

opportunities on the refuge including harvesting 

big game animals of all age classes. Within 10 years, 

65–75 percent of hunters report a reasonable harvest 

opportunity and satisfaction with the overall experience.

Hunting D4. Same as Hunting B4. 
118 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Hunting D5. Same as Hunting B5. 

Hunting D6. Over 15 years, work with MFWP to consider the opportunity for limited hunting of furbearers and mountain lion, provided monitoring of 

wildlife and habitat indicates stable and growing 

populations.

Rationale for Hunting D1–D6. Under the Service’s wildlife-dependent recreation policy (FWS 2006c), providing for quality experiences is highlighted as an 

important component of a hunting program (605 

FW1, 605FW2). Safety, reasonable opportunities for 

success, and working collaboratively with the State 

wildlife agencies are important elements that should 

be considered. Under alternative D a quality experience could mean participants could expect reasonable harvest opportunities, uncrowded conditions, 

fewer conflicts between hunters, relatively undisturbed wildlife, and limited interference from, or 

dependence on, mechanized aspects of the sport. 

Big game hunting is popular on the refuge and, as 

a result, at times crowding is becoming an issue that 

potentially affects the quality of the hunting experience. Too many hunters in some areas could lead 

to unsafe hunting conditions and compromised harvest opportunities. With a growing number of private property acres off-limits to hunting, pressure 

is intensifying on Service lands. To ensure a quality 

hunting experience, it would be essential to maintain 

healthy populations of resident wildlife and migratory birds (FWS 2006b), in part by achieving the 

habitat objectives identified previously. Additionally, 

there is interest of implementing new opportunities 

such as a hunt for mountain lions and the expansion of bighorn sheep populations for more hunting 

opportunities. The Service would consider allowing 

for limited, quality-oriented hunting opportunities of 

furbearers or mountain lion provided the populations 

are stable. For mountain lion, there would likely be 

a special drawing and only a few licenses would be 

issued. To open the refuge for a mountain lion hunt, a 

proposal (hunt plan) would need to be prepared that 

would include a justification including the population 

status, determination of harvest levels, and monitoring results. The proposal would require compliance 

under National Environmental Protection Act (refer 

to previous objectives for big game and chapter 4, 

section 4.3).

It is also important to engage young people in 

wildlife-dependent recreation and engender enthusiasm and support for hunting, wildlife conservation, 

and the Refuge System to build a conservation ethic. 

Early season or preseason hunts are best suited for 

youth because these seasons provide the best harvest opportunities. These programs would spark 

interest in hunting and hopefully lead to recruitment 

of more young refuge supporters.

There is also a demand for hunting opportunities 

that are accessible to hunters with special needs, 

such as hunters with mobility impairments. Currently, there is one accessible blind on the west end 

of the refuge and USACE has an accessible campground downstream of the dam. 

The refuge is isolated and many hunters feel that 

camping is necessary to ensure a quality hunt. Under 

this and the other alternatives, camping would be 

continue to be allowed; however, efforts would be 

made to minimize any habitat and wildlife disturbances that result from camping.

Strategies for Hunting D1–D6. Same as B, except: 

R■ Allow no planting of domestic crops to lure big 

game.

R■ Allow vehicle access to camping areas, by the 

shortest route, within 100 yards of numbered 

roads except where closed. Do not allow off-road 

vehicle access to campsites in proposed wilderness areas, designated wilderness, where habitat 

effects warrant closing a site with a “No Vehicle” 

sign, and administrative areas that are posted as 

closed.

R■ Allow backpack camping throughout the refuge 

unless specifically closed.

PUBLIC USE—FISHING

Fishing is allowed on the refuge. Anglers often catch 

catfish, walleye, northern pike, sauger, perch, small 

mouth bass, bullhead, paddlefish, and lake trout. 

USACE is responsible for providing recreation on 

their primary lands and waters. The Service works 

cooperatively with USACE to manage the lands, 

waters and public recreation opportunities within 

the Fort Peck Lake Project and the refuge boundary. The Service will continue to cooperate with 

USACE and the State to ensure that a quality fishing program exists within the refuge. 

Objectives for Fishing, Alternative A

Fishing A1. Over 15 years, continue to follow State 

fishing regulations. (Same as Fishing B1, C1, and 

D1.)

Fishing A2. Over 15 years, continue to cooperate with 

MFWP to regulate paddlefish fishing.

Rationale for Fishing A1–A2. Fishing within the refuge 

has centered on several types of opportunity: the 

fishery within the Fort Peck Reservoir and some 

opportunities associated with game fish–stocked 

reservoirs scattered throughout the upland part of 

the refuge. Fisheries resources have been primarily 

managed by MFWP (refer to chapter 4, section 4.5), 

and the refuge has participated in a partnership 

capacity when opportunities have occurred. There 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 119

is a combination of interest in both introduced species of game fish as well as a native fish component 

that provides for a well rounded set of opportunities for the angler. In particular, native fisheries 

management associated with the free-flowing Missouri River has seen increasing emphasis in management in recent years, by both MFWP and the 

Service. This management focus would continue into 

the future and would provide for an increased diversity of opportunities for anglers to gain understanding of the importance of native fisheries while taking 

part in angling activities.

In this alternative, fishing activities are primarily 

focused on continuing existing strategies and coordinating future fisheries management with MFWP.

In 2006, about 60,100 fishing visits were recorded 

out of 233,000 visits to the refuge. Anglers spent 

more than 2 million dollars in expenditures, making it third highest ranking wildlife-dependent recreational use of the refuge (Carver and Caudill 2007). 

Fishing contributes to the local economies through 

the rental of hotel rooms, eating at restaurants, buying of supplies and fuel. 

Paddlefish fishing is very popular with anglers 

across Montana. In Montana, the Slippery Ann area is 

one of a few important paddlefish fishing areas along 

the Missouri River. Historically paddlefish fishing 

was open to all, and hundreds of anglers would pack 

into accessible areas from Kipp Recreation Area to 

Rock Creek boat ramp along the Missouri River. 

Law enforcement officers remained busy keeping 

order and preventing resource damage from camping and bank fishing. In recent times, MFWP has 

placed limits on paddlefish fishing (MFWP 2009c). 

Another popular activity, ice fishing is currently 

allowed on the Missouri River and Fort Peck Lake. 

Strategies for Fishing A1–A2

R■ Work with USACE on maintaining and extending 

boat ramps that are critical as the lake recedes 

due to prolonged periods of drought.

R■ Follow State regulations for establishment of 

permanent and portable ice-fishing houses. 

R■ Continue to enforce no driving on the shoreline.

Objectives for Fishing, Alternative B

Fishing B1. Same as Fishing A1, C1, and D1.

Fishing B2. Within 5 years, monitor the effects of fishing on the surrounding resources. Cooperate and 

collaborate with MFWP to ensure that paddlefish 

fishing remains a compatible use. (Same as Fishing 

C2 and D2.)

Fishing B3.Over 15 years, work with MFWP, USACE, 

and other partners to maintain current access for 

sport fishing in the Missouri River and Fort Peck 

Reservoir. (Same as Fishing C3 and D3.)

Fishing B4. Within 5 years, evaluate and establish 

for young people an additional fishing opportunity 

or event at one additional area as part of Montana’s 

free fishing weekend. (Same as Fishing C4 and D4.)

Fishing B5. Within 2–4 years, have a mechanism or 

agreement in place to ensure that Refuge System 

permit requirements are added to or incorporated 

with USACE- or State-issued permits. (Same as 

Fishing C5 and D5.)

Rationale for Fishing B1–B5. As with A, the Service 

would continue to cooperate and work with MFWP, 

USACE, and the counties in providing access for 

anglers. However, under alternative B the Service 

would work closer with MFWP to develop more 

strategies to ensure that paddlefish fishing, in particular, remains a sustainable and compatible use. 

The popularity of paddlefishing has resulted in some 

shoreline areas becoming heavily impacted from 

users who come to camp and fish. In the past, it has 

been considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act, but currently is not a listed species (MFWP 2009c). 

The opportunity to expand and develop a closer 

partnership with MFWP and others would benefit 

the refuges’ goal to introduce youth to the Refuge 

System. 

The refuge has provided little to no oversight of 

the commercial harvest of fish in the past because 

most fish management falls under the primary jurisdiction of USACE and MFWP. However, Federal 

regulations governing the Refuge System state 

that “fishery resources of commercial importance on 

wildlife refuge areas may be taken under permit in 

accordance with Federal and State law and regulations” (50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 31.13). 

Other regulations govern all commercial uses on refuges. USACE and State currently manage commercial fishing within the refuge boundary. The Service 

recognizes these agencies has having primary jurisdiction for management of these activities and will 

work cooperatively when requested. 

Fishing tournaments are popular on the Fort 

Peck Lake and on thus within the refuge. Care must 

also be taken to safeguard sensitive habitats or fish 

and wildlife areas within the refuge. Because fishing 

tournaments are a use of the refuge, they are subject 

to regulations governing uses on national wildlife refuges. The refuge has not provided any oversight to 

tournaments in the past, deferring to the State, and 

at USACE’s regulatory and permitting processes. The 

Service recognizes these agencies has having primary 

jurisdiction for management of these activities and will 

work in a cooperative nature to ensure that public fishing opportunities are not negatively affected by these 

activities. 
120 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Strategies for Fishing B2 (paddlefish)

R■ Work with MFWP to figure out an acceptable 

number of paddlefish permits, dates, and harvest 

strategies to limit conflicts among anglers, wildlife 

habitat, and other refuge visitors. 

R■ Work with MFWP and build on the research and 

data collection (creel surveys) already being conducted. 

R■ Work with MFWP to identify important spawning areas.

Strategies for Fishing B3 (sport fishing)

R■ If needed, improve access to the lake and river.

R■ Within 5 years, establish clear access points for 

ice fishing to minimize effects on upland habitat 

from vehicles. 

R■ Work with USACE on maintaining and extending 

boat ramps that are critical as the lake recedes 

due to prolonged periods of drought.

R■ Follow State regulations for establishment of 

permanent and portable ice-fishing houses. 

R■ Seek partnerships to develop accessible facilities such as piers or platforms that accommodate 

anglers with disabilities. 

R■ Work with the State to maintain healthy fish populations. 

R■ Work with counties to maintain existing gravel 

roads to the lake for fishing.

R■ Identify roads that provide direct access to the 

lake including ATV access.

R■ Continue to enforce no driving on the shoreline.

Strategies for Fishing B4 (young anglers)

R■ Work with MFWP and USACE to sponsor a fishing event for young anglers in the Fort Peck area 

that is associated with the fishing education program at the Fort Peck interpretive center.

Strategies for Fishing B5 (commercial fishing)

R■ Recognize the State and USACE as having primary 

responsibility for managing commercial fishing 

within Fort Peck Lake and work with these agencies to ensure the fisheries resources of the lake 

are not negatively affected.

R■ Work with MFWP to establish a method of sharing 

permittee and catch information for the refuge.

Objectives for Fishing, Alternative C

Fishing C1. Same as Fishing B1 and D1.

Fishing C2–C5. Same as Fishing B2–B5 and D2–D5.

Rationale for Fishing C1–C5. Similar to B, except that 

the Service would work with partners on ways to 

increase fishing opportunities for economic benefit 

for the community (providing they are found compatible).

Strategies for Fishing C2 (paddlefish). Same as B and D, 

plus:

R Evaluate opportunities for commercial egg harvesting. 

Paddlefish

Brett Billings / USFWS
Chapter 3—Alternatives 121

Strategies for Fishing C3 (sport fishing). Same as B and 

D, plus:

R Work with MFWP and USACE to evaluate brood 

ponds to determine if they could provide opportunities for youth and accessible fishing. 

R Explore opportunities for creating more motorized access for ice fishing during the winter (Elk 

Hole or the Big Swirl) by providing access from 

the south side of the river or Timber Creek. Allow 

no access from the river or shoreline.

R Seek partnerships or alternative funding for 

establishment of more fishing access points. 

Strategies for Fishing C4 (young anglers). Same as B and D.

Objectives for Fishing, Alternative D

Fishing D1. Same as Fishing B1 and C1.

Fishing D2–D5. Same as Fishing B2–B5 and C2–C5.

Rationale and Strategies for Fishing D1–D5. Same as B, 

plus:

R■ Explore opportunities for creating more motorized access for ice fishing during winter (Elk Hole 

or the Big Swirl) by providing access from the 

south side of the river or Timber Creek. Allow no 

access from the river or shoreline.

PUBLIC USE—WILDLIFE OBSERVATION, 

PHOTOGRAPHY, and INTERPRETATION

The refuge provides several facilities for participating in wildlife viewing, photography, and learning 

about and appreciating the refuge’s resources. These 

include the auto tour route, signs, kiosks, nearly 670 

miles of road, the Fort Peck Interpretive Center 

that the Service cooperates with USACE for operation, and contact stations at Sand Creek and Jordan 

Field Stations. 

Interpretation consists of self-guided trails, interpretive panels, and brochures as well as staff-dependent exhibits, tours and special events. Interpretation 

plays a key role in a visitor’s experience and environmental awareness and helps foster an appreciation, 

support, and understanding of the refuge-specific topics and the Refuge System as a whole.

Freeman Tilden (1957) stated, “Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being 

displayed or described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile.” 

Similarly, the Service’s Visitor Services Handbook 

(FWS 2011g) suggests, “Interpretation on refuges 

connects the hearts and minds of visitors with the 

places, objects, and resources we protect.” The refuge offers excellent opportunities to interpret the 

wildlife resource, paleontological discoveries, the 

Refuge System, western settlement history and the 

large intact landscape of the Missouri River Breaks 

in meaningful ways for visitors. To achieve this end, 

more interpretive programs and facilities are needed 

to orient and educate visitors and elicit “revelation 

upon information” (Tilden 1957). 

Self-guided interpretive opportunities allow visitors to learn independently. Interpretive tools for 

these self-guided opportunities will include exhibits, 

programs, trails, brochures, Web site, and signage.

Each of these wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities requires different programming elements. 

Because these are nonconsumptive activities (not 

hunting or fishing), and they are often closely interrelated (for example, a visitor may observe and photograph wildlife while participating in an interpretive 

program), the objectives have been combined for all. 

The strategies have been broken out by specific type 

of program, such as wildlife observation, self-guided 

activities, and guided activities.

Objectives for Wildlife Observation, 

Photography, and Interpretation, Alternative A

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

A1. Over 15 years, maintain existing wildlife observation and interpretive facilities and programs to 

support approximately 40,000 visitors who participate in these activities.

Rationale for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation A1. Nonconsumptive uses such as photography, observation, and interpretation are estimated to account for over 40,000 visits to the refuge 

(Carver and Caudill 2007). Facilities that support 

these activities include the Fort Peck Visitor Center, 

contact stations at Sand Creek and Jordan, interpretive displays, auto routes, overlooks and observation 

platforms, and informational kiosks. 

Visitors drawn to the refuge for nonconsumptive 

activities have found birding and wildlife observation to be the most important activities, which are 

facilitated with the auto tour route, and walking 

interpretive trails. During the fall when the elk are 

in rut, the Slippery Ann Elk Viewing Area enables 

visitors to see hundreds of elk, and during peak 

times, on average as many as 175 vehicles have been 

counted entering the viewing area. In September 

2008, traffic counters on the auto tour route counted 

approximately 390 vehicles or a vehicle every 2.3 

minutes from 6:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. (refer to “Chapter 

4—Affected Environment”). Visitors also tend to 

observe and photograph wildlife collaterally at the 

same time they take part in other wildlife-dependent 

activities (hunting and fishing). The auto tour route 

gives visitors excellent opportunities to view birds 

and other wildlife.

Under alternative A, the refuge would maintain 

the same level of services for these activities.
122 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Strategy for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation A1

R■ Maintain or upgrade existing facilities, signs, 

Web site, brochures, exhibits, and other programs. Adhere to Service standards.

Objectives for Wildlife Observation, 

Photography, and Interpretation, Alternative B

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

B1. Within 5 years, develop and complete a visitor 

service plan that identifies specific programming elements in addition to interpretive themes, messages, 

and audiences for wildlife observation, photography, 

and interpretation to support objectives B4 and B5 

(refer to table 6 in section 3.13 below about stepdown 

plans). (Same as Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

and Interpretation C1 and D1.)

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

B2. Within 5 years and as part of objective B1 above, 

conduct a visitor experience survey to obtain an 

accurate estimate of visitors and their desired needs 

and experiences for wildlife observation. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

B3. Within 5 years, hire an outdoor recreation planner for the refuge (refer to objectives for refuge 

operations).

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

B4. Over 15 years, increase participation in wildlife 

observation, photography, and interpretive activities by 5–10 percent annually (approximately 2,000–

4,000 visits). 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

B5. Over 15 years, improve the quality and increase 

the number of programs or facilities for wildlife 

observation, photography, and self-guided and staffdependent interpretation by approximately 5–10 

percent (from alternative A). Base this on the visitor 

services plan and possibly include observation blinds 

or facilities, trails, signs, a science center at the Sand 

Creek Field Station, or other programs. 

Rationale for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation B1–B5. The refuge provides a beautiful 

and remote setting for wildlife observation and photography. While the extensive road system provides 

access to areas that are rich with wildlife and are picturesque, many observation areas are not promoted 

nor signed. With the exception of the elk-viewing 

areas, visitors may have difficulty locating overlooks 

and other areas that lend themselves to photography 

and observation. The large number of vehicles using 

the elk-viewing area in the fall raises concerns about 

overcrowding. 

Successful implementation of the habitat management improvements identified under uplands, 

river bottoms, riparian areas, and shorelines would 

provide for a greater diversity of wildlife available 

for observation, photography, and other interpretive 

programs. Initially most of the refuge’s resources 

would be spent at improving habitat conditions on 

the refuge and, as a result, it would likely take 15 

years to fully develop and carry out a program that 

would result in modest increases in visitation. 

Simultaneously, the refuge would seek to close 

106 miles of existing road and increase proposed wilderness units (refer to the sections on access and wilderness for specifics). The visitor services plan would 

identify where modest improvements could be made 

(for example, building a lek blind) to attract visitors 

seeking wildlife observation or birding opportunities. 

A critical component in accomplishing the objectives 

and strategies is having an outdoor recreation planner 

on staff as currently, there is not a person dedicated 

to the overall recreation, interpretive, and education 

program. Additionally, a visitor survey would enable 

the refuge to have a better estimate of the number of 

visitors coming to the refuge to take part in nonconsumptive activities and identify the issues and needs 

for future facilities such as parking areas and observation areas.

Constructing more facilities for wildlife watching such as blinds, trails, or designating another road 

on the refuge would draw in visitors who are seeking that opportunity. It would be important that new 

and expanded wildlife observation and photography 

facilities complement the natural settings within the 

refuge. 

Strategies for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation B1–B5 (wildlife observation and photography)

R■ Maintain the existing wildlife-viewing area.

R■ Recruit volunteers for the Christmas bird count 

and other birding events. 

R■ Identify observation areas to the public through 

signage and maps.

R■ Develop Web site–based observation materials such 

as bird lists and information, maps, and Webcams.

R■ At Fort Peck Interpretive Center, provide a 

computer kiosk where visitors can access birding information such as bird songs (for example, 

using Thayer birding software).

R■ Incorporate the refuge as a stop on the Montana 

birding trail and regional birdwatching trails 

or routes. Provide support materials at the refuge, headquarters, and online to guide visitors 

through the State and direct them to key birding 

spots.

R■ Construct one to three additional facilities 

(blinds, trails, or tour routes) to support wildlife 

observation, and follow accessibility standards). 

(Refer to objectives and strategies for “Refuge 

Operations.”)
Chapter 3—Alternatives 123

Strategies for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation B1–B5 (interpretation)

R Maintain exhibits at the Fort Peck Interpretive Center.

R Identify gaps in interpretative materials or programs and additional themes to expand through 

improved programming.

R Develop more interpretive exhibits and materials. 

R Update the wildlife and bird lists. 

R Continue to print and distribute the refuge’s general brochure. 

R Update the refuge history brochure. 

R Improve visitor contact areas at the Sand Creek, 

Fort Peck, and Jordan Field Stations by providing more interesting and informative information. 

R Routinely update the Web site and incorporate 

changing interpretive content into the design.

R Increase the elk-viewing bus tours to include 

other communities.

R Work with Phillips County to use their buses for 

interpretive activities and tours.

R Incorporate a stewardship message into interpretive facilities and programs to instill in visitors 

greater support for the refuge and its resources.

R Continue to place interpretive signs at public 

access and overlook points (for example, Crooked 

Creek) in cooperation with various agencies and 

units of government.

R Inventory, maintain, and replace signs, as needed.

R Maintain the auto tour route.

R Inventory all facilities, identify audiences for outreach efforts, and update the inventory annually.

R Design two, short, accessible, hiking trails with 

interpretive signage and brochures for visitors of 

all needs at the Fort Peck and Sand Creek Field 

Stations.

R Continue to cosponsor special events related to 

wildlife and habitat conservation.

R Actively publicize and take part in one national 

event such as National Wildlife Refuge Week and 

Migratory Bird Day.

Objectives for Wildlife Observation, 

Photography, and Interpretation, Alternative C

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

C1. Same as Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation B1 and D1. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

C2. Same as Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation B2 and D2. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

C3. Within 5 years, hire two outdoor recreation planners for the refuge (refer to objectives for “Refuge 

Operations”).

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

C4. Over 15 years, increase participation in wildlife 

observation, photography, and interpretive activities 

use by about 20–50 percent on the refuge (approximately 8,000–20,000 more visitors annually). 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

C5. Over 15 years, improve the quality and increase 

the number of programs or facilities for wildlife observation, photography, and self-guided and staff-dependent interpretation by approximately 5–15 percent 

(from alternative A). Base this on the visitor services plan and possibly include observation blinds or 

facilities, trails, signs, an interpretive center at Sand 

Creek Field Station, or other programs and facilities. 

Rationale for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation C1–C5. MFWP states that naturerelated tourism and recreation are growing trends 

nationally, regionally, and within the State of Montana (MFWP 2009e). Wildlife viewing is in the top 

two reasons for travel to the State in all “travel 

countries” within the State. Although Yellowstone 

and Glacier National Parks and other areas along 

the Rocky Mountain Front account for the greatest expenditures for travel and tourism, the demand 

for wildlife viewing is expected to increase nationally and in the Rocky Mountain west, and demand 

will almost be double that of supply (MFWP 2008b, 

2009e). 

With these trends, the Service believes under 

alternative C it would be realistic to significantly 

increase participation in nonconsumptive activities 

over 15 years. For example, birdwatching is growing 

faster than any other form of outdoor recreation, and 

providing facilities like viewing blinds that enhance 

viewing experiences represent an investment in that 

economy as well as in creating a conservation constituency (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2007). To 

increase the numbers by about 20–50 percent, (up to 

20,000 more visits), the refuge would need to invest 

in more viewing facilities and programs (for example, blinds or improving access). An interpretive 

center at Sand Creek Field Station, developed in 

partnership with others, could draw more visitors to 

the refuge. The Service would also need to increase 

the awareness of the refuge as a place to visit. Additionally, the Service would improve access into several areas (for example, potentially gravel Knox 

Ridge Road and establish a trail on the eastern edge 

of the refuge (Sand Arroyo).

Similar to alternative B, within 5 years a visitor experience survey would be started and a visitor services plan would be written to take a more 

comprehensive look at the overall program and facil-
124 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

ities needs. Two outdoor recreation planners would 

be hired (Lewistown and Fort Peck Field Stations), 

and these positions would be critical to achieving 

these objectives.

Strategies for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation C1–C5 (wildlife observation and photography). 

Same as B, plus:

R Host bird identification events in conjunction 

with International Migratory Bird Day in May 

and other special events.

R Explore new areas to promote for wildlife observation and photography opportunities. 

R Where feasible, develop a simple map within each 

visitor center where visitors can record what 

they saw and where (for example, a laminated 

refuge map that people can write on with a dryerase marker).

R Construct two to five accessible facilities (blinds, 

trails, or tour routes) including a lek blind (refer 

to objectives and strategies for “Refuge Operations”).

R Design and map birdwatching trails for public 

use. Work with partners to establish an 8-mile 

Sand Arroyo trail along the eastern boundary of 

the refuge in cooperation with BLM and others (4 

miles would be on Service land; see figure 9).

Strategies for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation C1–C5 (interpretation). Same as B, plus:

R■ Develop a tour map with geological and biological 

information for the refuge. 

R■ Develop a portable tabletop exhibit.

R■ Enhance, update, and improve exhibits at the 

Fort Peck Interpretive Center.

R■ Explore open-captioning audio–visual in providing 

accessible exhibits.

R■ Develop materials such as exhibits and pamphlets, as well as educational programs, that 

explain the region’s conservation priorities and 

the refuge resources. 

R■ Improve visitor contact areas at the Sand Creek, 

Fort Peck, and Jordan Field Stations. Make brochures always available.

R■ Update the Web site and incorporate changing 

interpretive content into the design.

R■ Start grouse-viewing programs and provide 

blinds for public use.

R■ Expand elk-viewing opportunities in other locations.

R■ Develop, sign, and map an additional interpreted 

auto tour route.

R■ Complete exhibits and natural plant landscaping 

at the refuge headquarters in Lewistown and at 

the three field stations. Ways to do this follow: 

— Establish native plant gardens with interpretive information.

— Add interpretive information to all office artifacts and mounts.

Refuge staff member conducting an interpretive field trip on the refuge.

USFWS
Chapter 3—Alternatives 125

— Coordinate with the Fort Peck Interpretive 

Center on natural landscaping and interpretive programs.

R■ Actively publicize and take part in three events 

such as National Wildlife Refuge Week or Migratory Bird Day.

Objectives for Wildlife Observation, 

Photography, and Interpretation, Alternative D

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

D1. Same as Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation B1 and C1. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

D2. Same as Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation B2 and C2. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

D3. Same as Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation C3.

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

D4. Over 15 years, increase participation in wildlife 

observation, photography, and interpretive activities by about 15–25 percent (approximately 6,000–

10,000 more visits annually). 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

D5. Over 15 years, improve the quality and increase 

the number of wildlife observation, photography, 

and self-guided and staff-dependent interpretive 

programs or facilities by approximately 10 percent 

(from alternative A). Base this on the visitor services plan and possibly include observation blinds or 

facilities, trails, signs, a science and interpretive center at Sand Creek Field Station, or other programs 

and facilities. 

Rationale for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation D1–D5. Similar to B, habitat improvements to uplands, river bottoms, riparian areas, and 

shorelines could increase opportunities for viewing 

and photographing wildlife. The Service would seek 

to increase by a moderate amount the number of visitors participating in these activities, subsequently 

adding programs or facilities (for example, observation blinds and a science and interpretive center 

at Sand Creek Field Station) as needed, but would 

provide for quality-based experiences. Although 

quality is difficult to define precisely, and it means 

something different for every visitor, developing an 

experienced-based approach that provides for the 

diverse interests of visitors, while operating within 

the capabilities of the resources (Manfredo 2002), 

would achieve this goal. Experience-based management proposes that recreation opportunities be 

described in terms of the experience, setting, and 

the activity. Some visitors have a great experience 

if they observe a lot of wildlife, regardless of how 

many other people are around. For others, a quality 

experience could mean seeing less wildlife but being 

around fewer people (Manfredo 2002). 

Increasing visitation by 15 percent would require 

a moderate investment in facilities and programs. As 

with alternative C, a critical component for implementation is the development of the visitor services 

plan, completing a visitor experience survey, and the 

addition of two outdoor recreation planners to carry 

out and oversee the program. 

Strategies for Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation D1–D5. Same as B, plus: 

R■ Explore new areas to promote for wildlife observation and photography opportunities, such as 

expansion of elk-viewing opportunities. 

R■ Where possible, establish universally accessible 

observation blinds.

R■ Start grouse-viewing programs and provide 

accessible blinds that allow visitors to view 

grouse on leks after peak hen attendance (peak 

attendance of male grouse occurs toward the end 

of the breeding season, providing visitors quality viewing experiences while minimizing disturbances to actual breeding activity).

R■ Develop a bird guide map to target birder audiences and provide more sophisticated, quality 

interpretive opportunities. 

R■ Develop at least one additional (three total), 

accessible, nonmotorized trail system for families 

and people with disabilities.

R■ Develop 2–5 miles of primitive hiking trails 

including one on the east side at Sand Arroyo (see 

figure 10).

R■ Consider the State section north of Slippery Ann 

for facilities.

PUBLIC USE—ENVIRONMENTAL 

EDUCATION

The purpose of environmental education is to advance 

public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and 

knowledge of key fish, wildlife, plant, and resource 

issues through formal, curriculum-based programs 

tied to national and State education standards. Environmental education may be geared toward children 

or adults, and it is key for changing attitudes and 

behavior, which affect the refuge through off-refuge 

land use decisions and on-refuge conduct and use. 

Only through understanding and appreciation will 

people be moved to personal and collective action to 

ensure a healthy refuge for the future. 

Objectives for Environmental Education, 

Alternative A

Education A1. Over 15 years, maintain limited educational programs.
126 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Rationale for Environmental Education A1. Most of the 

schools in the six counties surrounding the refuge 

are located far from the refuge making field trips difficult due to time constraints and budgets. The refuge staff provides classroom presentations when 

requested but there is not an outdoor recreation 

planner on staff or refuge-specific curricula. Fort 

Peck and Jordan Field Stations’ staffs have participated with other agencies in annual environmental camps. There is an education trunk available for 

loan to the school through the Fort Peck Interpretive Center.

Strategy for Environmental Education A1

R■ Continue to offer the educational bus tour, school 

visits, and staffing the fair booth.

Objectives for Environmental Education, 

Alternative B

Education B1. Within 5–7 years, expand the quantity 

of the environmental education programs (on- and 

off-refuge) by about 5 percent (identify program elements in the overall visitor services plan for all public uses). (Refer to table 6 in section 3.13 below about 

stepdown plans).

Rationale for Environmental Education B1. The Service is

committed to connecting people with nature through 

initiatives such as “Children in Nature” (FWS 

2009c). Books like Last Child in the Woods (Louv 

2005) have highlighted the importance of connecting children with nature. Louv contends that the 

lack of nature in the lives of today’s wired generation 

(Louv refers to it as “nature-deficit”) contributes to 

disturbing childhood trends, such as rises in obesity, 

attention disorders, and depression.

Similar to the objectives for wildlife observation above, the first action under alternative B is to 

develop the visitor services plan that identify the 

elements of an environmental education program at 

the refuge and hire an outdoor recreation planner. 

Given that very limited environmental education 

programming exists, with more staff, there would be 

a moderate increase in the quantity of environmental education programs. The programs would focus 

on wildlife biology and habitat requirements and 

would modify existing curricula to highlight refuge 

issues. Because environmental education is curriculum-based and labor intensive, initial efforts would 

be limited to Fort Peck and Lewistown Field Stations when an outdoor recreation planner is hired.

Strategies for Environmental Education B1

R■ Develop an environmental education program as 

part of the visitor services stepdown plan.

R■ Identify gaps in environmental education materials and programs, conduct a visitor experience 

survey, and identify additional themes to expand 

through improved programming.

R■ Promote teacher-taught and refuge-taught programming that incorporates the “Children in 

Nature” initiative in both structured and unstructured ways. Encourage family visits and family 

awareness of the refuge and the Refuge System. 

Promote programs to get all ages of children outdoors (for example, the “Lets go Outside” initiative).

R■ Respond to requests for technical assistance for 

curriculum-based environmental education (for 

example, Range Days, Bio-Blitz, Envirothon, and 

Field Days).

R■ Use the refuge Web site to promote environmental education; include a downloadable podcast.

R■ Annually offer two teacher workshops to all 

interested school districts in central and eastern 

Montana to promote refuge-based (local community) and regional-based information. 

R■ Within 5–7 years, provide refuge-taught environmental education programming at no less than 

two school visits per year.

R■ Over 15 years, work with partners to modify 

existing environmental education curricula tailored to the refuge (for example, BLM, USACE, 

State, Project Wild, Project Wet, Nature Learning, and Project Learning Tree.) Include potential topics such as prairie streams, prairie plants 

and wildlife, climate change, and invasive plants.

R■ Align teacher- and refuge-taught school programs with State and local educational standards.

Objectives for Environmental Education, 

Alternative C

Education C1. Within 5–10 years, expand the quantity 

of environmental education programs (on- and offrefuge) by about 25 percent (identify program elements in the visitor services plan). (Refer to table 6 

in section 3.13 below about stepdown plans).

Rationale for Environmental Education C1. Similar to B 

except, because public use is emphasized under this 

alternative, the refuge environmental education program would be substantially expanded and would 

focus on threatened and endangered species, reintroduced species, and restoration activities. Existing curricula would be modified to highlight these 

issues and several new curricula would be developed 

in compliance with State standards.

Because it would be more labor intensive, more 

staff would be needed (two identified; refer to objectives for “Wildlife Observation, Photography, and 

Interpretation”).

Strategies for Environmental Education C1. Same as B, 

except:
Chapter 3—Alternatives 127

R■ Annually offer five teacher workshops to school 

districts in central and eastern Montana promoting refuge-based (local community) and regionalbased information.

R■ Within 5–7 years, provide refuge-taught environmental education programming at no less than 

five school visits per year.

R■ Over 15 years, work with partners to create up to 

three environmental education curricula, unique 

to the refuge, and modify existing environmental education curricula tailored to the refuge. 

Include potential topics such as prairie streams, 

use of fire, prairie plants and wildlife, invasive 

plants, paleontological resources, climate change, 

and threatened and endangered species.

R■ Request that researchers working at the refuge 

share information they collected through presentations at schools.

R■ Hire two outdoor recreation planners (as part of 

public use program). (Same as D.)

R■ Seek out partnerships with the Office of Public 

Instruction to encourage expansion of environmental education programs in local schools. 

R■ Build on existing relationships with schools for 

both onsite and offsite programming. 

R■ Refuge staff or volunteers present at job education days at local high schools.

Objectives for Environmental Education, 

Alternative D

Education D1. Within 5–10 years, expand the quantity 

of the environmental education programs (on- and 

off-refuge) offered by the refuge by about 10 percent 

(identify program elements in the visitor services 

plan). (Refer to table 6 in section 3.13 below about 

stepdown plans.)

Rationale for Environmental Education D1. Similar to B, 

except there would be a moderate increase in the 

environmental education program, with an emphasis on quality. The programs would primarily focus 

on the Service’s conservation goals as well as biological diversity, biological integrity and the ecological processes that shape the refuge, but other topics 

including climate change and ranching history would 

be included. Existing curricula would be modified to 

highlight these issues and at least one new curriculum 

would be developed in compliance with State standards. 

Strategies for Environmental Education D1. Same as B, 

plus:

R■ Annually offer two to four teacher workshops to 

all interested school districts in central and eastern Montana promoting refuge-based (local community) and regional-based information.

R■ Over 15 years, work with partners to create up to 

two environmental education curricula unique to 

the refuge, with potential topics including prairie 

streams, use of fire, prairie plants and wildlife, 

invasive plants, climate change, and ecology of 

the Missouri River Breaks with emphasis on sentinel plants.

R■ Hire two outdoor recreation planners (as part of 

public use program). (Same as C.)

PUBLIC USE—OUTREACH

Outreach efforts help educate people about the refuge and its needs. It involves communication between 

the refuge and interested groups and the public such 

as local communities and city, county, State, and Federal officials. Outreach may include formal meetings 

or informal discussions with visitors or landowners, 

as well as news releases, organized programs, tours, 

and presentations.

Objectives for Outreach, Alternative A

Outreach A1. Over 15 years, continue outreach activities at current levels. (Same as Outreach B1.)

Rationale for Outreach A1. Currently, outreach activities 

include public presentations, news releases, weed 

tours, county commissioner meetings, and meetings 

with nongovernmental organizations to talk about 

refuge programs and activities.

Strategies for Outreach A1

R■ Occasionally take part in State and local events 

such as State, county, and school career fairs.

R■ Make presentations as requested.

R■ Recruit volunteers to support staff.

R■ Seek grants in partnership with others to fund 

special events or programs.

R■ Use the Internet to keep the public informed 

about refuge programs and activities.

Objectives for Outreach, Alternative B

Outreach B1. Same as Outreach A1.

Outreach B2. Within 10 years, build greater awareness and appreciation for the Service and refuge 

resources, with a resulting 5-percent increase in 

requests for information, visitation, and Web site 

hits. 

Outreach B3. Within 5 years, engage outside audiences (such as interested groups, the public, or visitors) in at least two meetings, presentations, or open 

houses per year.

Rationale for Outreach B1–B3. The refuge would increase its outreach efforts through active participation in local events and meetings or by developing a 

Friends group (a nongovernmental organization that 
128 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

specifically works on behalf of furthering the refuge 

or Refuge System’s goals). The outreach message 

would be focused on the refuge’s goal of increasing 

wildlife resources. Increased efforts toward outreach should result in modest increases in results for 

information about the refuge from current levels.

For example, improving the quality and content 

of the refuge’s Web site would be one way for the 

refuge to reach out to a larger audience. Recent data 

suggests that “hits” (visits to the Web site <http://

fws.gov/cmr>) are seasonal and likely due to a visitor’s particular interest, for example, hunting or 

development of the refuge’s CCP. Before hunting 

season, hits to the Web site increase from all over 

the United States as well as residents in Montana. 

Strategies for Outreach B1–B3 

Same as A, plus:

R Actively take part in one State and local events 

such as State, county, and school career fairs.

R Investigate developing a Friends group for the 

refuge within 2 years of CCP approval.

R Improve the refuge’s Web site by adding at least 

two of the following:

— Photographs of the refuge.

— Videos of elk in rut, prairie dog towns, and 

sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse leks.

— Increased Webcam feeds.

— Blogs with refuge-specific information on 

a prairie dog town or the elk-viewing area. 

Include a downloadable podcast. 

— Information on travel conditions for roads. 

— Downloadable versions of all refuge brochures.

R Annually conduct two information-sharing events 

(such as interviews, public service announcements, and writing articles) with the media 

(newspaper, television, and radio), chambers of 

commerce, congressional contacts, and tourism 

outlets.

R Develop an outreach plan as part of the visitor services plan (refer to table 6 in section 3.13 

below about stepdown plans).

R Work with the Montana tourism department to 

promote the refuge and its resources. 

Objectives for Outreach, Alternative C

Outreach C1. Within 10 years, build greater awareness 

and appreciation for the Service and refuge resources, 

with a resulting 15-percent increase in requests for 

information, visitation, and Web site hits. 

Outreach C2. Within 5 years, engage outside audiences such as interested groups, the public, and 

potential visitors in at least five meetings, presentations, or open houses per year.

Rationale for Outreach C1–C2. Similar to B, except there 

would be a greater emphasis on outreach for both 

communicating wildlife and habitat goals as well as 

for increasing visitation to the refuge.

Strategies for Outreach C1–C2. Same as B, plus:

R Develop a Friends group immediately on completion of the CCP and a second volunteer group 

focused on advocating for the refuge.

R Use the Internet to complete four to six of the 

following activities:

— Photographs of the refuge.

— Videos of elk in rut, prairie dog towns, and 

sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse leks.

— Increased Webcam feeds.

— Blogs with refuge-specific information on 

a prairie dog town or the elk-viewing area. 

Include a downloadable podcast. 

— Information on travel conditions for roads. 

— Downloadable versions of all refuge brochures.

R Annually conduct five information-sharing events, 

such as interviews and writing articles with the 

media (newspaper, TV, and radio), chambers of 

commerce, congressional contacts, and tourism 

outlets. 

Objectives for Outreach, Alternative D

Outreach D1. Within 2 years, build greater awareness 

and appreciation for the Service and refuge resources, 

with a resulting 5- to 10-percent increase in requests 

for information, visitation, and Web site hits.

Outreach D2. Within 5 years, engage outside audiences such as interested groups, the public, and 

potential visitors in at least three meetings, presentations, or open houses per year. Provide information 

to audiences about the importance of the refuge goal 

of restoring ecological processes and increasing the 

resiliency of refuge habitat to nonclimate stressors 

and climate change stressors.

Rationale for Outreach D1–D2. Similar to C, except outreach would focus on the refuge’s goal of restoring 

ecological processes and increasing the resiliency of 

refuge habitat to nonclimate stressors as well as climate change stressors. There would be less emphasis on maximizing the number of visits and more 

emphasis on the quality of the public use programs.

Strategies for Outreach D1–D2. Same as B, plus:

R Conduct three information-sharing events (such 

as interviews, public service announcements, and 

writing articles) with the media (newspaper, television, and radio), chambers of commerce, congressional contacts, and tourism outlets per year. 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 129

PUBLIC USE—ACCESS

There are nearly 670 miles of road found on the refuge. Hard-surfaced, all-weather roads are limited 

to U.S. Highway 191 on the western end of the refuge and several highways around Fort Peck. Several 

graveled roads provide direct access to the refuge. 

All other roads are passable only in dry weather. 

ATVs and motorcycles must be street-legal. Properly licensed snowmobiles are allowed only on the 

frozen surface of Fort Peck Reservoir. Bicycles may 

be used only on numbered roads including seasonally 

closed roads.

Boating is allowed on the refuge although special 

regulations apply on the western edge, which is part 

of the National Wild and Scenic River System (refer 

to hunting objectives for further discussion of monitoring boat access). Aircraft may not land on the 

uplands of the refuge. Landing of fixed-wing aircraft 

is permitted at specific locations on Fort Peck Reservoir (refer to chapter 3, section “3.2 Elements Common to All Alternatives” and to chapter 4).

Objectives for Access, Alternative A

Access A1. Over 15 years, keep about 670 miles of 

roads and trails open (see figure 7) and maintained to 

existing standards.

Access A2. Within 3–5 years, work with partners to 

develop a comprehensive travel management plan. 

(Same as Access B2, C2, and D2.)

Access A3. Over 15 years, allow for public access as 

currently designated by refuge regulations.

Rationale for Access A1–A3. To limit erosion and protect plants and wildlife, mechanized vehicles are 

allowed only on numbered refuge roads that are designated as open. Some seasonal road closures could 

occur, but generally access would remain as it currently exists.

Under all alternatives including alternative A, 

the Service would develop a comprehensive travel 

plan, which would also dovetail with the visitor services plan for alternatives B, C, and D.

Strategies for Access A1–A3

R■ Institute seasonal closures on a limited basis. 

Continue to permit horseback riding, ATV use 

on public roads, and bicycling on numbered roads 

(including seasonally closed roads).

R■ Permit public planes to land only on water or ice 

as determined by USACE’s plan.

R■ Keep roads closed in proposed wilderness units.

Objectives for Access, Alternative B

Access B1. Within 3–5 years, analyze all forms of 

access to determine what effect access has on wildlife 

populations, habitat conditions, and cultural resources. 

Access B2. Same as Access A2, C2, and D2.

Access B3. Over 15 years, work with counties to reconfigure the refuge road system, closing about 106 

miles of roads or sections of roads that no longer provide a public benefit or do not help achieve habitat 

objectives. 

Access B4. Within 5 years, identify safety hazards 

and partners to routinely maintain the refuge road system. (Same as Access C4 and D4.) 

Rationale for Access B1–B4. With more than 670 miles 

of road crisscrossing the refuge, there are few places 

that cannot be accessed within a mile of a road (refer 

to “Chapter 4—Affected Environment”). Most of the 

roads are primitive and not heavily traveled except 

during hunting season; nonetheless, the number 

and extent of the road system is cause for concern 

from a wildlife management, law enforcement, and 

road maintenance perspective. 

Some refuge roads have become severely rutted and braided, particularly during wet seasons, 

and there is little money to maintain or patrol all the 

roads. Roads and invasive plants go hand in hand on 

most public lands in the United States (USFS 2003), 

as roads are a known vector for carrying weed seeds. 

The full extent of the problem is unknown at the refuge because invasive species mapping has not been 

done for all upland areas, but invasive weeds are of 

considerable concern in many areas (for example, 

north fork of Rock Creek and Big Dry Arm (see figure 20 in chapter 4). The Service has worked with 

refuge users, particularly during hunting season, to 

reduce the transport of invasive species by vehicles 

by running the weed wash station.

Roads also can result in wildlife disturbance 

and habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation 

has been shown to exacerbate the problem of habitat loss for grassland birds. While understanding 

the effects of habitat fragmentation is complex and 

not easy to assess, it is critically important to do so 

in making decisions about grassland management 

(Johnson 2001). 

With the emphasis on increasing wildlife populations under alternative B, the Service would look to 

close about 106 miles of road (see figure 8). This would 

increase the size of undisturbed habitat blocks on the 

refuge and could benefit wildlife as a whole. It also 

could reduce the spread of invasive plants carried in 

by vehicles. Closures would not occur before fully analyzing harvest strategies in cooperation with MFWP 

or other public access concerns. Access to private land 

would not be affected by any road closures. The following roads (by road number) would be closed based 

on the criteria listed (some roads meet multiple criteria and appear more than once below):
130 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

■■ For protection of wilderness values—306, 311, 

315, 318, 327 (east end), 410, 411, 412, 420, 452, 

and 838

■■ To increase blocks of undisturbed habitat or 

reduce negative wildlife effects—219, 308, 309, 

311, 315, 320, 327, 329, 332, 333, 335, 353, 359, 366 

(east end), 366 (includes 621 and 622), 374, 401, 

405, 410, 411, 412, 416, 417, 428, 440, 441, 442, 476, 

479, 542, 543, 548, 602, 825, 838, and 864

■■ For protection of riparian areas—308, 405, and 

420

■■ To address safety or maintenance issues—219, 

302, and 513

■■ Where there is no defined legal public access—215, 

353, 355, 359, 365, 476, 479, 488, 489, 547, 548, 609, 

616, 617, and 618

■■ Where the area is easily accessible from off the 

refuge or from another road—309, 320, 355, 416, 

420, 440, 441, 513, 548, 616, and 618

Strategies for Access B1–B4

R■ Direct money and staff to the evaluation of all 

forms of access (including motor boat) and its 

effects on various wildlife populations. Use this 

information to make final recommendations for 

closing access (roads) seasonally or permanently 

or restricting boat motors to reduce the disturbance to wildlife.

R■ Within 2–5 years, assess the use of mountain 

bikes on all numbered routes, seasonally closed 

roads, and closed roads. 

R■ Study the effects of recreation in proposed wilderness and wilderness along with closed, seasonally closed, and numbered roads to evaluate 

current restrictions and the effects of recreation 

on wildlife and habitat.

R■ Work with private landowners, counties, USACE, 

BLM, and MFWP to identify roads that provide 

legal public access on or off the refuge. Acquire 

legal access where needed and feasible.

R■ Remove all roads that provide exclusive access to 

the refuge because of inaccessible private lands 

within or outside the refuge. 

R■ By 2014, produce a GIS road layer and public use 

“Guide Map” that shows legal public access on the 

refuge; designates all-weather roads, dirt “two 

tracks,” and roads that end at waters edge; and 

shows fences and gates to accommodate horse 

users.

R■ Consider opening or closing numbered routes 

seasonally or permanently. 

R■ Consider restricting all access during some times 

of the year and allowing it at other times such as 

with seasonal closures. 

R■ Work with partners to improve the elk-viewing 

area and reduce congestion by enlarging the area. 

R■ Evaluate the demand for multimodal accessibility.

R■ Determine the extent of road use and the types 

of use.

R■ Reduce undesignated vehicle trails off system 

roads, i.e., road stems.

R■ Maintain directional signage and improve the 

wayfinding system as needed.

R■ Develop road management systems to compete 

for national funds.

R■ Perform “hot spot” road safety audits (for example, such problem areas as Knox Ridge and Sandy 

Creek Road).

R■ Perform an audit of the 100–200 series of roads 

within 3 years.

Objectives for Access, Alternative C

Access C1. Within 3 years, evaluate all access points 

and possible new access points and determine methods for increasing access to the refuge. 

Access C2. Same as Access A2, B2, and D2.

Access C3. Over 15 years, work with partners to improve the road system to improve access (see figure 9).

Access C4. Same as Access B4 and D4. 

Rationale for Access C1–C4. Several options would be 

explored to improve public access. There would be 

few additional road closures (see figure 9), although 

seasonal closures could still be needed for wildlife protection. Generally, the Service would work 

with the counties and other partners to improve the 

road system (for example, additional road maintenance on some roads, or by graveling). Some existing roads would be evaluated to figure out if road 

improvements could be made without significantly 

affecting wildlife (such as Knox Ridge and Turkey 

Joe roads). Many users have expressed the desire for 

increased access during the winter months to popular ice-fishing areas like Swirl, Elk Creek, and Timber Ridge, and these areas would be evaluated for 

safety and other factors. The Service would also look 

at whether the elk-viewing area could be expanded 

or use spread out to other areas to reduce congestion and improve the visitor experience during the 

fall viewing season. 

Strategies for Access C1–C4. Same as B, plus:

R■ Improve access by diverting refuge money and 

staff to purchase rights-of-way for graveling allweather roads; creating more parking for persons 

with disabilities; developing trailheads, vehicle 

parking areas, and camping sites; and providing 

equestrian facilities.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 131

R■ When it is determined that a form of access has 

no negative effect on wildlife populations, consider increasing or improving that access. 

R■ Within 5 years, evaluate all roads that end at the 

water’s edge to figure out if it is feasible to construct boat ramps for water access. 

R■ Increase access to the lake and river for fishing 

and other uses by identifying roads that lead to 

the water’s edge.

R■ Increase opportunities to access wilderness by 

creating parking lots next to proposed wilderness 

units.

R■ Work with counties and others to upgrade added 

all-weather roads to and on the refuge (for example, Knox Ridge and Turkey Joe).

R■ Evaluate the opportunity for motorized vehicles 

on the lake and river during winter (for example, 

ATVs and snowmobiles) and consider providing 

seasonal access to desirable winter fishing holes 

such as those at Swirl, Elk Hole, and Timber 

Creek.

R■ Institute seasonal use of the roads where appropriate. 

R■ Improve roads next to proposed wilderness units 

to enhance wilderness recreation and value (for 

example, Soda Creek, Beauchamp, and Harpers 

Ridge).

R■ Work with partners to improve the elk-viewing 

area and create more pulloffs or viewing areas 

along the road system to facilitate wildlife observation. 

R■ Evaluate the demand for multimodal accessibility.

R■ Within 10 years, designate and post closed roads 

within the refuge and wilderness study areas as 

hiking trails open to the public. Delineate on the 

current refuge map the location of these closed 

roads for guidance and accessibility.

R■ Determine the extent of road use and the types 

of use.

R■ Maintain directional signage and improve the 

wayfinding system as needed.

Objectives for Access, Alternative D

Access D1. Within 3 years, evaluate access points 

and determine improvements that can be made to 

enhance ecological processes on the refuge.

Access D2. Same as Access A2, B2, and C2.

Access D3. Over 15 years, work with counties to 

reconfigure the refuge road system. Initially close 21 

miles of roads and seasonally close 15 miles of roads 

(designate 13 miles on the northeast part of the refuge as game retrieval roads, and seasonally close 

road 315 from its junction with road 838) as needed 

to encourage free movement of animals, permit prescribed fire activities, harvest wild ungulates, provide for quality wildlife-dependent recreation, or 

allow other activities that contribute to overall 

improved ecological health (see figure 10 in section 

3.7). Once the transportation plan is completed, close 

or modify more roads as necessary. 

Access D4. Same as Access B4 and C4. 

Rationale for Access D1–D4. Alternative D strikes a 

balance between providing for the improved access 

that some refuge users desire, managing big game 

populations to improve habitat, and meeting MFWP 

harvest objectives while ensuring that the access 

plan enables the Service to restore ecological processes. To achieve the overall habitat and public use 

objectives, other road closures could be needed, but 

this would be assessed in consideration of harvest 

strategies and other public uses and would be identified during development of the transportation plan. 

There would be moderate increases in providing for 

nonconsumptive uses, and improved access and facilities could be important in facilitating these activities. The Service would consider allowing motorized 

access on some closed roads (outside of wilderness 

areas) for game retrieval only. If conditions warrant, 

other improvements or closures would be considered.

The following roads (by road number) would be 

closed based on the criteria listed (some roads meet 

multiple criteria and appear more than once below):

■■ for protection of wilderness values—306 and 311

■■ to increase blocks of undisturbed habitat or 

reduce negative wildlife effects—320

■■ to address safety or maintenance issues—374 

(part of) and 825

■■ where there is no defined legal public access—353, 

355, 365, 476, 479, 488, 489, 609, 616, 617, and 618

■■ where the area is easily accessible from off the 

refuge or from another road—320, 616, and 618

Seasonal closures would be carried out on roads 315, 

440, 331, 332, 333 to improve wildlife security, reduce 

displacement of wildlife due to motor vehicle use, 

and provide optimum winter habitat for wildlife.

Strategies for Access D1–D4. Same as B, plus:

R Consider money and staff needed for opening 

and closing roads (including seasonally closed 

roads), developing more access points, or making 

changes in access. 

R Designate parts of roads 440, 331, 332, and 333 

as game retrieval roads (opened for set hours 

during hunting season for game retrieval only). 

Designate road 315 as seasonally closed from the 

junction with road 838 to its end (from the end of 

August to March 1).
132 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

R■ Consider ways to improve opportunities for visitors to take part in nonconsumptive uses such as 

by providing viewing areas.

R■ Consider improving Knox Ridge Road for allweather access (gravel).

R■ Work with other agencies and partners to restrict 

access or expand roadless areas if needed to facilitate ecological processes.

R■ Institute seasonal closures at beaches to protect 

nesting endangered species.

R■ Decrease access to roads to minimize invasive 

species (for example, the north fork of Rock 

Creek and Big Dry Arm).

R■ Replace structures that are barriers to aquatic 

organisms (for example, use fish-friendly culverts).

R■ Restrict access to proposed wilderness units to 

meet biological objectives.

PUBLIC USE—RECREATION SITES

There are two primary types of recreation areas 

found on the refuge: (1) developed areas that have 

amenities such as campsites, running water, and boat 

ramps and are managed by USACE or outgranted 

to MFWP or BLM; and (2) primitive areas that only 

have vault toilets and are managed by the Service. 

Additionally, there are a few more primitive areas 

with no facilities that were outgranted to the Service 

in the Enhancement Act (refer to chapter 1, section 

1.9). The following objectives address areas that the 

Service manages.

Objectives for Recreation Sites, Alternative A

Recreation Sites A1. Over 15 years, work cooperatively with USACE to further define or improve 

existing Service recreation areas. 

Rationale for Recreation Sites A1. The 1992 Fort Peck 

Lake Master Plan identified 18 recreation areas 

around the lake. These are mostly managed by 

USACE with a few outgranted to MFWP, BLM, 

Petroleum County and the Service. Seven of these 

18 (Downstream campground, Fort Peck West, The 

Pines, James Kipp, Crooked Creek, Hell Creek, and 

Rock Creek on the Big Dry Arm) are classified as 

intensive use. Intensive use means these areas may 

have concession operations, resort, and quasi-public 

development (camping loops, picnic tables and shelters, play areas and landscaping). Other intensive 

use areas are less developed. The remaining areas 

are defined as low intensity. Development in low 

intensity areas is limited to facilities that promote 

or allow public use but do not greatly alter the natural character of the area. Facilities allowed include 

trails, parking areas, boat ramps, vault toilets, picnic 

tables, and fire rings. 

Camping areas that the Service manages are 

Slippery Ann, Rock Creek, Turkey Joe, Withrow 

Bottoms, Jones Island, and Rocky Point. Where 

opportunities arise, the Service would work with 

USACE to further define these areas to prevent 

the campsites from spreading into adjacent habitat. 

These are primitive areas with a vault toilet where 

the public camps while hunting or fishing. In addition, there are the primitive Bear Creek and Bob Cat 

areas that have no facilities.

Strategies for Recreation Sites A1. None.

Objectives for Recreation Sites, Alternative B

Recreation Sites B1. Within 5 years, work with 

USACE to further define or improve existing Service recreation areas. (Similar to Recreation Sites 

C1 and D1.)

Rationale for Recreation Sites B1. Current Servicemanaged recreation areas are primitive (vault toilet) compared to USACE or other agency managed 

recreation areas around the refuge. More visitors 

are using these areas for hunting, fishing, and elk 

viewing. These areas provide a site for visitors to 

gather and enjoy the Breaks while participating in 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Without 

these designated areas, the natural resources would 

be affected largely due to visitors being dispersed 

across a wider area. 

Strategies for Recreation Sites B1

R Harden all sites to define the current recreation 

area boundary to prevent future expansion into 

habitat.

R Work with USACE to evaluate the site potential for improving camping within the designated 

USACE recreation areas. 

R Coordinate accessible and usable campsites that 

would meet the needs of those requiring special 

accommodations. 

R Evaluate current recreational facilities and 

restrictions for user friendliness and ecological 

effects.

Objectives for Recreation Sites, Alternative C

Recreation Sites C1. Similar to Recreation Sites B1 

and D1.

Rationale for Recreation Sites C1. Same as B, except 

more improvements would be made to improve the 

experience.

Strategies for Recreation Sites C1. Same as B, plus: 

R To improve the experience, consider the possibility of expanding into already disturbed land 

around the existing recreational area and improving existing recreation facilities, for example, 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 133

more restrooms and landings accessible to people 

with disabilities.

Objectives for Recreation Sites, Alternative D

Recreation Sites D1. Similar to Recreation Sites B1 

and C1. 

Rationale for Recreation Sites D1. Same as B, except 

there would be more improvements made under 

alternative D than B but fewer than under alternative C.

Strategies for Recreation Sites D1. Same as B, plus: 

R■ Consider improving existing facilities to improve 

the overall refuge experience.

PUBLIC USE—COMMERCIAL RECREATION

Commercial uses are any economic use of a national 

wildlife refuge. Other commercial uses are cooperative farming, haying, timber harvest, commercial 

fishing, and grazing. Outfitting is another example 

of a commercial use. All commercial uses must be 

appropriate and compatible with the mission of the 

Service and the Refuge System and the purpose for 

the refuge was established. Commercial uses that 

are not appropriate and compatible are not allowed 

and if they are occurring, they must be stopped or 

modified to be compatible. 

Objectives for Commercial Recreation, 

Alternative A 

Commercial Recreation A1. Over 15 years, limit the 

annual number of outfitter hunting permits to 11.

Rationale for Commercial Recreation A1. Commercial 

guiding and outfitting services have been and would 

continue on the refuge under a special use permit. 

These activities primarily are associated with hunting. Currently, fishing outfitting, fishing tournaments, 

and commercial fishing are not covered by special 

use permit. All commercial activities on the refuge 

require a permit as identified by Title 50, Code of 

Federal Regulations.

Strategy for Commercial Recreation A1

R■ Continue to prohibit commercial outfitting for 

coyote hunting.

Objectives for Commercial Recreation, 

Alternative B

Commercial Recreation B1. Within 5 years and in collaboration with MFWP and USACE, implement a 

consistent process for issuing permits for persons 

conducting for-hire outfitter hunting and wildlife 

observation activities. (Same as Commercial Recreation D1.)

Rationale for Commercial Recreation B1. Same as A, 

plus commercial fishing including tournaments are a 

popular activity on Fort Peck Lake where USACE 

has primary jurisdiction. The refuge has little to no 

oversight of commercial fishing harvest, deferring 

to the State’s expertise and experience as well as 

USACE’s primary jurisdiction. 

The Service would look to work with MFWP and 

USACE to better understand the fishery resources 

and the levels of harvest. The refuge participated in 

the development of the Fort Peck Reservoir Fisheries Management Plan (MFWP 2002a) that addressed 

fishing tournaments and commercial fishing. MFWP 

is in the process of rewriting the 10-year plan and 

the refuge would request to be a cooperating agency. 

Strategies for Commercial Recreation B1

R Evaluate all commercial uses on the refuge for 

possible effects on wildlife populations.

R Evaluate the current intensity of outfitting to 

find out if public use is being affected as a result.

R With the above information, make adjustments as 

necessary to ensure commercial uses are compatible with refuge missions and purposes. 

R Evaluate the numbers of animals harvested by 

commercial outfitters. Require outfitters to project expected harvest levels in permit application 

each year. 

R Determine the net-client hunter-use days and 

harvest success rates for each outfitter and outfitter-sponsored client numbers.

R Work with the State, BLM and USACE to 

develop capacity parameters within the refuge 

for various types of guiding operations (parameters aim to minimize competition or conflict 

with the public engaged in hunting, fishing, and 

wildlife observation; minimize conflicts between 

guides; and ensure a viable economic opportunity 

for existing guiding businesses). 

R Conduct a public information effort through news 

releases and media contacts.

R Provide proactive enforcement with the refuge’s 

and other agencies’ law enforcement officers.

Objectives for Commercial Recreation, 

Alternative C

Commercial Recreation C1. Same as Commercial Recreation B1.

Commercial Recreation C2. Within 5 years, implement 

a wilderness guide and retrieval permit to promote 

harvest of surplus game animals in proposed wilderness units.

Rationale for Commercial Recreation C1–C2. Permits 

would continue to allow outfitting throughout the 

refuge and not designate specific areas of use. A new 

type of outfitting permit would be created to encourage hunters to harvest surplus game animals in the 
134 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

proposed wilderness units. These roadless areas provide security habitat for a variety of wildlife. These 

outfitting permits would promote harvest of cow 

elk that would help to reduce local populations. This 

would also create a economic opportunity to local outfitters and provide for a quality recreational experience for hunters that choose to hunt with a guide.

Strategies for Commercial Recreation C1–C2. Same as 

B, plus:

R Expand commercial outfitting (for example, paleontological prospecting, trail rides, birding, youthchallenge adventures, fishing, and hunting) by 

issuing more annual permits.

R Authorize extended camping when requested to 

facilitate commercial use. 

R■ Promote commercial outfitting through media outlets on an annual basis. 

R■ Collaborate with others to promote ecotourism 

opportunities on the refuge and throughout the 

Missouri River Breaks. 

R■ Create a new outfitting permit for guiding and 

game retrieval in proposed wilderness units.

Objectives for Commercial Recreation, 

Alternative D

Commercial Recreation D1. Same as Commercial Recreation B1.

Rationale and Strategies for Commercial Recreation D1

Same as B, except: 

R■ Consider implementing outfitter permits for 

guiding and retrieval in the proposed wilderness 

if cow elk continue to increase or are causing negative effects on vegetation in the area.

Geranium

© Cindie Brunner

Lupine

© Cindie Brunner

Cinquefoil

© Cindie Brunner
Chapter 3—Alternatives 135

OBJECTIVES for WILDERNESS

There are 20,819 acres in the UL Bend Wilderness 

and 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness within 

15 units on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Service policy requires a review of 

proposed wilderness including making recommendations on whether more acreage could be added or 

other changes should be made (refer to “Appendix E 

—Wilderness Review and Summary”). The alternatives consider different approaches for managing the 

proposed wilderness within the refuge.

Objectives for Wilderness, Alternative A

Wilderness A1. Over 15 years, continue to manage the 

20,819-acre UL Bend Wilderness as a class I air shed.

(Same as Wilderness B1, C1, and D1.)

Wilderness A2. Within 2 years, complete the wilderness study and submit recommendations to the Service Directorate and Secretary for the Department 

of the Interior. (Same as Wilderness B2, C2, and D2.)

Wilderness A3. Over 15 years, continue to manage 

about 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness within 15 

areas of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge 

in accordance with Service policy. 

Wilderness A4. Continue the practice of allowing 

the use of game carts in proposed wilderness units. 

(Same as Wilderness B4, C4, and D4.)

Rationale for Wilderness A1–A4. The UL Bend Wilderness (Public Law 94–557) and the proposed wilderness units are managed according to the Wilderness 

Act of 1964. The act requires wilderness be managed 

in a natural condition, with opportunities for solitude and a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Visitors to the UL Bend Wilderness and the 

proposed wilderness units are primarily hunters and 

hikers seeking big game hunting and wildlife observation opportunities. The Service’s wilderness policy (FWS 2008c) describes how the refuge manager 

preserves the character and qualities of designated 

wilderness while managing for the establishing purposes of the refuge. This policy, like the Wilderness 

Act, states that wilderness is maintained with outstanding opportunities for solitude and a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation. The refuge manager conducts a minimum requirements analysis 

before taking any action that may affect wilderness 

character. In general, the manager would not modify habitat, species population levels, or natural ecological processes in refuge wilderness unless doing 

so maintains or restores ecological integrity that has 

been degraded by human influence or is necessary to 

protect or recover threatened and endangered species.

Strategies for Wilderness A1–A4. None.

Objectives for Wilderness, Alternative B

Wilderness B1–B2. Same as Wilderness A1–A2, C1–

C2, and D1–D2.

Wilderness B3. Over 15 years, expand or adjust existing proposed wilderness units by 25,869 acres in 

Antelope Creek, West Beauchamp Creek, Crooked 

Creek, Alkali Creek, East Seven Blackfoot, West 

Hell Creek, Sheep Creek, Wagon Coulee, and 

Mickey Butte to conserve and promote wilderness 

qualities and characteristics of the units. Refer to 

any expansion or adjustment as a wilderness study 

area until formally transmitted to Congress (figure 8 

and appendix E).

Wilderness B4. Same as Wilderness A4, C4, and D4.

Rationale for Wilderness B1–B4. Alternative B places 

the greatest emphasis on increasing or maximizing wildlife populations. One of several key considerations in evaluating the tangible and intangible 

aspects of wilderness character as described in the 

Wilderness Stewardship Policy (FWS 2008c) is providing “environments for native plants and animals” (refer to “Appendix E—Wilderness Review 

and Summary”). Maintaining or increasing wilderness along with closing roads could increase security 

for wildlife, reduce habitat fragmentation, and provide other positive benefits for wildlife. Following 

the wilderness review (appendix E), and in consideration of the wildlife emphasis under alternative B, 

none of the existing proposed wilderness units were 

recommended for reduction and in 10 units acreage 

would be expanded. 

Strategies for Wilderness B1–B4

R■ Continue to allow game retrieval carts in proposed wilderness units.

R■ Inform and educate the public about wilderness 

on the refuge by adopting some or all of the interpretive themes identified for wilderness education in the wilderness stewardship policy.

R■ Implement wilderness character monitoring protocols (developed in 2011).

Objectives for Wilderness, Alternative C

Wilderness C1–C2. Same as Wilderness A1–A2, B1–

B2, and D1–D2.

Wilderness C3. Same as A3.

Wilderness C4. Same as Wilderness A4, B4, and D4.
136 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Rationale for Wilderness C1–C4. Alternative C has the 

greatest emphasis on promoting wildlife-dependent 

uses and economic uses while protecting wildlife 

populations and habitat to the extent possible. Few 

roads would be proposed for closure under this alternative, and access would be improved in some areas. 

Following the wilderness review conducted for 

the draft CCP and EIS (appendix E), and in consideration of the emphasis on public and economic uses, 

the Service would not expand or adjust any wilderness unit.

Strategies for Wilderness C1–C4. Same as B.

Objectives for Wilderness, Alternative D

Wilderness D1–D2. Same as Wilderness A1–A2, B1–

B2, and C1–C2.

Wilderness D3. Over 15 years, expand or adjust the 

existing proposed wilderness units by 19,942 acres 

in Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, Alkali Creek, 

East Seven Blackfoot, West Hell Creek, Sheep 

Creek, Wagon Coulee, and Mickey Butte to promote 

and conserve wilderness qualities and characteristics while minimizing impacts to access outside of 

the units. Refer to any expansion or adjustment as a 

wilderness study area until formally transmitted to 

Congress (figure 10 and appendix E).

Wilderness D4. Same as Wilderness A4, B4, C4.

Rationale for Wilderness D1–D4. Alternative D has an 

emphasis toward restoring the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the refuge while providing for quality wildlife-dependent 

uses. Similar to alternative B, keeping the wilderness designation, in combination with closing some 

roads would increase security for wildlife, reduce 

habitat fragmentation, invasive species infestations, 

and provide other positive wildlife benefits, which 

are important considerations in restoring ecological 

processes. 

Eight units totaling 19,942 acres would be 

expanded because they possess the outstanding wilderness tangible and intangible aspects as described 

in the Service’s wilderness policy.

Strategies for Wilderness D1–D3. Same as B and C.

Proposed wilderness units on the refuge provide secure habitat for wildlife like these bighorn sheep.

USFWS
Chapter 3—Alternatives 137

OBJECTIVES for CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The refuge contains hundreds of prehistoric and historic resources (more than 50 years old). There are 

numerous old homestead cabins, cemeteries, and 

Native American sites. Remnants of old river towns 

such as Carroll and Rocky Point, which sprung up in 

the 1820s and 1860s to serve the fur trade and steamboat traffic have been washed away by the mighty 

Missouri River. Other homestead sites were lost 

when Fort Peck Dam was completed and the lush 

river bottoms were flooded by the reservoir.

Objectives for Cultural Resources, 

Alternative A

Cultural Resources A1. Over 15 years, continue to 

identify and protect cultural resources in accordance 

with Federal laws and policies. (Same as Cultural 

Resources B1, C1, and D1.)

Rationale for Cultural Resources A1. Federal laws and 

policies mandate the identification and protections of 

cultural resources on Federal lands. Specifically, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

requires all Federal agencies to consider effects on 

cultural resources before any Federal action. (Same 

as B, C, and D.)

Strategies for Cultural Resources A1

R■ Identify historic homesteads to maintain.

R■ Protect all known gravesites, and maintain the 

cultural resource inventory. 

Objectives for Cultural Resources, 

Alternative B

Cultural Resources B1. 

A1, C1, and D1.

Same as Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resources B2. Within 5 years, develop a stepdown plan for the preservation and protection of 

cultural resources on the refuge. (Same as Cultural 

Resources C2 and D2.)

Cultural Resources B3. Within 5 years, identify areas 

with a high or moderate likelihood of having historic 

properties. (Same as Cultural Resources C3 and D3.)

Cultural Resources B4. Within 10 years, survey the 

moderate and high areas for cultural resources to 

identify most of the historic properties. (Same as 

Cultural Resources C4 and D4.)

Cultural Resources B5. Over 15 years, compile a comprehensive cultural resource overview that describes 

the nature and extent of past cultural resource investigations, the types of resources known at the refuge, 

and the interpretive context for these resources. 

(Same as Cultural Resources C5 and D5.)

Cultural Resources B6. Over 15 years, develop interpretive materials that explain the refuge’s cultural 

resources. (Same as Cultural Resources C6 and D6.)

Cultural Resources B7. Over 15 years, develop a system 

for archiving historic items (including documents, 

photographs, maps and artifacts) in accordance with 

Department of the Interior policies. (Same as Cultural Resources C7 and D7.)

Cultural Resources B8. Beginning in year 2, locate 

individuals with knowledge about the general history of the refuge, the location of sites, or alterations 

to various buildings and structures. (Same as Cultural Resources C8 and D8.)

Rationale for Cultural Resources B1–B8. Same as A, plus 

the refuge contains many historical structures, many 

of which have not yet been properly surveyed. Additionally, the Missouri River Breaks has a rich history 

of Native American and Euro-American presence. 

Identifying sensitive cultural areas and resources 

would allow staff to better consider cultural resources 

in planning and would establish the priorities for cultural resource surveys. A cultural resource survey is 

the best tool available for finding cultural resources at 

the refuge. Using surveys, both historic and prehistoric resources are identified and key information is 

gathered that helps for evaluation, planning, research, 

and educational outreach. There is limited knowledge 

about cultural resources at the refuge because less 

than 1,000 acres have been professionally surveyed. 

Although there are 363 known cultural resource sites, 

many have very limited documentation.

The overview would outline specific threats to the 

resources and the ability of future studies to address 

regional research questions. It would also serve as a 

planning tool to help encourage consideration of cultural resources during project planning.

To increase the public’s appreciation and encourage support for the cultural and paleontological 

resources, staff needs to interpret the resources. 

Cultural artifacts and historic structures can provide 

valuable insight into the settlement of the Missouri 

River Breaks and the development of the refuge 

through time and provide the public with a link to 

the past. 

Long-term and past employees, in addition to local 

residents and members of regional historic societies 

can be a wealth of information about the history of 

the refuge and the location of specific resources. 
138 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Strategies for Cultural Resources B1–B8

R Within 10 years, establish photo documentation 

and GPS mapping for known significant sites.

R Continue cultural resource reviews of undertakings.

R Improve the Service’s ability to conduct thorough 

and timely reviews including more comprehensive consultation.

R Develop a programmatic agreement with Montana State Historic Preservation Office. 

R Create a comprehensive list and map of known 

historic sites.

R Monitor the condition of the resources on a regular basis using a cultural resource professional 

and, when possible, mitigate adverse effects that 

are compromising the integrity of the resource.

R Provide staff with access to information on historic properties and request updated information 

on resource condition when they are in the area.

R Create a sensitivity model for cultural resource 

locations based on previous surveys on the refuge 

and the surrounding areas, in consultation with 

the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Tribal 

Historic Preservation Office, and other professionals.

R Make the cultural resources sensitivity model 

available to appropriate staff.

R Ground-truth the cultural resources sensitivity 

model when possible.

R Update and refine the cultural resources sensitivity model on a regular basis.

R Conduct cultural resource surveys of areas with a 

moderate to high potential for cultural resources.

R Work with partners such as other agencies, colleges, and universities to conduct surveys and 

share resources.

R Notify the region 6 archaeologists when unrecorded cultural resources are located.

R Identify cooperative opportunities with colleges 

and universities.

R Secure grants to complete the resources overview.

R Develop a cultural and paleontological resource 

fact sheet for distribution to refuge visitors.

R Conduct a comprehensive inventory of historic 

items and an assessment of their condition. 

Determine the informational and artifact value of 

the items. Determine the best strategy to make 

the information and artifacts useful and available.

R Protect and store historic items of value in 

archiving-stable materials under environmentally appropriate conditions.

R Work with current staff and area residents to 

develop a list of individuals who may have information about the refuge’s history.

R■ Conduct field trips or interviews with people 

identified as having knowledge of the history at 

the refuge.

Objectives for Cultural Resources, 

Alternative C

Cultural Resources C1. Same as Cultural Resources 

A1, B1, and D1.

Cultural Resources C2–C8.Same as Cultural Resources 

B2–B8 and D2–D8. 

Rationale for Cultural Resources C1–C8. Same as B, 

except with the emphasis of promoting wildlifedependent uses, the strategies would reflect an additional emphasis on interpretation and education.

Strategies for Cultural Resources C1–C8. Same as B, 

plus:

R■ Create more cultural resource educational and 

interpretive materials. (Same as D.)

R■ Develop brochures and kiosks that interpret cultural resources. (Same as D.)

R■ Collaborate with organizations such as Earth 

Watch or the Passport in Time program to 

encourage professionals to work with volunteers 

to identify or stabilize resources.

R■ Use interpretive signs to interpret an area (but 

not a specific location).

Objectives for Cultural Resources, 

Alternative D

Cultural Resources D1. Same as Cultural Resources 

A1, B1, and C1.

Cultural Resources D2–D8. Same as Cultural Resources 

B2–B8 and C2–C8.

Rationale for Cultural Resources D1–D8. Same as B, plus 

there would be less emphasis on promoting public 

uses than under alternative C and more of an emphasis on providing quality experiences, but the objectives would be essentially the same. The strategies 

would slightly differ from alternative B and would 

include education and interpretation materials.

Strategies for Cultural Resources D1–D8. Same as B, 

plus:

R■ Create more cultural resource educational and 

interpretive materials. (Same as C.) 

R■ Develop brochures and kiosks that interpret cultural resources. (Same as C.)

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Many paleontological resources have been excavated from the refuge. Among the most recognizable 

dinosaur fossils finds to come from the refuge include 

Tyrannosaurus rex, Triceratops, Albertosaurus, 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 139

Mosasaurus, and hadrosaurs (refer to “Chapter 4—

Affected Environment”). Several collections are on 

display at the Fort Peck Interpretive Center. Collection of any fossils is not allowed without a special 

use permit.

Objectives for Paleontological Resources, 

Alternative A

Paleontological Resources A1. Over 15 years, continue to issue permits to the Museum of the Rockies 

or others for collecting paleontological resources and 

prohibit recreational digging. (Same as Paleontological Resources B1, C1, and D1.)

Rationale for Paleontological Resources A1. Currently, 

the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana 

has a permit to dig for fossils on the refuge, and providing they met the terms of the permit, this would 

continue.

Strategy for Paleontological Resources A1

R■ Monitor an operator to ensure compliance with 

terms of the permit, and monitor and investigate 

any reports of illegal digging.

Objectives for Paleontological Resources, 

Alternative B

Paleontological Resources B1. Same as Paleontological 

Resources A1, C1, and D1.

Paleontological Resources B2. Within 5 years, in cooperation with the Museum of Rockies and USACE, 

develop a stepdown plan for paleontological resources. 

Ensure the plan specifies guidelines for uniform 

permitting of paleontological research to credible 

research facilities across the refuge. (Same as Paleontological Resources C2 and D2.)

Paleontological Resources B3. Within 5 years, interpret and promote the national natural landmarks on 

the refuge. At a minimum post the plaque and 

announce the designation.

(Same as Paleontological Resources C3 and D3.)

Rationale for Paleontological Resources B1–B3. Montana State University is evaluating paleontological 

resources and working on the stepdown plan. The 

plan would include guidelines to decide when and 

how to issue permits for science and education. Montana State University is the official repository for 

paleontological resource collected from the refuge.

Two areas on the refuge have been designated as 

national natural landmarks, the Bug Creek Fossil 

Area and the Hell Creek Fossil Area.

Strategies for Paleontological Resources B1–B3

R Increase law enforcement to protect the paleontological areas.

R Educate the staff on paleontological laws and 

their implication for management and protection 

of paleontological resources on the refuge.

R Potentially develop more educational displays in 

the field offices, Fort Peck Interpretive Center, 

and the headquarters to interpret the paleontological resources.

Objectives for Paleontological Resources, 

Alternative C

Paleontological Resources C1. Same as Paleontological Resources A1, B1, and D1.

Paleontological Resources C2–C3. Same as Paleontological Resources B2–B3 and D2–D3.

Rationale for Paleontological Resources C1–C3. Same 

as B, except the approach would increase opportunities for research when compatible with protection of 

resources. 

Strategies for Paleontological Resources C1–C3. Same 

as B, plus:

R Consider increasing education opportunities and 

permits for universities.

R Consider buying inholdings for protection of paleontological resources.

Objectives for Paleontological Resources, 

Alternative D

Paleontological Resources D1. Same as Paleontological 

Resources A1, B1, and C1.

Paleontological Resources D2–D3. Same as Paleontological Resources B2–B3 and C2–C3.

Rationale and Strategies for Paleontological Resources 

D1–D3. Same as B, except:

R Limit or manage special use permits when necessary to protect resources.
140 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

OBJECTIVES for OPERATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS, and RESEARCH

REFUGE OPERATIONS

Refuge operations include management of facilities, 

structures, and other land or water use. The refuge 

relies on personnel, equipment, and facilities to carry 

out both the day-to-day operations and the longterm programs such as land acquisition. The below 

objectives describe how the Service uses money and 

personnel to meet the refuge complex goals. 

Objectives for Refuge Operations, 

Alternative A

Operations A1. Continue mineral withdrawal on all 

refuge lands until 2013, and work to renew mineral 

withdrawal or acquire minerals.

Operations A2. Over 15 years, work within the Service to adjudicate and define water rights. (Same as 

Operations B2, C2, and D2.)

Operations A3. Over 15 years, maintain existing public use facilities (refer to “Chapter 4—Affected Environment”). (Same as Operations B3, C3, and D3.)

Operations A4. Over 15 years, maintain refuge personnel at current levels as identified in table 9 (section 3.14 below). 

Rationale for Refuge Operations A1–A3. Public Land 

Order 6997 (1993) withdrew minerals for all the refuge until 2013. Under all the alternatives, the Service 

would continue to renew and seek to purchase minerals on future acquisitions. This would not include 

private or State lands where this is exempted. The 

United States holds Federal reserved water rights 

on the refuge (refer to “Chapter 4—Affected Environment”), and the United States is in the process of 

quantifying these reserved rights with the Montana 

Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission. 

There are approximately 28 full-time equivalent 

positions and several seasonal staff at the refuge 

(refer to table 9 in section 3.14 below). This includes 

positions that are funded by general refuge operations money and fire money (separate account). 

While money and personnel needs can and do change 

over time; generally, these are personnel levels that 

would be needed for 15 years.

Strategies for Refuge Operations A1–A4

R Seek to purchase minerals on fee acquisitions. 

R Adhere to legal rights-of-way obligations for 

access to private and State lands including those 

for oil and gas extractions. 

R Maintain select stock ponds. 

R■ Maintain the auto tour route, elk-viewing area, 

accessible hunting blind, and interpretive kiosks.

R■ Staff the interpretive center at Fort Peck Field 

Station with refuge personnel.

R■ Continue to work with USACE to manage the 

boat ramps.

R■ Ensure refuges are signed and that directional 

signage is in place. Collaborate with the highway 

department to develop and position signage.

Objectives for Refuge Operations, 

Alternative B

Operations B1. Same as Operations A1, plus seek permanent withdrawal from Congress of all minerals, 

including oil and gas and other leasable and locatable 

minerals on all refuge lands and future acquisitions. 

(Same as Operations C1 and D1.)

Operations B2–B3. Same as Operations A2–A3, C2–

C3, and D2–D3.

Operations B4. Improve facilities as identified under 

the strategies and as part of implementing the public use objectives identified above. (Same as Operations C4 and D3.)

Operations B5. Within 5–10 years, add the needed 

staff for full-time and seasonal positions and volunteers to fully carry out the CCP as identified in table 

9 (section 3.14 below). (Same as Operations C5 and 

D4.)

A Service employee prepares to release an endangered 

black-footed ferret on the refuge.

USFWS
Chapter 3—Alternatives 141

Rationale for Refuge Operations B1–B5. Same as A, plus 

the Service would seek a permanent withdrawal for 

minerals from Congress (only Congress can order 

this designation) to permanently protect refuge 

resources. Current techniques for extraction of leasable and locatable minerals including oil and gas are 

not compatible with the primary purposes of the refuge. Specific improvements and additions would be 

made to public use facilities as part of implementing the objectives for public use and development of 

the visitor services stepdown plan (see specific topic 

under public use). The exact number of facilities, 

length of trail, and location would need to be determined based on projected visitor numbers and after 

more detailed programming occurred with the visitor services plan. There would be a need to increase 

personnel by about four positions to meet habitat 

and public use objectives, and one position would be 

eliminated (trainee).

Strategies for Refuge Operations B1–B5. Same as A, 

plus:

R Remodel restrooms associated with campgrounds 

(Slippery Ann) to be made accessible.

R Construct more facilities (blinds, trails, or tour 

routes) including a lek blind for sage-grouse and 

sharp-tailed grouse as identified in the visitor 

services plan.

R Design and map birdwatching trails for public use.

R Fill one outdoor recreation planner position for 

the Lewistown or Fort Peck Field Station. If feasible, add a second position.

R Add more law enforcement personnel for Fort 

Peck Field Station. (Same as C and D.)

R With an increase in fire money and through the 

Refuge Operations Needs System database, continue to work toward increasing permanent and 

seasonal firefighting personnel by 50 percent. 

(Same as C and D.)

R Hire a career-conditional position that is knowledgeable in planting crops to start work on the 

first river bottom on the list. 

R Hire staff to complete new monitoring across the 

refuge. (Same as C and D.)

R Hire seasonal employees for fence removal, and 

hire professional fence builders for boundary 

fence construction of remaining fences. (Same as 

C and D.)

Objectives for Refuge Operations, 

Alternative C

Operations C1. Same as Operations B1 and D1.

Operations C2. Same as Operations A2, B2, and D2.

Operations C3. Same as Operations A3 and B3.

Operations C4–C5. Same as Operations B4–B5 and 

D3–D4.

Rationale for Refuge Operations C1–C5. Similar to A and 

B, except there would be a need to increase personnel by seven to eight positions to meet habitat and 

public use objectives and one trainee position would 

be eliminated. (Same as D.)

Strategies for Refuge Operations C1–C4. Same as B, 

plus:

R■ Evaluate the possibility of constructing an interpretive center at the Sand Creek Field Station in 

cooperation with various nongovernmental organizations.

R■ Develop displays in the field offices and the 

headquarters to interpret the paleontological 

resources. (Same as D.)

R■ Hire two visitor services personnel (outdoor recreation planners) at Lewistown Field Station and 

Fort Peck Field Station (top priority). (Same as D).

R■ Hire staff and graduate students to complete 

habitat inventories. (Same as D.)

R■ Hire two maintenance employees for UL Bend 

Refuge. (Similar to D.) 

Objectives for Refuge Operations, 

Alternative D

Operations D1. Same as Operations B1 and C1.

Operations D2. Same as Operations A2, B2, and C2.

Operations D3–D4. Same as Operations B4–B5 and 

C4–C5.

Rationale for Refuge Operations D1–D4. Same as C, except 

positions could be classified differently because of the 

different emphasis. 

Strategies for Refuge Operations D1–D4. Same as B, 

plus:

R■ Evaluate the possibility of constructing a science 

and interpretive center at the Sand Creek Field 

Station in cooperation with various nongovernmental organizations.

R■ Develop interpretive signage at certain historic 

properties such as Rocky Point.

R■ Design and map birdwatching trails for public use.

R■ Develop displays in the field offices and the headquarters to interpret the paleontological resources. 

(Same as C.)

PARTNERSHIPS

The refuge and its resources are within a larger 

landscape that is important to the conservation of 

the natural and cultural resources at the refuge. 

Partnerships, including agreements with landown-
142 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

ers next to the refuge and other interested agencies 

and groups, are essential to meeting refuge goals. 

Objectives for Partnerships, Alternative A

Partnerships A1 (land management). Over 15 years, 

work cooperatively with USACE to acquire jurisdiction around the lake to enforce regulations. (Same 

as Partnerships B1, C1, and D1.)

Partnerships A2 (land management). Over 15 years, 

maintain existing partnerships and agreements with 

Federal, State, county, conservation districts, adjacent private landowners, and local communities as 

identified in section 3.11 below. (Same as Partnerships B2, C2, and D2.)

Partnerships A3 (land management). Over 15 years, 

continue working with agencies (USACE; BLM; 

MFWP; DNRC; counties of Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, Phillips, and Valley; and tribal governments), conservation organizations (World Wildlife 

Fund, American Prairie Reserve, Ranchers Stewardship Alliance, and The Nature Conservancy) and 

private landowners to manage large free-ranging 

wildlife (elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and sage-grouse) 

and species of concern (prairie dogs and black-footed 

ferrets). (Same as Partnerships B3, C3, and D3.)

Rationale for Partnerships A1–A3 (land management). 

Currently, the Service works cooperatively with 

many agencies and jurisdictions and these efforts 

would continue under all alternatives. There are 

several agreements that are currently in place and 

these would continue. (Same as B, C, and D.)

Strategies for Partnerships A1–A3 (land management). 

None.

Objectives for Partnerships, Alternative B

Partnerships B1–B3 (land management). Same as Partnerships A1–A3, C1–C3, and D1–D3.

Partnerships B4 (land management). Within 2 years, 

sign a memorandum of understanding with the above 

groups that outlines habitat conservation strategies 

across the landscape for the species mentioned in 

Partnerships A3. (Similar to Partnerships D4.)

Rationale for Partnerships B1–B4 (land management). 

Many prairie wildlife species require large tracts of 

undisturbed prairie. Often these species have large 

home ranges that cover hundreds of square miles 

and cross multiple landownership. Several species 

(for example, prairie dogs and sage-grouse) are in 

peril due to a combination of factors including loss 

of habitat, disease and landowner tolerance. Cooperation among adjoining landowners and managers to 

provide all the seasonal habitat needs is necessary 

for these species to survive. Loss of grassland-nesting cover, winter habitat foods, and economic pressures (converting grassland to crops) are a few of 

the habitat limitations that negatively affect these 

sentinel species. Conservation incentives from government agencies or conservation groups would help 

to foster cooperative conservation practices such as 

supporting level 1 prairie dog town of 5,000 acres, 

preserving sage-grouse nesting and winter habitat, 

and promoting heterogeneity of habitats to support 

the needs of grassland-obligate birds and other species.

Strategies for Partnerships B1–B4 (land management)

R Develop standardized monitoring strategies to 

measure habitat conditions, wildlife distribution, 

and wildlife response to management actions to 

be used across the area.

R Support incentives in the current Farm Bill legislation (Cooperative Conservation Partnership 

Initiative and Conservation Innovation Grants) 

that are available to private landowners for habitat conservation for these species.

R Form partnerships or memoranda of understanding with private landowners, nongovernmental 

agencies, local tribes, and BLM to manage sentinel plant and wildlife species across boundaries. 

R Coordinate and cooperate on research and monitoring needs and provide resources to implement 

adaptive management actions on neighboring 

lands.

R Manage sentinel wildlife such as prairie dogs to 

support the full suite of wildlife that rely on prairie dogs or prairie dog towns.

Partnerships B5 (volunteers and friends). Within 5 

years, develop a volunteer program and Friends 

group aimed at meeting the refuge’s biological and 

public use objectives. (Same as Partnerships C5 and 

D6).

Partnerships B6 (volunteers and friends). Over 15 years, 

maintain and build partnerships with agencies, communities, and organizations to support and grow 

public use programs on and off the refuge. (Same as 

Partnerships C6 and D7).

Rationale for Partnerships B5–B6 (volunteers and friends). 

In 2008, about 39,765 volunteers gave 1.5 million 

hours in support of Service activities including 3,338 

volunteers in region 6 who contributed 131,169 hours 

(FWS 2008d). People volunteer for a variety of reasons, but they play an important role in helping the 

Service meet is mission. Friends groups are important allies for the Service, often advocating for a 

field stations by giving information to local community and elected officials. There are more than 200 

Friends groups across the Service (FWS 2008d). To 

carry out the refuge’s habitat and public use objectives, the Service would establish an active volun-
Chapter 3—Alternatives 143

teer program and Friends group to advance the 

refuge’s programs and establish partnerships with 

the local communities.

Strategies for Partnerships B5–B6 (volunteers and friends)

R Begin to recruit volunteers.

R Advertise the Friends group and volunteer 

opportunities on the Web site, in surrounding 

communities, and within refuge visitor facilities.

R Develop partnerships with wildlife groups and 

organizations such as Yellowstone Valley Audubon Society and others to market available birding and wildlife opportunities at the refuge.

R Create new partnerships and maintain and 

expand existing partnerships with hunters to 

increase awareness of the importance of bird and 

habitat conservation.

R Create new partnerships and maintain and 

expand existing partnerships with conservation 

groups and the public to increase public awareness of nonconsumptive bird recreation and bird 

conservation. 

R Seek out partners to establish and promote birdwatching trails or routes.

R Work with partners and volunteers to establish 

mountain bluebird trails.

R Work with partners to develop an outreach plan 

as part of the visitor services plan.

R Work with the Montana tourism department to 

promote the refuge and resources. 

R Work with partners to continue to seek grants to 

fund events and programs.

Objectives for Partnerships, Alternative C

Partnerships C1–C3 (land management). Same as Partnerships A1–A3, B1–B3, and D1–D3.

Partnerships C4 (land management). Similar to alternative B, except the six counties, tribal governments, 

conservation organizations (World Wildlife Fund, 

American Prairie Reserve, Ranchers Stewardship 

Alliance, and The Nature Conservancy) and interested private landowners develop habitat management treatments that benefit livestock operators 

and provide adequate habitat for a suite of prairie 

species that have large home ranges or are species 

of concern. 

Rationale for Partnerships C1–C4. Private ranch operations support a variety of wildlife species. Many species of concern such as prairie dogs and pronghorn 

are found on lands outside of the refuge. Economic 

incentives to private individuals for conservation 

measures benefit both wildlife and local communities. By maintaining intact family ranches, wildlife 

managers reap the benefits of conservation measures on private lands next to the refuge and conservation organizations. By developing management 

strategies that benefit livestock operations and certain species of wildlife, all parties benefit. Forming 

formal partnerships with ranchers for wildlife conservation allows the Service to provide funds and 

resource to meet conservation objectives on a landscape scale. 

Strategies for Partnerships C1–C4 (land management)

R■ Develop management procedures that benefit 

livestock operations and selected wildlife species.

R■ Enter into a memorandum of understanding with 

interested partners to manage lands for sentinel 

plants and natural ecological processes such as 

historical fire occurrence.

R■ Manage sentinel wildlife such as prairie dogs to 

support the full suite of wildlife that rely on prairie dogs or prairie dog towns.

R■ Secure outside funding (Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative and Conservation 

Innovation Grants) for long-term monitoring 

projects to measure progress of increasing the 

health and relative abundance of sentinel plants. 

Partnerships C5–C6 (volunteers and friends). Same as 

B5–B6 and D6–D7.

Rationale for Partnerships C5–C6 (volunteers and friends). 

Same as B and D.

Strategies for Partnerships C5–C6 (volunteers and 

friends). Same as B, plus: 

R■ Over 15 years, develop partnerships with photography clubs to provide five nature photography 

workshops on the refuge.

R■ Over 15 years, collaborate with other groups to 

provide three more Web-based cameras or video 

cameras to local schools.

Objectives for Partnerships, Alternative D

Partnerships D1–D3 (land management). Same as Partnerships A1–A3, B1–B3, and C1–C3.

Partnerships D4 (land management). Similar to Partnerships B4, except that USACE, BLM, MFWP, 

DNRC, the six counties, tribal governments, conservation organizations (World Wildlife Fund, American Prairie Reserve, Ranchers Stewardship Alliance, 

and The Nature Conservancy) and interested private 

landowners monitor and manage for sentinel plants 

and heterogeneity of habitats with associated wildlife.

Partnerships D5 (land management). Over 15 years, 

promote healthy populations of all plants and associated prairie-wildlife lands adjoining the refuge partners’ focus areas. 

Rationale for Partnerships D1–D5 (land management). 

The habitats of the northern glaciated plains 

evolved with pyric herbivory influences. Hundred 
144 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

years of fire suppression and constant grazing pressure has affected the health and relative presence of 

numerous plants (sentinel plants) including skunkbush, winterfat, golden currant, and buffaloberry. 

By improving the health and distribution of these 

sentinel plants the overall health of various wildlife species would be improved as well. By restoring 

pyric–herbivory processes and managing for total 

ungulate populations, the overall health of these 

plants and habitats would improve and contribute 

to the overall biological health and ecological integrity. Land management by private landowners and 

conservation organizations around the refuge affect 

plant and wildlife distribution on the refuge.

Strategies for Partnerships D1–D5 (land management). 

Same as C, plus:

R Conduct a pyric herbivory study and management program on the refuge as a demonstration 

site for other interested land managers and landowners.

Partnerships D6–D7 (volunteers and friends). Same as 

Partnerships B5–B6 and C5–C6.

Rationale and Strategies for Partnerships D6–D7 (volunteers and friends). Same as B, plus:

R Over 15 years, develop partnerships with photography clubs to provide two nature photography 

workshops on the refuge.

R Over 15 years, collaborate with other groups 

to provide one additional Web-based camera or 

video camera to local schools. 

RESEARCH AND SCIENCE

In addition to the research needs described under the 

habitat, wildlife, and public use objectives, research 

as part of a partnership effort is described. 

Objectives for Research, Alternative A

Research A1. Continue existing research, and continue to maintain partnerships with researchers 

interested in studying refuge resources.

Rationale for Research A1. The Service works with 

many universities and researchers and this would 

continue.

Strategies for Research A1. None.

Objectives for Research, Alternative B

Research B1. Over 15 years, encourage universities 

and other organizations to conduct annual surveys 

on the effects of public use, wildfire, prescribed fire, 

and other management strategies throughout the 

calendar year.

Research B2. Over 15 years, support research of habitat, wildlife, and public use.

Research B3. Over 15 years, work with MFWP to 

annually study the movement of big game relative to 

habitat changes (for example, fire and grazing).

Research B4. Within 5 years, begin monitoring wintering pronghorn on the refuge to meet the Executive order.

Research B5. Over 15 years, work with MFWP to 

conduct research on habitat suitability for bighorn 

sheep. 

Research B6. Within 1 year, monitor visitor counts to 

determine the number and types of visitors on the 

refuge, and by 2017 complete a visitor use study.

Rationale for Research B1–B6. Research would support 

the emphasis of increasing wildlife populations.

Strategies for Research B1–B6

R■ Evaluate refuge assets that can be affected by 

climate change.

R■ Include questions on a visitor use study aimed 

at quantifying the type and amount of public use 

occurring in the wilderness.

Objectives for Research, Alternative C

Research C1–C6. Same as Research B1–B6.

Research C7. Within 5 years, begin research of new 

species proposed for hunting (for example, mountain 

lion). 

Rationale for Research C1–C7. Same as B, plus before a 

mountain lion hunt would be conducted on the refuge, more research would be needed to determine 

population numbers, food requirements, and the role 

these predators have on other wildlife on the refuge. 

This would be necessary before the full package can 

be submitted to Washington for approval. 

Strategies for Research C1–C7. Same as B, plus:

R■ Within 5 years, work with MFWP to conduct 

research on the age structure of mule deer herds 

within the Missouri River Breaks. 

Objectives for Research, Alternative D

Research D1–D6. Same as Research B1–B6 and C1–C6.

Rationale and Strategies for Research D1–D6. Same as B 

and C.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 145

3.9 FORESEEABLE ACTIVITIES 

Reasonably foreseeable future activities are actions 

and activities that are independent of the proposed 

actions for the refuge, but could result in cumulative 

effects when they are combined with the effects of the 

proposed alternatives. They are anticipated to occur 

regardless of any action or alternative that is selected. 

The effects of those are described in the cumulative 

impacts sections for each resource in chapter 5. 

Reasonably foreseeable future activities within 

or near the refuge are represented in figure 5 (map 

of decision and analysis areas) and fall into the following categories:

■ Federal land management

■ State wildlife management

■ nongovernmental conservation activities

■ regional demographic and economic change

■ infrastructure development

FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT

Federal land management activities include those 

by USACE, BLM, Federal Aviation Administration, 

and the Department of the Interior.

Fort Peck Dam/Fort Peck Lake Master Plan 

(USACE)

The master plan and environmental assessment of 

2008 analyzes proposed expansion and upgrades 

to facilities at existing recreation areas as well as 

natural resource management improvements. The 

environmental assessment did not identify any significant effects resulting from the proposed master 

plan alternative. It did note that expanded shoreline development at Fort Peck West could negatively affect potential piping plover nesting areas, 

although there are no nests there currently. The environmental assessment also identified localized negative effects on air quality, noise, and visual quality 

due to added development within existing recreation 

areas (USACE 2008).

Transfer of Cabin Sites (USACE)

In 2004, USACE cooperated with the Service to complete an environmental assessment reviewing implementation of the Enhancement Act (refer to chapter 

1) and found no adverse effects (USACE 2004). Following public comments that questioned the decision 

to deny conveyance of 12 cabin sites in the South Fork 

Rock Creek area, USACE reexamined the issue and 

agreed to convey all cabin sites. To offset the effects 

of this decision to the refuge, USACE agreed to 

outgrant more Fort Peck Project lands to the Service (USACE 2004). (Refer to chapter 1, section “1.9 

Issues Not Addressed,” for more information.)

Upper Missouri River Breaks National 

Resource Management Plan (BLM)

BLM issued a record of decision for its approved 

resource management plan for the Upper Missouri 

River Breaks National Monument in December 2008. 

The plan responds to increasing demands for recreation while providing mitigating measures to manage enhance and protect fish and wildlife habitat and 

habitat for special status species including greater 

sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog. Vegetation 

will be managed to achieve a natural range of native 

plant communities for a wide variety of long-term 

benefits including aesthetics, wildlife, recreation, 

and livestock grazing (BLM 2008a,c). 

The approved plan provides diverse recreational 

opportunities including both motorized and nonmotorized watercraft use on the Missouri River, with 

seasonal restrictions on motorized use within the 

designated wild and scenic river portions. BLM will 

coordinate with the Service on bank side recreation 

use and management within the refuge boundaries. 

The plan includes mitigation measures applied to 

surface-disturbing or disruptive activities to protect 

important wildlife habitat for greater sage-grouse, 

black-tailed prairie dog, bald eagle, bighorn sheep, 

designated sensitive species, and big game (winter 

range). Unavoidable effects of the plan alternatives 

were limited to localized, negative effects on soil erosion and vegetation from ground-disturbing activities (BLM 2008c). 

Wilderness Study Areas (BLM)

BLM has several designated wilderness study areas 

near or next to the refuge. These include Seven 

Blackfoot, Burnt Lodge, and Antelope Creek wilderness study areas.

Sage-Grouse Conservation (BLM)

In 2004, BLM developed a national conservation strategy for sage-grouse habitat (BLM 2004). Additionally, 

BLM is in the process of amending or revising all its 

resource management plans to create a better regulatory structure for sage-grouse conservation.

Military Operations

The refuge is located below the Hays Military Operations Area. The Federal Aviation Administration is 

responsible for all airspace in the United States. The 

Improvement Act specifically exempted overflights 

above a refuge from compatibility requirements 

(FWS 2000a); therefore, the refuge does not have 

control over military overflights. These operations 

occur over the western boundary of the refuge and 

are infrequent and irregular. No further information 

is known about any negative effect these operations 

have on refuge wildlife or visitors. Refer to chapter 

1, section 1.9, for more information.
146 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Climate Change Initiative (DOI)

In March 2007, the Secretary of the Interior established the Department of the Interior Climate 

Change Task Force. That Task Force included subcommittees charged with exploring the potential 

consequences of climate change on Interior lands 

and resources, and potential ways for addressing 

them. Based on the findings and recommendations of 

the Task Force, some of the following issues have the 

potential for cumulative effects on resources in and 

around the refuge (DOI 2008b):

■ changes in water quality and availability

■ increased flood risk

■ outbreaks of pests, invasive species, and diseases

■ changes in wildlife habitat and migration patterns

■ changes in wildfire frequency and behavior

Refer to the discussion for the climate change objectives in section 3.8 above.

STATE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Several MFWP wildlife management plans are discussed.

Prairie Dog Conservation Plan

In 2002, the Montana Prairie Dog Working Group 

developed a statewide conservation plan for prairie dogs, recognizing that current population numbers are much smaller than historical numbers due 

to eradication programs, conversion of native rangelands, sylvatic plague, and recreational shooting 

(MFWP 2002b). The overall goal of the conservation 

plan is to provide for management and long-term 

viability of prairie dog populations and associated 

species. The conservation plan recommends several 

specific management actions to enhance prairie dog 

populations.

Prairie Dog Town

Bob Savannah / USFWS

Big Game Management

MFWP has completed statewide management plans 

and conservation strategies for elk (MFWP 2004), 

mule deer (MFWP 2001), and bighorn sheep (MFWP 

2009a). These documents outline guiding principles 

for management of these species, as well as specific 

objectives for management units and hunting districts that include the refuge. The elk and bighorn 

sheep plans outline specific management strategies 

that include coordination with the Service to achieve 

herd objectives on and off refuge land. 

Fisheries Management

The Fort Peck Reservoir fisheries management plan 

(MFWP 2002a) includes specific management programs for walleye, sauger, smallmouth bass, lake 

trout, northern pike, Chinook salmon, forage fish, 

and fishing tournaments on Fort Peck Reservoir. 

Sage-Grouse Management

Montana’s conservation strategy for sage-grouse 

provides for coordinated management across jurisdictional boundaries and development of community 

support that will promote successful implementation 

(MFWP 2005b). 

NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSERVATION 

ACTIVITIES

The American Prairie Reserve, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and Ranchers Stewardship Alliance conduct 

conservation activities on large acreages next to or 

on the refuge.

American Prairie Reserve

Since 2004, the American Prairie Reserve has 

been working to create the American Prairie 

Reserve on private lands next to the north side of 

the refuge in Phillips County. The mission of American Prairie Reserve is “to create and manage a prairiebased wildlife reserve that, when linked to public 

lands already devoted to wildlife, it will protect a 

unique natural habitat, provide lasting economic 

benefits, and improve public access to and enjoyment 

of the prairie landscape” (American Prairie Foundation 2011). The foundation has been working on 

bison restoration, pulling interior fences, conducting 

stream restoration studies, bison and livestock studies, and other activities. Many stewardship activities 

are conducted in partnership with the refuge.

The American Prairie Reserve owns or leases 

123,000 acres of land. Most of the acreage is publicleased land, while the remainder is deeded private 

land. The foundation is looking at new properties to 

expand the prairie reserve through more leases and 

acquisitions. Several new properties are under nego-
Chapter 3—Alternatives 147

tiation (Scott Laird, American Prairie Foundation, 

personal communication on July 23, 2009).

Matador Ranch

The Nature Conservancy manages the 63,000-acre 

Matador Ranch located north of the refuge near the 

town of Zortman. The Nature Conservancy purchased the Matador Ranch in 2000 with the intent 

of conserving native prairie wildlife in the glaciated 

plains of north-central Montana. The ranch is the key 

element of a grass bank program, whereby grazing 

land is leased to area ranchers at discounted rates, 

and in exchange the ranchers agree to conservation measures on their own lands. Management and 

conservation goals include the protection of habitat 

for grassland birds, prairie dog colonies, and sagegrouse leks (Barbara Cozzens, Matador Ranch Project Director, The Nature Conservancy; personal 

communication, October 1, 2009).

Throughout the northern Great Plains, including Montana, land is being converted from native 

grassland or rangeland into crop production. From 

2005–09, more than 13,000 acres were converted to 

cropland within the six-county area (personal communication with Robert Sanders, Ducks Unlimited, 

June 23, 2010). Landowners are responding to higher 

market prices for agriculture by converting grassland into crop production. Organizations such as the 

Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and other 

organizations are working to conserve grassland 

throughout Montana’s northern prairie.

Ranchers Stewardship Alliance

“The mission of the Ranchers Stewardship Alliance 

is to promote the ecological, social and economic conditions that will sustain the biodiversity and integrity of America’s northern mixed-grass prairie for 

present and future generations. They work to support cost-effective, sustainable conservation that 

features private and public cooperation in a working 

landscape stewarded by profitable family ranches 

and thriving rural communities” (Ranchers Stewardship Alliance 2008).

LIVESTOCK GRAZING LEASE 

ACQUISITIONS

In mid-2009, the World Wildlife Fund and the 

National Wildlife Federation asked ranchers to submit a bid to voluntarily not apply for future grazing 

privileges on the refuge. In exchange for cash payment, the ranchers would agree to terminate grazing 

on the refuge and not renew their permits. Several 

bids were received, and in late 2009, two agreements 

were completed, retiring grazing on 55,261 acres 

(National Wildlife Federation 2011). This effort is 

part of the National Wildlife Federation’s Wildlife 

Conflict Reduction Program, which is intended to 

reduce grazing conflict with wildlife using markedbased approaches (National Wildlife Federation 

2010). 

REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC 

and ECONOMIC CHANGE

Demographic and economic trends for the six-county 

region surrounding the refuge are described in detail 

as part of the overall socioeconomic context in chapter 4. Some of the reasonably foreseeable trends that 

could contribute to cumulative effects are briefly 

described here.

While Montana’s population is expected to increase by 34 percent over the next 20 years, the 

region surrounding the refuge is expected to continue to lose about 13 percent of its population. While 

overall employment in the region has been steadily 

increasing, most of those increases are likely due to 

people working multiple jobs. Travel and tourism 

will continue to contribute significantly to Montana’s 

economy. However, the region surrounding the refuge has experienced a much smaller proportion of 

growth in travel and tourism spending compared to 

the rest of the State. As the demand for outdoor recreation has increased, so has the number of land purchases for hunting, fishing, and other recreational 

uses in areas surrounding the refuge. This trend is 

expected to continue. With these changes in demographic, economic, and landownership patterns are 

also expected to bring changes in local communities, 

and prevailing attitudes values about wildlife, natural resources, and refuge management.

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

In 2008, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, filed 

an application for a Presidential permit for the construction, operation, and maintenance of pipeline 

facilities at the border of the United States and Canada for the transport of crude oil across the two countries’ international boundary. The proposed pipeline 

project would deliver crude oil from western Canada to locations in the south-central United States. 

On August 26, 2011, the U.S. Department of State 

released a final EIS for the proposed TransCanada 

Keystone XL Pipeline Project (U.S. Department of 

State 2011). In January 2012, the Obama Administration denied a permit for the proposed pipeline, 

but there could be further action on this project in 

the future.

The proposed pipeline corridor would be near 

or adjacent to the northeastern edge of the Charles 

M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge but would 

not be located on refuge land. The final EIS anticipated general effects associated with ground disturbance and construction. The final EIS analyzed 

potential effects on federally listed and candidate 
148 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

species including black-footed ferret, greater sagegrouse, least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon. For all of the listed species, the final EIS finds 

that the proposed project is not likely to adversely 

affect the species. With the pipeline route proposed 

to pass through about 20 miles of core habitat for the 

greater sage-grouse in Montana, the final EIS found 

that the project would not likely affect the courtship 

activities of sage-grouse on leks and would likely 

result in a minor negative effect on nesting birds 

(U.S. Department of State 2011).

3.10 ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 

but ELIMINATED from

FURTHER CONSIDERATION

During scoping and alternatives development, the 

Service or interested groups and the public suggested several goals, alternatives, or elements of 

alternatives that were considered but eliminated 

from further analysis. These elements are discussed 

below.

DEVELOPING GOALS for LIVESTOCK 

GRAZING and SOCIOECONOMIC USES

Some interested groups and the public requested the 

Service have a specific goal that would support livestock grazing because Executive Order 7509 made 

provisions for livestock grazing once the primary 

purposes were met. As per 50 CFR 29.1, the Service 

allows for economic uses on national wildlife refuges 

(including haying, logging, and grazing) when the 

uses are compatible with refuge purposes and when 

they contribute to accomplishing the purposes of the 

refuges or the mission of the Refuge System. It is 

not the mission of the Refuge System to provide for 

economic uses. 

The Service manages each refuge to fulfill the 

mission and, where appropriate, restore the lost elements of biological integrity of each refuge and the 

Refuge System, as well as achieve the specific purposes for which the refuge was established. Congress 

also provided for six priority wildlife-dependent public uses to be accommodated wherever possible. The 

Improvement Act only addressed economic uses in 

the context of how compatibility standards and procedures should be administered for uses of a refuge 

(Section 6 under the Improvement Act). In reviewing the Service’s compatibility policy (FWS 2000a), it 

states the following:

“Economic uses can only be allowed when they 

do not materially detract from the fulfillment 

of the Refuge System mission or the purposes 

of the refuge. Inherent in fulfilling the System 

mission is not degrading the ecological integrity of the refuge. Compatibility, therefore, is 

a threshold issue, and the proponent(s) of any 

use or combination of uses must demonstrate 

to the satisfaction of the Refuge Manager that 

the proposed use(s) pass this threshold test.” 

The Service uses livestock grazing to meet specific 

wildlife and habitat objectives. Grazing was considered in the objectives and strategies in the alternatives, but it was not considered as a specific goal of 

the planning process. 

Like livestock grazing, the Service did not consider socioeconomic issues as being a singular goal of 

the planning process but did recognize these issues 

in the formation of alternatives, objectives, and 

strategies. Specifically, the Service has considered 

an alternative (C) that would emphasize and promote maximum compatible wildlife-dependent public uses and economic uses while protecting wildlife 

populations and habitats to the extent possible. The 

Service did change language in the Partnership Goal 

(refer to “Chapter 2—Refuge History and Vision”) 

to include more recognition of the social and economic contribution of the refuge to adjacent communities.

ELIMINATING ALL LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Some interested groups and the public requested the 

Service consider a no-grazing alternative. Although 

initially considered, it was eliminated from further 

analysis. 

The use of livestock grazing is consistent with the 

direction provided in the Improvement Act, which 

defines conservation and management as “to sustain 

and, where appropriate restore and enhance, healthy 

populations of fish, wildlife, and plants, using, in 

accordance with Federal and State laws, methods 

and procedures associated with modern scientific 

resource programs.”

The northern Great Plains, including much of the 

landscape in and around the refuge, evolved over 

thousands of years through a complex ecological 

interaction between fire and grazing (Higgins 1986). 

Even if wild bison (extirpated from the area in the 

late 1800s) were to be restored to parts of the refuge 

(a consideration in alternatives B and D if proposed by 

MFWP), it could take years of coordination and planning to implement. There are many areas within the 

refuge where fire occurs infrequently or cannot be 

used because of other factors. Given the complex ecological factors including invasive species and uncertainties about how climate change could affect wildlife and 

their habitat, the Service determined that eliminating 

an important management tool for achieving habitat 

objectives was not realistic or needed. Several habitat 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 149

units have never allotted livestock grazing. Livestock 

are kept out of most riparian areas along the Missouri River, and there are cattle exclosures scattered 

across the refuge. Most areas that are managed under 

prescriptive grazing are largely being rested (refer 

to figure 16). One alternative (B), considers implementing prescriptive grazing over most of the refuge 

in an accelerated implementation timeframe within 

4–7 years. Implementation would include long periods of rest, and livestock grazing would only be used 

to meet specific habitat objectives. In accordance with 

the Service’s compatibility policy, the use of prescriptive grazing will be periodically reevaluated, and the 

refuge manager could modify and reevaluate the existing determination (FWS 2000a). A compatibility determination for the use of prescriptive grazing is included 

in appendix C. 

MANAGING ONLY for 

SHARP-TAILED GROUSE, PRONGHORN, 

and LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Some interested groups and the public felt the Service should only consider an alternative that only 

manages for sharp-tailed grouse, pronghorn, and 

livestock grazing as these were specifically mentioned in Executive Order 7509. Although Executive Order 7509 singled out sharp-tailed grouse and 

pronghorn for protection in 1936 (in addition to other 

wildlife), since then, there have been several Executive orders, laws, and policies that have guided the 

management of the refuge. Livestock grazing is only 

a provision to the extent that it remains compatible with the primary purposes. Not all lands within 

the refuge were set aside under Executive Order 

7509. This includes UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge and other lands acquired through fee title. Many 

fish, wildlife, and plant species are found on the refuge (refer to “Chapter 4—Affected Environment”), 

and although sharp-tailed grouse and pronghorn are 

named in Executive Order 7509, in only managing 

for these species, the Service would not meet other 

refuge purposes, Refuge System mission, or the 

vision and goals of this planning process. 

As stated in chapter 2, the refuge is administered 

under the provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge 

Administration Act of 1966 and not Taylor Grazing 

Act. Several court cases have affirmed this. Under 

the Refuge System, livestock grazing is used as a 

management tool for meeting habitat and wildlife 

objectives, and the four alternatives presented provide for a range of approaches for managing habitat 

and wildlife. 

DEVELOPING a MEMORANDUM of 

UNDERSTANDING for LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Some interested groups and the public suggested 

that the Service collaborate with the adjoining conservation districts, either through a memorandum 

of understanding or through separate contracts for 

assessment and management of the refuge’s grazing allotments. This would include the calculation of 

AUMs that each habitat unit could support.

Partnerships certainly play an important role in 

helping the Service to achieve its planning goals for 

habitat management. The Service is committed to 

working with many Federal, State, and local governments, tribal governments, private landowners, and 

other organizations (refer to the partnership objectives for each alternative in section 3.8 above, as well 

as 3.11 below). However, a memorandum of understanding or contract with a local government agency 

to assess and manage grazing allotments as proposed 

would effectively limit a refuge manager’s ability to 

make stipulations or decisions on the compatibility 

of economic activities in managing habitat for the 

benefit of wildlife (refer to the above discussion on 

compatibility about developing goals for livestock 

grazing and socioeconomic uses). In the Improvement Act, Congress set provisions for “ensuring 

timely and effective cooperation with Federal agencies and State fish and wildlife agencies during the 

course of acquiring and managing refuges.” Congress did not specify a role for other governmental 

agencies in managing refuge habitat, which seems 

to be the intent of this suggestion. The Service has 

considered an alternative that emphasizes public use 

and economic use while protecting habitat and wildlife; therefore, this suggestion was not analyzed further.

OPENING ROADS in WILDERNESS

Several interested groups and the public wanted the 

Service to consider reopening roads that were previously closed through proposed or designated wilderness, either seasonally or permanently. In compliance 

with the Wilderness Act and Service’s Wilderness 

Stewardship policy (FWS 2008c), the Service did not 

consider reopening formerly closed roads in existing proposed wilderness units. The Service uses the 

CCP process to determine if other lands should be 

recommended for wilderness designation or if other 

changes should be made to the existing proposed 

wilderness units. 
150 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

REDUCTION of PROPOSED 

WILDERNESS AREAS

During the scoping period, several people asked the 

Service to consider reducing the number of proposed 

wilderness areas on the refuge. The Service initially 

considered this idea under two alternatives (C and D) 

and evaluated several options in the draft CCP and 

EIS. Although this consideration does not specifically conflict with the Service’s Wilderness Stewardship policy, it does conflict with the policies of other 

agencies within the Department of Interior (BLM 

and National Park Service). Several units are split 

in two by a road as is the case with East and West 

Beauchamp Creek (road 201). Another unit (East 

Hell Creek) has a road leading to a private inholding. However, conditions have not changed in any of 

the units since they were proposed as wilderness in 

1974, and measurable negative effects have not been 

documented. The presence of a road is not justification for eliminating the unit. Furthermore, because 

the proposed wilderness units were transmitted to 

Congress by the President in 1974, any recommendation that came out of the CCP process could not 

be carried out until Congress acted on the original 

proposals. This would cause confusion; therefore, the 

reduction of any unit was not carried forward in the 

final CCP and EIS.

3.11 PARTNERSHIPS

Many opportunities exist near the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge to continue existing partnerships or establish new ones. These include the following:

■ Federal agencies including BLM, USDA, USGS, 

USACE, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, Federal Highways Administration, and 

many others

■ MFWP and DNRC on wildlife and habitat management and other State agencies

■ conservation districts, county commissioners, fire 

wardens, fire districts, weed districts, and sheriffs departments

■ nongovernmental organizations including Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation, World Wildlife Fund, 

American Prairie Reserve, The Conservation 

Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Montana Wildlife Federation, Wildlife Conservation Society, 

Yellowstone Valley Audubon Society, Ranchers 

Stewardship Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, 

National Wildlife Federation, grazing associations, the Wilderness Society, Prairie Wildlife 

Research, and Stockgrowers Association

■ adjacent private landowners and local communities 

3.12 MONITORING and

EVALUATION

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to longterm management of biotic resources. Adaptive management is directed, over time, by the results of 

ongoing monitoring activities and other information. 

More specifically, adaptive management is a process 

by which projects are carried out within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outline within a CCP (see figure 11). 

Figure 11. Adaptive management process.

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, 

inventory, and monitoring protocols would be adopted 

for the refuge. The habitat management strategies 

would be systematically evaluated to determine management effects on wildlife populations. This information would be used to refine approaches and find 

out how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations would include participation by 

Service personnel and other partners. If monitoring 

and evaluation indicate undesirable effects for target and nontarget species or communities, alteration 

to the management projects would be made. Subsequently, the CCP would be revised. 

3.13 PLAN AMENDMENT and

REVISION

The final CCP will be reviewed annually to determine 

the need for revision. A revision would occur if and 

when significant information becomes available, such 

as a change in ecological conditions. Revisions to the 

CCP and subsequent stepdown management plans 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 151

would be subject to public review and compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act. At a 

minimum, this plan would be evaluated every 5 years 

and revised after 15 years. Table 6 identifies the stepdown plans needed to fully implement the CCP.

Table 6. Stepdown management plans for the 

Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

 Plan Year to be Completed*

Cultural resources 2017

Fire management 2014

Habitat management 2015–9

Invasive plant management 2015

Paleontological resources 2017

Public use 

hunting and fishing

fishing and mussels

wildlife observation, photography,

and interpretation

environmental education

2017

Transportation 2017

Wilderness stewardship 2015

*Depends on the preferred alternative selected for the CCP.

3.14 FUNDING and PERSONNEL

Refuge budgets generally include ongoing operations funds for personnel, maintenance, and utility 

needs. Table 7 summarizes the estimated costs for 

the alternatives over 15 years, and table 8 displays 

the details used to develop the costs.

Table 9 compares the current personnel plan with 

the proposed personnel needed under each alternative. Projects required to carry out the final CCP 

will be funded through two separate systems, as follows: (1) the refuge operations needs system is used 

to document requests to Congress for money and 

personnel needed to carry out projects above the 

existing base budget; and (2) the Service asset maintenance management system is used to document 

the equipment, buildings, and other existing properties that require repair or replacement. 

Table 7. Costs over 15 years to carry out the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges ($1,000).

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

One-time cost 7,945 19,569 18,872 20,356

Salaries 41,310 45,193 56,288 56,351

Total cost 49,255 64,762 75,160 76,707

Purple Prairieclover

Larry Allain / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database
152 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 8. Cost analysis for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges ($1,000). 

Cost over 15 years (in thousands of dollars)

Management cost item Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

HABITAT: uplands 317 500 626 598

river bottoms 420 494 350 490

riparian areas and wetlands 150 213 71 258

shorelines 0 51 51 51

CLIMATE CHANGE 45 95 95 95

INVASIVE SPECIES 75 120 120 120

FIRE: prescribed fire 576 2,100 655 2,100

wildfire 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT: big game 425 500 435 475

furbearers 100 400 200 400

threatened and endangered 

 species

150 215 215 215

American bison 0 80 10 80

other wildlife 0 97 97 97

birds 35 121 96 121

PUBLIC USE: hunting 30 265 338 330

fishing 50 163 189 163

observation, interpretation, 

 and photography

95 279 423 346

environmental education 15 35 122 47

outreach 5 15 25 20

commercial uses and 

 outfitting

15 32 52 32

recreation sites 50 75 90 90

access 95 140 360 210

WILDERNESS 15 15 15 15

CULTURAL RESOURCES 10 93 110 110

REFUGE OPERATIONS: stock ponds and 

maintenance

82 162 155 172

VOLUNTEERS and FRIENDS 0 20 33 32

PRIORITY LAND ACQUISITIONS 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

INTERPRETIVE CENTER: building 8,000 8,000 8,000

exhibits 100 750 500

Subtotal of one-time costs over 15 years 7,945 19,569 18,872 20,356

Salaries over 15 years 41,310 45,193 56,288 56,351 

Total Cost 49,255 64,762 75,160 76,707
Chapter 3—Alternatives 153

Table 9. Personnel to carry out the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A

(current personnel) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Headquarters (Lewistown, Montana)

Project leader GS*–14 Project leader GS–14 Project leader GS–14 Project leader GS–14

Deputy project leader 

GS–13

Deputy project leader 

GS–13

Deputy project leader 

GS–13

Deputy project leader 

GS–13

Pilot and wildlife biologist 

GS–12

Pilot and wildlife biologist 

GS–12

Pilot and wildlife biologist 

GS–12

Pilot and wildlife biologist 

GS–12

Wildlife refuge specialist 

GS–9

Wildlife refuge specialist 

GS–9

Outdoor recreation planner 

GS–9

Outdoor recreation planner 

GS–9

Maintenance worker WG*–8 Maintenance worker WG–8 Maintenance worker WG–8 Maintenance worker WG–8

Maintenance worker WG–7 Maintenance worker WG–7 Maintenance worker WG–7 Maintenance worker WG–7

Supervisory wildlife 

biologist GS–13

Supervisory wildlife 

biologist GS–13

Supervisory wildlife 

biologist GS–13

Supervisory wildlife 

biologist GS–13

**Wildlife biologist GS–12 Wildlife biologist GS–12 Wildlife biologist GS–12 Wildlife biologist GS–12

Wildlife biologist GS–9 Wildlife biologist GS–9 Wildlife biologist GS–9 Wildlife biologist GS–9

Wildlife biologist GS–9 Wildlife biologist GS–9 Wildlife biologist GS–9 Wildlife biologist GS–9

Fire management officer 

GS–12 

Refuge complex fire 

management officer GS–13

Refuge complex fire 

management officer GS–13

Refuge complex fire 

management officer GS–13

Administrative officer 

GS–11

Administrative officer 

GS–11

Administrative officer 

GS–11

Administrative officer 

GS–11

Administrative assistant 

GS–6

Administrative assistant 

GS–6

Administrative assistant 

GS–6

Administrative assistant 

GS–6

Administrative assistant 

(term) GS–4

Administrative assistant 

(term) GS–4

Administrative assistant 

(term) GS–4

Administrative assistant 

(term) GS–4

— — Outdoor recreation planner 

GS–11

Outdoor recreation planner 

GS–11

Fort Peck Field Station

Station manager GS–12 Station manager GS–12 Station manager GS–12 Station manager GS–12

Assistant station manager 

GS–9

Assistant station manager 

GS–9

Assistant station manager 

GS–9

Assistant station manager 

GS–9

Biological technician GS–6 Biological technician GS–6 Biological technician GS–6 Biological technician GS–6

— Outdoor recreation planner 

GS–7/9

Outdoor recreation planner 

GS–7/9

Outdoor recreation planner 

GS–7/9

— Law enforcement officer 

GS–7/9

Law enforcement officer 

GS–7/9

Law enforcement officer 

GS–7/9

— Range technician GS–5/6 Range technician GS–5/6 Range technician GS–5/6
154 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 9. Personnel to carry out the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A

(current personnel) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Jordan Field Station

Station manager GS–12 Station manager GS–12 Station manager GS–12 Station manager GS–12

Assistant station manager 

GS–7/9

Assistant station manager 

GS–7/9

Assistant station manager 

GS–7/9

Assistant station manager 

GS–7/9

Range technician GS–6 Range technician GS–6/7 Range technician GS–6/7 Range technician GS–6/7

Sand Creek Field Station

Station manager GS–12 Station manager GS–12 Station manager GS–12 Station manager GS–12

Assistant station manager 

GS–9

Assistant station manager 

GS–9

Assistant station manager 

GS–9

Assistant station manager 

GS–9

Assistant fire management 

officer GS–9 

Assistant fire management 

officer GS–11 

Assistant fire management 

officer GS–11 

Assistant fire management 

officer GS–11

Biological technician GS–6 Biological technician GS–6 Biological technician GS–6 Biological technician GS–6

Law enforcement officer 

GS–9 

Law enforcement officer 

GS–9 

Law enforcement officer 

GS–9 

Law enforcement officer 

GS–9

Range technician GS–7 Range technician GS–7 Range technician GS–7 Range technician GS–7

Maintenance worker WG–8 Maintenance worker WG–8 Maintenance worker WG–8 Maintenance worker WG–8

Student Career Experience 

Program student GS–4 — ***Outdoor recreation 

planner GS–7/9

***Outdoor recreation 

planner GS–7/9

UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge

— Refuge operations specialist 

GS–9/11 Station manager GS–9/11 Station manager GS–9/11

— Technician GS–5/6 Maintenance worker 

WG–6/7 Technician GS 5/6

— — Maintenance worker 

WG–7/8

Maintenance worker 

WG–7/8

Seasonal Employees

1 Fire seasonal GS–5 Fill to meet needs Fill to meet needs Fill to meet needs

2 Fire seasonals GS–4 Fill to meet needs Fill to meet needs Fill to meet needs

1 Fire seasonals GS–3 Fill to meet needs Fill to meet needs Fill to meet needs

7 Biological technician 

seasonals GS–3 Fill to meet needs Fill to meet needs Fill to meet needs

 * GS=General Schedule employee by pay grade; WG=Wage Grade employee by pay grade.

 ** Many of the existing staff have expertise and education in range management. They would qualify as range conservation 

 specialists and could be put into that position series. Monitoring for range health generally involves looking at the dominant 

 community plants, mostly grasses, and determining if they are viable, versus the refuge’s wildlife habitat monitoring program, 

 which includes looking at all the plants that comprise the community and ensuring that they are healthy, vibrant, and able to 

 reach maturity.

*** Dependent on Interpretive Center being built at Sand Creek Field Station.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 155

3.15 COMPARISON of ALTERNATIVES

Table 10 is a summarized, side-by-side look at the actions for each alternative. An analysis of these actions is in 

“Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences”; a summary of the expected consequences of the alternatives is in 

table 56 at the end of chapter 5.
156 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Goal for habitat and wildlife management: Conserve, restore, and improve the biological integrity, environmental 

health, and ecological diversity of the refuge’s plant and animal communities of the Missouri River Breaks and 

surrounding prairies to support healthy populations of native plants and wildlife in a changing climate. Working 

with others, reduce and control the spread of nondesirable, nonnative, invasive plant and aquatic species for 

the benefit of native communities on and off the refuge.

Goal for threatened and endangered species and species of concern: Contribute to the identification, preservation, 

and recovery of threatened and endangered species and species of concern that occur or have historically 

occurred in the northern Great Plains. 

Goal for research and science: Advance the understanding of natural resources, ecological processes, and the 

effectiveness of management actions in a changing climate in the northern Great Plains through compatible 

scientific investigations, monitoring, and applied research.

Goal for fire management: Manage wildland fire using a management response that promotes fire’s natural role 

in shaping the landscape while protecting values at risk. 

Habitat—upland

Keep the current habitat 

regime on 65 habitat units 

through a fire suppression 

program, use of livestock 

grazing (mostly annual grazing versus prescriptive), an 

emphasis on big game, fencing, and water development. 

Continue current monitoring of residual cover.

Manage for a diverse plant 

community of highly productive wildlife food and 

cover plants emphasizing 

target and focal species.

Create these conditions 

using natural ecological processes (fire management, 

grazing by wildlife, or flooding) or active management 

practices (prescriptive grazing, prescribed fire, or agricultural plantings).

Within 3 years, develop new 

HMPs based on field station 

boundaries and evaluation 

of needs of target species. 

Evaluate success through 

monitoring of residual cover, 

sentinel plants, and other 

measures.

Use more intensive manipulation to remove junipers for 

protection of existing trees 

from wildfire.

Similar to A, except:

Manage the present habitat 

units for improving range 

conditions for domestic and 

wild ungulates using NRCS 

ecological site conditions and 

guidelines.

Manage habitat to support 

maximum opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreation, and manage for a 

plant community that is a 

compromise between wildlife food and cover and livestock forage needs.

Within 7 years, develop new 

HMPs based on soil characteristics, historical fire occurrence, grazing, and field 

station boundaries.

Include fencing for better 

livestock distribution, water 

development, rotational 

grazing, and other management techniques designed 

to improve range conditions.

In cooperation with NRCS, 

conduct ecological site evaluations on habitat units, 

monitoring residual cover 

and sentinel plant species. 

Continue current monitoring of residual cover.

Promote ecological resilience (where the land can 

absorb disturbance and still 

keep its basic function and 

structure), restore fire–

grazing interactions, promote animal movement with 

long periods of abandonment to reduce plant species 

selectivity for sentinel species, and increase landscape 

species and structural heterogeneity. 

Mimic and restore natural 

processes and manage for 

diversity of plant species 

within the community. 

Initially use active management such as manipulation 

of habitats or wildlife populations using food plots, 

managing water levels, and 

relocating wildlife, but move 

toward using more passive 

approaches such as allowing 

natural processes such as 

fire and flooding and using 

prescriptive grazing.

Mimic ecological processes 

using fire and herbivory 

(grazing) by wild ungulates 

or livestock, or both, as prescribed to maintain plant 

diversity.

Sustain viable populations of 

plant species that are first to 

decline when management 

practices are injurious (sentinel species).
Chapter 3—Alternatives 157

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Habitat—upland (continued)

When feasible, restore the 

natural fire regime through 

an increased use of prescribed 

fire to increase diversity of 

all fire-dependent species 

where necessary to restore 

natural processes and conditions.

Consolidate 65 habitat units 

into 3–8 units, and develop 

new HMPs based on soil 

characteristics and historical fire conditions.

Habitat—river bottom

Restore small acreages of 

bottomlands when money 

allows.

Develop and apply an 

aggressive approach to treating the bottomlands on a 

prioritized basis. Treatment 

would include burning and 

spraying with herbicides 

to clear invasive plants and 

planted with wildlife food 

crops. 

Increase fencing where 

needed to exclude livestock 

from river bottoms except 

for developed water gaps 

where necessary.

Rely on partnerships and 

cooperators to restore river 

bottoms.

Less aggressive timeframe 

for restoration of river bottoms than under alternative 

D and would enable economic benefits from crops 

produced.

More aggressive timeframe 

for restoration of river bottoms than C. More emphasis 

on native plant restoration 

(no food plots).

Habitat—riparian area and wetland

Maintain the current stream 

riparian habitat through a 

fire suppression program, 

big game emphasis, and 

livestock grazing, fences, 

and water development.

Resurvey the health of 

streams. 

Resurvey streams and 

riparian areas (85% of the 

82 miles of stream and 

1,300 acres of riparian areas 

would improve to next category using ESG Lotic Wetland Health Assessment 

Survey, and at least 95% 

from 2009 survey are maintained as “healthy”).

Over 15 years, remove all 

reservoir and stock ponds 

that do not support species 

of concern (for example, 

redbelly and finescale dace).

Figure out if other stock 

ponds are needed to meet 

needs for target and focal 

species.

Restore properly functioning conditions (support 

productive populations of 

native fish species) where 

feasible.

Resurvey the health of 

streams. 

Restore streams and riparian areas (60% of the 82 miles 

of stream and 1,300 acres of 

riparian areas would improve 

to next category using 

ESG Lotic Wetland Health 

Assessment Survey, and at 

least 85% from 2009 survey 

are maintained as “healthy”).

Within 10 years, evaluate 

current stock ponds and figure out which ponds need 

to be rehabilitated or are 

needed to meet grazing 

needs. 

Within 5 years, determine 

the potential of and prioritize selected sites for 

streambank stabilization. 

Stop hoof bank-shearing.

Over 15 years on priority 

streams, restore using a variety of methods that improve 

water quality and quantity, 

stabilize streambanks, and 

improve channeling.

Similar to B and C, except:

Restore streams and riparian areas (75% of the 82 miles 

of stream and 1,300 acres of 

riparian areas would improve 

to next category using 

ESG Lotic Wetland Health 

Assessment Survey, and at 

least 90% from 2009 survey 

are maintained as “healthy”).

Over 15 years, provide 

alternate water sources 

for cattle where prescriptive grazing is required to 

accomplish habitat objectives away from riparian 

areas or sensitive areas.

Over 15 years, identify locations along riverbanks for 

stabilization and revegetation and restore 50–75% of 

those locations.

Over 15 years, restore natural hydrology to five first-, 

second-, and third-order 

streams that would normally 

flow into the Missouri or 

Musselshell Rivers.
158 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Habitat—riparian area and wetland (continued)

Identify and rank riverbanks in need of stabilization 

and revegetation and restore 

50% of those locations.

Fence out livestock from 

all riparian areas with the 

exception of developed 

water gaps. 

Use flooding as tool.

Use exclosures in riparian 

areas.

Manage for diversity of 

plant species within the 

stream riparian community 

using natural processes. 

Study and preserve areas 

where with longer fire intervals (refugia). 

Conduct research onsite 

hydrology and restore 

dynamic hydrological processes where possible.

Habitat—shoreline

Continue to combat invasive 

plants (mostly saltcedar). If 

Fort Peck Lake levels rise 

to historical levels, revisit 

treatment of shoreline areas.

Increase efforts to combat 

invasive plants through 

partnerships. Plant native 

species in treatment areas. 

Manipulate shoreline by 

mechanical means as necessary to improve populations of fish, birds, or other 

wildlife.

Same as A, plus:

Work with USACE to ensure access to Fort Peck 

Lake for recreational activities as lake levels vary. 

Same as B, plus:

Encourage growth of native 

vegetation. 

Enhance opportunities to 

benefit plovers and terns, 

and other species of Federal 

and State concern along the 

shoreline.

Habitat—invasive species

Continue to use the weed 

strike team. 

Continue to update invasive 

species mapping.

Maintain existing invasive 

species control programs 

including mapping program 

of existing and invasive species, biocontrol research 

project with USDA, releasing of at least two biocontrol 

agents, weed-seed-free hay 

requirements.

Maintain the active bottomland restoration program. 

Continue partnerships to 

provide free car washes for 

refuge visitors.

Same as A, plus:

Aggressively reduce weeds 

and replace with native 

plants. Convert former croplands infested with weeds 

into food plots >3,000 acres. 

Consider crop rotation in 

bottomlands. 

Continue cooperative effort 

with USACE on saltcedar 

removal.

Emphasize visitor education about weeds and aquatic 

invasives (for example, zebra 

mussels) and increase public 

awareness and enforcement. 

Consider added weed-free 

restrictions for outfitters 

and permittees.

Same as B, plus:

Emphasize visitor education 

about weeds.

Increase public awareness 

and enforcement. 

Implement controls and 

education programs, and 

increase awareness of the 

growing problem of aquatic 

invasives (for example, 

zebra mussels).

Same as B and C, except:

Evaluate the biological 

potential and economical 

feasibility to use more biological control measures 

when proven safe and effective and less chemical 

control to reduce weed 

infestations.

Habitat—water resources

Continue restoring riparian habitat and adhere to 

standard watershed management practices as money 

allows.

Continue working with 

USGS and the State on 

water quality studies and 

standards. 

Restore water quality for 

fish and wildlife by addressing soil erosion from overgrazing, roads, or other 

sources, and contamination 

from recreational or economic use (for example, 

excessive livestock use of 

streams and human use of 

camping areas). 

Balance water quality restoration with public use and economic needs. Restore water 

quality for fish and wildlife by 

addressing soil erosion from 

overgrazing, roads, or other 

sources, and contamination 

from recreational or economic 

use (for example, excessive 

livestock use of streams and 

human use of camping areas). 

Restore water quality for 

fish and wildlife by addressing soil erosion from overgrazing, roads, or other 

sources, and contamination 

from recreational or economic use (for example, 

excessive livestock use of 

streams and human use of 

camping areas). (Same as B.) 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 159

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Habitat—water resources (continued)

Maintain and rehabilitate 

select stock ponds.

Continue to cap artesian 

wells to prevent depletion of 

ground water. (Same as B, 

C, and D.) 

Keep ground cover to increase ground waterflow 

into streams, and reduce runoff and soil erosion and protect riparian area corridors.

Encourage natural water 

development within streams 

such as increased flow, pools, 

beaver ponds, and artificial 

water such as dugouts to 

benefit wildlife populations.

Evaluate stock dam needs 

especially in high-functioning watersheds to determine cumulative impacts on 

streamflow fish and riparian 

conditions. 

Evaluate current and future 

water development on a sitespecific basis and consider 

effects (positive and negative to all resources).

Keep ground cover across 

refuge to increase ground 

waterflow into streams, and 

reduce runoff and soil erosion and protect riparian 

area corridors. (Same as B.)

Encourage natural and constructed water sources for 

livestock and public fishing 

and hunting opportunity.

Evaluate current and future 

water development on a sitespecific basis and consider 

effects (positive and negative) to all resources.

Keep ground cover across 

refuge to increase ground 

waterflow into streams, and 

reduce runoff and soil erosion and protect riparian 

area corridors. (Same as B.)

Reference riparian area 

research and publication for 

guidance on restoring or 

improving water quality in 

identified areas. 

Assess the needs of current 

reservoirs and restore historical hydrologic condition of 

reservoirs no longer needed 

for livestock or wildlife.

Maintain and rehabilitate 

select stock ponds.

Habitat—water rights

Adjudicate, define, and 

quantify water rights. 

Same as A, plus:

Pursue water rights associated with buying inholdings. Obtain senior upstream 

water rights only when 

approached by landowner or 

current water right holder.

Same as B. Same as B.

Habitat—grazing

Continue to manage 65 habitat units with livestock 

(1986 EIS). (In 2009, 55 

units have active permits.) 

Retire livestock grazing 

permits as they become 

available (i.e., ranch changes 

ownership, but this would 

not include generational 

transfer). 

Maintain fencing.

Gradually move toward prescriptive grazing to manage 

grazing (defined as use of 

specific, written directions

to achieve a desired outcome) 

as units become available, 

or habitat evaluations are 

completed, and action is 

necessary to meet wildlife 

or habitat objectives. Over 

15 years, apply prescriptive 

grazing on at least 50% of 

the refuge. 

Actively work toward 

reducing livestock grazing permits to only use 

prescriptive grazing as a 

management tool to achieve 

specific habitat or wildlife 

objectives, or where use of 

other management tools 

may not be feasible. 

Remove livestock grazing 

from all habitat units that 

are fenced separately from 

surrounding lands. Use only 

prescriptive grazing.

Within 4–7 years, prescriptive grazing would be developed for 50–75% of the refuge.

Remove interior fencing 

where appropriate. Fence 

boundary to exclude common pastures and allow the 

Service to affect management treatments to meet 

wildlife objectives.

Take a passive approach in 

gradually moving toward 

a prescriptive grazing program as current grazing permits become available due to 

a ranch changing ownership 

(this would not include generational transfer).

Up to 50% of the refuge 

would be under prescriptive 

grazing.

If monitoring reveals that 

populations of the first-todecline sentinel plant species 

for grazing and browsing are 

not viable, balance reductions in livestock permit 

numbers and wild ungulates 

numbers.

Consider designating administrative use-only roads for 

livestock management where 

appropriate and allowed by 

policy and laws. 

Adopt an active approach 

to using prescriptive grazing as a management tool 

(less aggressive than B). Shift 

from traditional annual permitted grazing to prescriptive 

grazing to enhance habitats 

for wildlife. Within 6–9 years, 

develop 50–75% of the refuge 

for prescriptive grazing; more 

conversion to prescriptive 

grazing would be ongoing.

If monitoring reveals prescribed habitat objectives are 

not met due to livestock grazing, make prescription changes 

(including stocking density, 

duration, season, AUM reduction, and retiring the permit).

Remove interior fences to 

facilitate long-distance animal 

movements and use of prescribed fire. Fence boundary.

Allow generational transfer 

under a prescriptive program.
160 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Habitat—prescribed fire

Continue the fire suppression policy.

Manage habitat with minimal use of prescribed fire.

Increase use of prescribed 

fire to enhance wildlife populations and habitat and 

reduce hazardous fuel. 

Monitor the effects of prescribed fire on the habitat 

and wildlife populations.

Work with partners to 

address wildland–urban 

interface areas at the Pines 

Recreation Area and other 

USACE recreation areas.

Same as B, except:

Use prescribed fire to create 

a balance between enhanced 

wildlife habitat and improved 

forage for livestock. 

Use patch burning (burn 

patches of varying sizes, within historical fire-return intervals and on a rotation to create a mosaic of habitats) to 

restore heterogeneity 

(diversity) within landscapes, 

preserve fire refugia and 

associated plant species, 

enhance food resources for 

wildlife, and ensure biological diversity and integrity 

and environmental health.

Move toward allowing fire to 

play its natural role in shaping the ecosystem in adherence with the fire management plan. Monitor the effects 

of fire on the habitat and wildlife populations. (Same as B.)

Work with partners to 

address wildland–urban 

interface areas. (Same as B.)

Habitat—wildfire 

Continue fire suppression 

using a management response 

strategy that evaluates the 

response to a wildfire based 

on several factors including risks to firefighters, the 

public, property, and other 

resources.

Identify and take the appropriate and necessary fire 

management actions, according to an approved fire management plan and maintain 

or improve wildlife habitat 

during a wildfire.

Use aggressive initial attack 

to minimize economic loss 

from wildfire.

Increase prescriptive grazing to minimize the fuel 

load.

Similar to B, except: 

Using historical fire frequency data, manage naturally 

occurring wildfire for multiple objectives and implement actions in accordance 

with an approved fire management plan. Monitor the 

effects of fire on the habitat 

and wildlife populations.

Habitat—climate change

Continue current efforts to 

reduce the carbon footprint 

including maintaining a small 

wind turbine, recycling, 

building energy-efficient 

facilities, and using energyefficient vehicles.

Consider what conditions precipitated by climate change 

the refuge may have to deal 

with increased drought, longer fire season, hotter 

fires, loss of plants and animals, increase of other 

plants and animals, change 

of migration patterns, and 

relocation of species.

Same as A, plus:

Identify: (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 would increase. 

Design science-based longterm monitoring protocols to 

document changes in plant 

and animal composition or 

health due to climate change. 

Coordinate with adjoining 

agencies and partners to 

immediately alleviate the 

declines (and increases) on 

sites with appropriate modification of ecological processes 

(management action) such as 

herbivory, fire, or flooding.

Same as B. Same as B.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 161

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Habitat—climate change (continued)

Cooperate with national 

and international projects 

to maintain biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health on global basis. 

Replace all vehicles with 

fuel-efficient vehicles. 

Upgrade offices to “green” 

standards. Install solar panels and carefully sited wind 

turbines. Provide recycling 

bins. Encourage teleconferencing instead of driving, 

turning off lights, recycling, 

and turning down heat.

Wildlife—birds

Maintain habitat to support 

30 spring-breeding sharptailed grouse per square mile 

when conditions permit. 

Maintain riparian areas to 

benefit waterfowl, kingbird, mourning dove, American kestrel, and turkey. 

Improve waterfowl habitat 

on all suitable ponds.

Maintain two peregrine falcon eyries. 

Within 7 years, complete 

a bird atlas (collection of 

data) of the refuge to determine existing composition, 

distribution, and relative 

abundance of breeding, nonbreeding, resident, and 

migratory birds using the 

refuge. Within 8–15 years, 

repeat the effort, and establish a refugewide monitoring program that describes 

the sentinel plant associations and habitat needs of 

75% of the highest priority 

focal bird species.

Similar to B, except establish a monitoring program 

for 50% of focal bird species. 

Specifically, look at greater 

sage-grouse and sharptailed grouse distribution 

and how they are affected 

by habitat objectives.

Similar to B, except establish a monitoring program 

for 90% of focal bird species.

Wildlife—threatened and endangered species and species of concern

Continue to inventory and 

monitor threatened and 

endangered species and 

carry out recovery plans. 

Listed species include blackfooted ferret, least tern, 

pallid sturgeon, and piping 

plover. The grizzly bear is a 

listed species that occurs in 

Montana, but is not found on 

refuge. 

Continue efforts in blackfooted ferret recovery 

including the release of animals, intensive monitoring, 

and disease and habitat 

management.

Continue surveying and 

conservation efforts for 

other species of concern: 

greater sage-grouse (candidate), Sprague’s pipit (candidate), mountain plover, 

swift fox, prairie dog, and 

other rare species.

Same as A, plus:

Actively manipulate habitats to promote the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species. In 

critical habitat for select 

threatened and endangered 

species, ensure listed species 

are given highest priority.

Develop management plans 

for grizzly bear in accordance with Federal and 

State regulations and plans 

for management of this species should natural migration to the refuge occur.

Same as B, except:

Less intensive manipulation 

of threatened and endangered 

species habitat. Balance 

threatened and endangered 

species needs with public 

and economic use needs.

Same as B, except:

Protect current listed species 

and habitat, and work collaboratively with partners to 

prevent other species from 

being listed by restoration of 

biological diversity, integrity, 

and environmental health 

throughout the landscape.
162 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Wildlife—furbearers and small predators

Continue to allow coyote 

hunting at the start of 

pronghorn season through 

March 1. 

Maintain active predator 

management by USDA on a 

limited basis. 

Allow no predator hunting 

or trapping.

Manage predatory species 

as an important component 

of the wildlife community. 

End active predator management by USDA.

Increased predator management through an expanded 

predator-hunting program 

to benefit economic uses and 

provide more public recreational opportunities. 

Consider allowing trapping. 

Ensure that the top-down 

effects of predation on prey 

species and plant species 

is a functioning component 

in restoration of biological diversity, integrity, and 

environmental health.

End active predator 

management by USDA.

Wildlife—big game

Improve and maintain elk, 

mule deer, pronghorn, and 

bighorn sheep in good to 

excellent condition. 

Continue to manage for 10 

mule deer per square mile 

and 2.5 elk per square mile.

Coordinate surveys and 

research with MFWP.

Manage elk and mule deer 

populations at highest levels possible without negatively affecting habitat or 

other wildlife species. Manage harvest levels for herd 

sex and age ratios similar 

to unhunted or lightly harvested populations.

Monitor pronghorn abundance and distribution.

Expand huntable population of bighorn sheep in 

suitable and unoccupied 

habitat (east of Timber 

Creek and south of the Missouri River into the Seven 

Blackfoot, Snow Creek, and 

Hell Creek areas).

Determine mountain lion 

population levels.

Manage elk and deer populations at levels consistent 

with MFWP objectives and 

landowner tolerance. 

Manage pronghorn and bighorn sheep similar to alternative B.

Within 10 years, conduct a 

mountain lion hunt if monitoring data shows it is warranted.

Develop cooperative monitoring programs with 

MFWP for big game populations and habitat by 2015 

to establish desired population levels, herd composition 

targets, and harvest strategies for elk, deer, and bighorn sheep.

Determine mountain lion 

levels and consider harvest 

if monitoring shows it could 

be sustained.

Wildlife—other wildlife

Little to no monitoring or 

management.

Within 2 years, assess the 

need for baseline inventory plans or research for 

fish, reptiles, amphibians, 

invertebrates, and small 

mammals. Rank the highest needs (top 7–10) for 

research, particularly those 

species that support the 

habitat monitoring program. 

Within 15 years, complete 

75–100% of the highest priority inventory plans.

Similar to alternative B on 

monitoring and research. 

Work with partners to 

enhance fishing opportunities. 

Same as B.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 163

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Wildlife—reintroductions 

No new reintroductions. 

Past reintroductions of 

black-footed ferrets, prairie dogs, bighorn sheep, and 

elk (1950s). Turkeys reintroduced by MFWP adjacent 

to the refuge.

Cooperate with partners on 

potential reintroductions 

of black-footed ferret, swift 

fox, pallid sturgeon, bighorn 

sheep, and prairie dog (if 

necessary due to plague).

Cooperate with State and 

partners on the potential 

reintroduction of wild bison 

as wildlife in the landscape.

Cooperate with partners on 

the reintroduction of and 

expansion of the bighorn 

sheep population for 

expanded hunting.

Consider no other reintroductions.

Cooperate with partners to 

restore the biological integrity and ecological processes 

of the site where practical 

for reintroduction of extirpated species.

Cooperate with the State to 

consider species reintroductions when the landscape has 

been prepared and accepted 

by the public.

Goal for public use and education: Provide all visitors quality education, recreation, and outreach opportunities that 

are appropriate and compatible with the purpose and goals of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System 

while maintaining the remote and primitive experience unique to the refuge.

Public use—hunting

Maintain current hunting 

programs, which includes 

ungulates, upland birds, 

and waterfowl is currently 

allowed. Maintain a limited 

coyote season. 

Shooting of nongame species 

is not allowed. Trapping is 

not allowed. Protect all other 

wildlife. 

Work with MFWP to provide quality hunting opportunities that maintain 

sustainable populations of 

big game and habitat for 

nongame species.

Work with MFWP to provide maximum hunting 

opportunities and expand 

the following:

—hunting programs to 

include new species and traditional and niche (primitive 

weapon) 

—hunts for young people 

—mule deer season 

—predator hunting and 

allow for trapping

Work with MFWP to provide hunting opportunities that keep big game and 

other species at levels that 

restore biological diversity 

and integrity, and environmental health.

Consider a limited predator 

hunting and trapping program.

Public use—fishing 

Continue to follow State 

regulations.

Continue cooperation with 

MFWP to regulate paddlefishing.

Provide opportunities for 

quality fishing that maintains sustainable populations of game and nongame 

fish.

Provide increased fishing 

access to areas not accessible due to the changing lake 

level. 

Consider permitting vehicular shoreline access to ice 

fishing in the winter.

Stock select livestock reservoirs to create more fishing 

opportunities. 

Increase participation by 

youth and fishing groups. 

Cooperate with other agencies and partners to enhance 

fishing opportunities that 

maintain game species and 

other species at levels that 

restore biological diversity 

and integrity and environmental health where possible within the refuge.

Public use—wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation

Maintain elk-viewing areas, 

trails, the auto tour route, 

and other facilities that 

provide opportunities for 

wildlife observation, photography and interpretation 

to support 40,000 visits.

In 5 years, develop and 

complete visitor services 

plan and visitor experience 

survey.

Hire one outdoor recreation 

planner.

Over 15 years, increase participation in nonconsumptive uses by 5–10% annually 

(2,000–4,000 more visits).

In 5 years, develop a visitor 

services plan and conduct a 

visitor experience survey.

Hire two outdoor recreation 

planners.

Over 15 years, increase participation in nonconsumptive 

uses by 20–50% annually 

(8,000–20,000 more visits).

In 5 years, develop and complete a visitor services plan 

and conduct a visitor experience survey.

Hire two outdoor recreation 

planners.

Over 15 years, increase participation in nonconsumptive 

uses by 15–25% (6,000–

10,000) more visits.
164 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Public use—wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation (continued)

Over 15 years, increase the 

quality of and number of 

facilities by 5–10% over 

alternative A. Provide more 

viewing or photography 

opportunities by sustaining 

high populations of wildlife 

(migratory birds, big game, 

and prairie dog).

Update existing signage, 

Web site and other interpretive media and facilities as needed. (Same as C 

and D.)

Over 15 years, increase the 

quality and number of facilities and programming 

by 5–15% over alternative A. Develop new facilities (trails, viewing blinds, 

interpretive center at Sand 

Creek) that expand opportunities for wildlife observation and photography.

Identify new areas for wildlife viewing.

Increase opportunities for 

ecotourism. 

Consider ways to encourage 

more youth to visit the refuge (such as geocaching or 

other Internet tools). 

Increase interpretation of 

paleontological resources.

Over 15 years, increase the 

quality and number of facilities and programming by 

10% over alternative A 

(Sand Arroyo trail, viewing 

blinds, and science and interpretive center). Provide for 

opportunities to see a diversity of healthy habitats that 

sustain the full spectrum 

of plant and animal species 

found in the area.

Public use—environmental education 

Maintain limited environmental education programming (for example, school 

visits and fair booths).

Maintain interpretative center, kiosks, and other facilities.

Continue to serve as a destination for troubled youth 

groups.

Expand environmental education program by 5% (program elements identified 

in the visitor services plan) 

based on wildlife biology 

and habitat requirements. 

Work with more partners 

to expand interpretive and 

educational opportunities. 

Expand environmental education program by 25% and 

focus on threatened and 

endangered species, reintroduced species and restoration, and aquatic invasives.

Increase programming levels 

for troubled youth groups.

Expand environmental education program by 10% and 

focus on ecological processes, 

biological diversity and 

integrity, environmental 

health.

Public use—opportunities for visitors with disabilities

Continue to provide an 

accessible blind for persons 

with disabilities. 

Continue support for 

USACE’s closure of an area 

to provide deer hunting 

opportunities for persons 

with disabilities.

Same as A, plus:

Adaptively manage wildlife-dependent recreation 

opportunities to meet the 

needs of visitors with disabilities.

Same as B, plus:

Collaborate with other agencies to increase accessibility 

for wildlife recreation. Provide more accessible facilities. 

Same as B, plus:

Upgrade existing facilities 

to meet current standards 

for accessibility and increase 

accessibility where appropriate. 

Adaptively manage for an 

aging hunting population such 

as providing game retrieval 

roads on northeast side.

Public use—other activities in support of priority public uses

Continue allowing the following uses:

—horseback riding throughout the refuge and 

ATV use on public roads 

within the refuge

—bicycling on numbered 

roads, which include seasonally closed roads

—permit public planes to 

land only on water or ice 

determined by USACE’s 

plan

Same as A, except:

Use adaptive management 

as various uses increase.

Disallow new secondary 

recreational uses unless it 

facilitates a wildlife-dependent recreational use.

Same as A, except:

Use adaptive management 

as various uses increase.

Same as C.
Chapter 3—Alternatives 165

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Public use—access 

Maintain existing refuge 

roads (670 miles). (Alternative A only)

Keep roads closed in the 

proposed and designated 

wilderness. 

Continue the limited seasonal closure of roads when 

necessary.

Continue to work with 

USACE on management of 

boat ramps. Rock Creek is 

only boat ramp under Service jurisdiction. 

Develop a travel management plan (stepdown plan) 

in cooperation with partners 

to ensure secured public 

access.

Allow current access to private inholdings to continue.

Similar to A, except or plus: 

Reduce some existing roads 

to benefit wildlife populations.

Close 106 miles of road to 

meet habitat objectives, manage roads and access to promote more harvest opportunities and larger wildlife 

populations.

Promote nonmotorized 

access, but consider allowing motorized access on 

existing roads for retrieval 

only. 

Restrict access on a seasonal basis to sensitive areas 

by river and road. Monitor 

ATV use on numbered trails 

and manage if documented 

disturbance issues (both 

wildlife and visitor use).

Work with USACE and 

other agencies to monitor 

boat use and determine if 

disturbance is an issue, then 

work with cooperators and 

users to manage access to 

certain areas (for example, 

harden ramps) to limit disturbance to wildlife along 

river corridor. 

Similar to A, except or plus: 

Manage access to benefit 

public and economic use.

Consider expanding or 

improving access in some 

areas and seasonally closing 

areas if needed to protect 

wildlife and habitat.

Improve about 16 miles of 

roads to all-weather access 

(gravel) along Knox Ridge 

road and road 108 (northeast side) to provide a loop. 

Consider winter fishing 

access for Elk Hole or Big 

Swirl.

Improve access to boat ramps. 

Promote nonmotorized 

access, but consider allowing motorized access on 

existing roads for retrieval 

only. 

Work within existing policies 

to allow livestock permittees 

to manage infrastructure and 

stock within habitat units.

Evaluate creating trails that 

are open for bicycle use.

Similar to A, except or plus: 

Manage access to benefit natural processes and habitat.

Close about 21 miles of road; 

seasonally close road 315; 

designate 13 miles on northeast side as game retrieval 

roads (closed during hunting 

season except to retrieve 

game); gravel 5 miles along 

Knox Ridge road; allow for 

additional winter fishing 

access from the southwest 

side; and fully evaluate all 

roads and make further 

modifications as necessary 

to achieve habitat and wildlife objectives.

Work with USACE and 

other agencies to monitor 

boat use and determine if 

disturbance is an issue, then 

work with cooperators and 

users to manage access to 

certain areas (for example, 

harden ramps) to limit disturbance to wildlife along 

river corridor. 

Monitor ATV use on numbered trails and manage 

if document disturbance 

issues (both wildlife and visitor use).

Continue to restrict bicycles 

to numbered roads only including seasonally closed roads.

Public use—recreation sites

Continue allowing camping 

within 100 yards of roads.

Same as A, except:

Use adaptive management 

as use increases.

Manage vehicular camping 

to fit the use (i.e., paddlefishing and concentrated 

camping versus big game 

hunting and dispersed camping) and ensure protection of 

surrounding habitat. 

Permit backcountry camping. 

Same as A, except:

Use adaptive management 

as use increases.

Establish new campsites and 

campgrounds. Look to create designated horse camps 

and evaluate the need for 

designating campsites along 

the lake to meet increased 

demand and lessen the negative effect on shoreline habitat.

Same as A, except:

Use adaptive management 

as use increases.

Evaluate and address camping needs as use changes on 

the refuge. Use adaptive 

management to address 

camping demand (for example, harden frequently used 

sites to minimize erosion and 

negative effects on habitat). 

Limit camping to within 100 

yards of numbered routes. 
166 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Public use—commercial recreation 

Continue to offer 11 outfitting permits for hunting.

Commercial outfitting for 

coyote hunting is illegal.

Permit commercial recreation when it benefits fish 

and wildlife populations.

Develop more commercial 

backcountry outfitting 

permits for hunting that 

accomplish habitat and 

wildlife objectives.

Permit commercial recreation when it benefits public 

or economic use. Increase 

commercial opportunities and

increase the promotion of 

ecotourism tours and experiences. 

Increase outfitting permits 

to the point that they do 

not negatively affect public 

hunting. 

Only permit commercial recreation when it benefits natural ecological processes or 

habitats (for example, allow 

commercial activities in roadless areas that facilitate big 

game harvest to meet wildlife or habitat objectives).

Goal for Wilderness: Conserve, improve, and promote the wilderness character and associated natural processes 

of designated and proposed wilderness areas and wilderness study areas within the refuge for all generations.

Wilderness 

Manage UL Bend Wilderness as a class 1 air shed.

Within 2 years, submit a 

final report on the wilderness study to Washington.

Follow Service policy to manage proposed wilderness. 

Same as A, except:

Over 15 years and on 

approval by the Department of the Interior, expand 

or adjust proposed wilderness units totaling about 

25,869 acres.

Manage UL Bend Wilderness as a class 1 air shed.

Within 2 years, submit a final 

report on the wilderness 

study to Washington.

Follow Service policy to manage proposed wilderness. 

Same as A, except:

Over 15 years and on 

approval by the Department of the Interior, expand 

or adjust proposed wilderness units totaling about 

19,942 acres.

Goal for Cultural and Paleontological Resources: Identify, value, and preserve the significant paleontological and 

cultural resources of the refuge to connect refuge staff, visitors, and the community to the area’s prehistoric 

and historic past.

Cultural resources

Identify and protect significant cultural resources 

according to the National 

Historic Preservation Act 

and other laws. Identify a 

sample 

of homesteads to be protected 

and interpreted. 

Protect known gravesites.

Maintain road closures 

through sensitive cultural 

resource areas. 

Maintain the cultural resource 

inventory.

Provide a brochure about the 

prehistory and history of the 

refuge.

Same as A, plus:

Create a sensitivity model 

and conduct surveys in areas 

with a moderate or high 

potential for resources. 

Conduct oral histories to 

find out about structures.

Complete a comprehensive 

cultural resources overview.

Identify potential preservation projects, and work with 

partners to find funding 

and implement. Locate and 

properly curate collections.

Develop more interpretation materials. 

Same as B, plus:

Increase opportunities for 

ecotourism (nonconsumptive) 

through tours of historic sites.

Develop brochures and kiosks 

that interpret cultural resources. Use more interpretive signs (would not identify 

specific archaeological 

resources).

Collaborate with others to identify or stabilize 

resources.

Same as B.

Paleontological resources

Continue to issue permits to 

professional paleontologists 

for the collection, curation, 

and study of the resources.

Continue to prohibit recreational digging.

Same as A, except:

Work with professional paleontologists to develop a stepdown plan for the identification, study, and protection of 

resources.

Increase protection and law 

enforcement.

Same as A, plus:

Promote the creation of documentaries and increase 

educational opportunities. 

Consider buying inholdings 

for protection.

Same as A, except:

Limit or manage special use 

permits to protect resources. 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 167

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Goal for Refuge Operations and Partnerships: Through effective communication and innovative use of technology and resources, the refuge uses funding, personnel, partnerships, and volunteer programs for the benefit 

of natural resources while recognizing the social and economic connection of the refuge to adjacent communities.

Refuge operations

Personnel: Keep current 

personnel levels. 

Equipment and facilities: 

Maintain the current number of facilities and equipment.

Minerals: Continue mineral 

withdrawal until 2013 and 

work to renew 

withdrawal.

Same as A, plus:

Personnel: Increase personnel by adding an outdoor recreation planner and additional 

full-time law enforcement officer and fire specialist on the 

east end of the refuge, and an 

assistant manager at Jordan 

Field Station.

Equipment and facilities: 

Same as A.

Minerals: Same as A, plus 

seek permanent withdrawal 

of all minerals including oil 

and gas and other leasable 

and locatable minerals on 

all refuge lands and future 

acquisitions.

Same as A, plus:

Personnel: Increase personnel by adding an outdoor recreation planner at Fort Peck 

and Lewistown Field Stations, a full-time law enforcement officer on the east end of 

the refuge, an assistant manager at Jordan Field Station 

and manager at UL Bend 

Refuge, and two maintenance 

positions and a fire specialist 

on the east end of the refuge.

Equipment and facilities: 

Expand facilities at Jordan 

Field Station and more office 

space at Jordan and Sand 

Creek Field Stations.

Minerals: Same as B.

Same as A, plus:

Personnel: Same as C.

Equipment and facilities: 

Same as C.

Minerals: Same as B.

Partnerships—land management

Maintain existing working 

relationships and outreach 

with private landowners and 

land managers. 

Examples of landscape management include wildlife 

movement, habitat management, travel planning, 

fire suppression, wild bison, 

oil and gas lease, and other 

species of concern (sagegrouse and pronghorn).

Same as A, plus:

Emphasize wildlife populations.

Emphasize working relationships and outreach with 

private landowners and land 

and wildlife managers to 

improve management of 

land and wildlife across 

boundaries. 

Consider effects of management actions that affect 

landscapes within and outside refuge boundaries. 

Look for opportunities to 

exchange, consolidate and 

obtain habitat.

Same as B, except:

Emphasize public and economic uses. 

Look at landscape-scale management of all ungulate species in and around refuge to 

benefit all wildlife species and 

promote private conservation 

easements to benefit species 

diversity and ecological 

integrity.

Same as B, except:

Emphasize habitat and ecological processes.

Look at landscape-scale management of all wildlife species in and around refuge to 

benefit wildlife diversity and 

health work with local landowners to promote private 

conservation easements and 

conservation incentives to 

benefit species diversity and 

ecological integrity.

Partnerships—collaboration 

Maintain existing partnerships as described in chapter 3:

—Federal agencies

—MFWP and DNRC on 

wildlife and habitat management and other State agencies

Same as A, plus: 

Revisit partnerships and 

adapt as needed based on 

new management direction. 

Work with USACE on lands 

that could be transferred 

to the Service for primary 

jurisdiction.

Same as B, plus:

Develop partnerships with 

the chamber of commerce 

and State tourism board. 

Work with these and other 

partners to highlight refuge 

resources through promotional materials. Work with 

nongovernmental organizations interested in developing 

ecotourism opportunities.

Same as C, plus:

Revisit partnerships and 

adapt as needed based on 

new management direction. 

Work with USACE on lands 

that could be transferred 

to the Service for primary 

jurisdiction.
168 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 10. Comparison of actions for the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A—no action Alternative B—wildlife 

population emphasis

Alternative C—public use 

and economic use emphasis

Alternative D—ecological 

processes emphasis

(preferred alternative)

Partnerships—collaboration (continued) 

—Conservation districts, 

county commissioners, fire 

wardens, weed districts, fire 

districts, and sheriff departments

—Nongovernmental organizations

—Adjacent private landowners and local communities

Continue to work with partners to promote the refuge 

as an ecotourism destination.

Pursue more opportunities 

for joint management of fire 

suppression, prescribed fire, 

and habitat manipulation. 

Develop a road management 

plan (Federal, State, and 

county). 

Look for more partnerships and money to support 

increased invasive species 

control.

Develop a Friends group.

Develop more partnerships 

with various sporting 

organizations that would 

support public uses (such as 

Mule Deer Foundation). 

Explore more commercial 

activities such as guided 

fishing and hunting.

Establish more detailed 

agreements with the fire 

district for fire suppression.

Develop a Friends group 

and expand volunteer 

groups and provide staff to 

manage. 

Pursue more opportunities 

for joint management of fire 

suppression, prescribed fire, 

and habitat manipulation. 

Look for more partnerships and money for increased 

invasive species control.

Work with these and other 

partners to highlight refuge 

resources through promotional materials.

Develop a Friends group 

and expand volunteer 

opportunities.
4—Affected Environment

This chapter describes the characteristics and resources of the refuge and how existing or past management or influences have affected these resources. 

It specifically addresses the physical environment, 

biological environment, special land designations, 

recreational opportunities, cultural and paleontological resources including a history of human use on 

the site, and the socioeconomic environment. Service data and other information, both published and 

unpublished, was used to quantify what is known 

about refuge resources. Additionally, other sources 

were used including data and information from other 

agencies or other scientific studies.

The elk-viewing area is popular, particularly during the fall months.

USFWS

4.1 TOPICS not ANALYZED 

FURTHER

The affected environment describes those parts of 

the natural and human environment that could be 

affected by implementing any of the management 

alternatives. The following topics or species were 

dismissed from further consideration because there 

would be no effects, or effects would be negligible or 

not detectable, as discussed below.

MOOSE

Moose have occasionally been observed on the refuge, often young dispersing bulls from central Montana mountain ranges or southern Canada. Although 

there are substantial willow communities in the Missouri River floodplain, the area is generally not considered suitable moose habitat. Nonetheless, in 

recent years moose appear to be expanding their 

range in parts of eastern Montana and in many places 

in the North Dakota prairies, and could potentially 

extend their range onto the refuge, but currently 

they are not a common species on the refuge.

BLACK BEAR

A few black bear sightings have been reported on 

the refuge over the years, but none have become 

established residents and the Missouri River Breaks 

are not considered suitable black bear habitat.
170 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

4.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The following sections discuss the physical environmental resources that could be affected by the 

implementation of the CCP. Physical characteristics 

include climate, air, visual resources, soundscapes, 

geography, soils, and water resources.

CLIMATE

The climate of the refuge region is typical of the high 

plains in North America with moderately cold winters (average January lows are near 0 °F) and occasional cold periods exceeding –20 °F. Summers are 

generally pleasant (averaging in the 80s during afternoon hours) with occasional hot periods exceeding 

100 °F. Low humidity, high temperatures, and moderate to strong winds cause rapid loss of soil moisture. Mean annual precipitation is 12–13 inches with 

about 70 percent occurring from April–September. 

Due to the dominantly heavy-textured soils, runoff is rapid, often exceeding 50 percent of the total 

precipitation. The average frost-free period is about 

120 days. The refuge is also subject to intense lightning storms from late July to early September, often 

resulting in wildfires.

Climate Change

In 2001, the Secretary for the Department of the 

Interior issued Secretarial Order 3226 (DOI 2001) 

requiring Federal agencies under its direction that 

have land management responsibilities to consider 

potential climate change effects as part of longrange planning endeavors. Recently, this order was 

replaced by Secretarial Order 3289 (DOI 2009). It 

left intact many of the planning requirements of 

Secretarial Order 3226, reiterating the need to analyze climate change effects but made organizational 

changes to enable the bureaus and agencies to fulfill the planning requirements (refer to “Chapter 1—

Introduction”). In 2009, President Obama signed 

Executive Order 13514) requiring Federal agencies to establish an integrated strategy toward sustainability in the Federal Government and to make 

reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a priority for 

Federal agencies. In 2010, the Service completed its 

strategic plan for managing climate change (FWS 

2010c).

The U.S. Department of Energy report, “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development,” 

concluded that ecosystem protection is important 

to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent 

loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial 

biosphere (U.S. Department of Energy 1999). The 

report defines carbon sequestration as “the capture 

and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise 

be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

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 such as what occurs on the refuge is 

a tremendous factor in carbon sequestration. Large, 

naturally occurring communities of plants and animals that occupy major habitats—grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert—are effective 

both in preventing carbon emission and in acting as 

biological “scrubbers” of atmospheric CO2.

Recently, the U.S. Global Change Research Program released a comprehensive report (Karl et al. 

2009) synthesizing information from a wide variety 

of scientific assessments about what is known about 

the observed and projected consequences of climate change in the United States. Average temperatures in the United States have increased by more 

than 2 °F over the past 50 years. Global temperatures are expected to rise at least 1 °F over the life 

of the CCP. In the Great Plains, temperatures could 

increase more by 2–4 °F. Additionally, there could be 

increases in both evaporation and drought stressing limited water supplies. Invasive weeds would 

likely increasingly compete with native vegetation 

on rangelands (Karl et al. 2009). Precise estimates 

of how climate change would affect the refuge are 

not known. 

AIR QUALITY

The UL Bend Wilderness is a class I air quality area, 

and receives special protections against air pollution under the Federal Clean Air Act. The refuge 

is a member of the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, 

a cooperative program of Federal and State agencies whose primary purpose is to protect visibility in 

class I areas and to characterize regional haze. This 

program was established to aid in the implementation of the 1977 Clean Air Act goal of preventing 

future and remedying existing visibility impairment 

in class I areas (national parks, wilderness, and wildlife refuges). At the UL Bend Refuge, a monitoring station filters the air every third day, collecting 

fine particles in three modules and larger particles 

in one of the modules. The filters are changed on a 

weekly basis and sent to a laboratory in Davis California where the data is analyzed. The lab looks at 

visual obscurity due to particulate matter and longterm trends of 50 years or more. The laboratory was 

not able to provide information as to whether the UL 

Bend monitoring site had ever exceeded class I standards (Jose Mojica, Crocker Nuclear Laboratory; 

personal communication, December 2, 2009).
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 171

The Service conforms with the interim air quality policy on wildland and prescribed fires (Environmental Protection Agency 1998). The policy was 

prepared in an effort to integrate the public policy 

goals of allowing fire to function in its natural role 

in maintaining healthy ecosystems and protecting 

public health and welfare by mitigating the negative effects of air pollutant emissions on air quality 

and visibility. Prescribed fires are conducted under 

strict smoke and air regulations as established by 

the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. The purpose of 

this group is to reduce the effect of particulate matter within specific air sheds throughout the two 

States. The group was formed in 1978 and all prescribed fires conducted on the refuge have met permitted requirements. The refuge is assessed a fee 

based on tons of particulate matter produced by prescribed fires. 

Critical smoke concerns are addressed in each 

individual prescribed burn plan. These plans are very 

thorough and discuss specific smoke issues, measures to reduce negative effects, downwind receptors, and smoke vector maps. The Service obtains 

clearance from the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group 

before conducting any prescribed fire (MIAG 2010). 

An air shed coordinator and meteorologist evaluate 

each prescribed fire for information air shed by air 

shed to anticipate cumulative smoke effects. Key factors include burn elevation, windspeed and direction, 

type of burn, closeness to smoke-sensitive features, 

anticipated impacts from nonmember burners, and 

any other pertinent information made available at 

the time of the decision. A prescribed burn is not 

conducted if negative effects cannot be mitigated. 

VISUAL RESOURCES

The National Environmental Policy Act requires that 

measures be taken to “assure for all Americans ... aesthetically pleasing surroundings.” Visual resources 

are those qualities of the resource that often inspire 

people and contribute to their overall experience. 

There are several land designations found on the refuge that are intended to preserve or even capitalize on the refuge’s scenic values. These include the 

Wild and Scenic River designation along the western boundary, the Lewis and Clark National Historic 

Trail along the entire Missouri River, and the designated and proposed wilderness designations. There 

are sweeping views of the prairie, forested coulees, 

deep river canyons, broad mesas, badlands, and river 

bottoms. Throughout its human history explorers, 

writers, photographers, and visitors have penned, 

photographed, or painted vibrant descriptions of the 

refuge’s abundant wildlife resources and its rugged 

and picturesque scenery. 

Three categories were used to address potential 

effects on visual resources: (1) facilities and structures such as roads, buildings, fencing, and developed 

areas; (2) management activities like livestock grazing including the use of water impoundments and use 

of prescribed fire or other activities; and (3) other 

indirect factors like wildfires, drought, and invasive species. These categories are also addressed in 

greater detail later in this chapter under other topics, and only the visual aspects are addressed here.

Facilities, Structures, and Developed Areas

Roads, buildings, and developed camping areas provide access and amenities, but potentially affect the 

visual resources.

Roads often follow ridges, bottomlands, and drainages.

Google Earth
172 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Roads. The refuge covers a vast remote area with 

about 670 miles of road that crisscross the refuge and 

provide vehicle access that would otherwise only be 

accessible by foot or horseback (refer to access under 

visitor services in section 4.4 below). A road borders 

several of the proposed wilderness units as boundaries were often drawn around roads. Most of the refuge’s roads are primitive, nongraveled roads that 

are inaccessible during wet periods; nonetheless, 

refuge roads are highly visible in some areas, particularly from bluffs, ridges, and other viewpoints as 

the aerial photo below shows. In places, roads have 

become heavily rutted and braided, which potentially degrade scenic and resource values.

In 2009, the Wilderness Society conducted a spatial analysis (The Wilderness Society 2009) assessing 

the visibility of roads on the refuge from various distances ranging from 0.25 mile to 10 miles. Using GIS 

software, points were plotted along refuge roads to 

assess how visible a road could be from any location 

on the refuge. Figures 12 and 13 show the potential visibility of roads from a distance of 1 mile and 

Figure 12. Map of potential visibility of roads at 1 mile along the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. (Pink 

indicates that roads are likely to be visible and green indicates roads are less likely to be visible.)

Figure 13. Map of potential visibility of roads at 3 miles along the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. (From 

further away, roads could be more visible.) 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 173

3 miles. Although this was a modeling exercise and 

may not represent the actual visibility from all locations, the analysis is instructive in showing where 

road density is lowest with fewer visible roads versus where road density is highest and roads are more 

visible. The aerial photo provides an overview of the 

area marked as “A” in figure 12, which has some of 

the least road density on the refuge. Several proposed wilderness units are located next to this area. 

Figure 14. Chart of the number of road segments visible across the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges and 

from proposed wilderness units and wilderness study areas.

An aerial photograph shows the low density of roads in a wilderness unit (near the same area marked as “A” in 

figure 12.) Google Earth

Roads are likely more visible from further away 

than close in to the resource (for examples, ridges 

and viewpoints). Figure 14 summarizes the number 

of road segments that are likely to be visible from 

various sight distances across the refuge including 

nonwilderness and wilderness.

Other Facilities and Structures. Fencing is used across 

the refuge to fence livestock pastures including com-
174 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

mon pastures with BLM, riparian areas, and for 

delineating the refuge boundary (refer to uplands 

in section 4.2 below). In addition, there are a few 

ungulate exclosures for monitoring purposes. Refuge fences are typically a three-strand wire with a 

T-post and commonly found throughout the west. 

The ungulate exclosures are wire fences approximately 8 feet high. Although refuge fencing is generally unobtrusive and not visible from any great 

distance, in places, it could potentially affect view 

in the foreground (for example, a photographer who 

was photographing wildlife could have a fence visible 

in the picture in some locations, whereas in a landscape photograph, a fence would be less visible).

The developed areas (both USACE and Service) 

are generally found along the Missouri River and 

Fort Peck Reservoir and are associated with boat 

ramps, roads, and campsites. Some are visible from 

ridges and other viewpoints, but generally, they are 

small with few facilities and are scattered along 134 

miles of river. The east end is more developed. A few 

of the existing proposed wilderness units directly 

border or are near one of USACE’s developed recreation areas (for example, Crooked Forchette, and 

Hell Creeks). The Service does not have primary 

jurisdiction over USACE’s developed areas, and 

these are not analyzed further. The camping areas 

that the Service manages are primitive, consisting of 

camping area and a vault toilet (see figure 15). Additionally, there are several historic homesteads found 

across the refuge; these are unobtrusive and are 

slowly fading into the landscape or even adding to 

the view. There are several areas with Service buildings across the refuge including Sand Creek Field 

Station, UL Bend Refuge, and Fort Peck Field Station, making up a small footprint. 

Management Activities 

Habitat and wildlife management practices or other 

public use activities can also affect visual resources. 

Sanderson et al. (1986) looked at the effect that intensive management activities on public lands have on scenic beauty and recreational activities. They found some 

recreationists placed a great emphasis on the visual 

qualities while others did not. They also found that dispersed recreationists do perceive differences in visual 

resources. In addition, perception about visual qualities differs among subgroups of recreationists.

Livestock Grazing on Wilderness and Nonwilderness 

Lands. Livestock grazing occurs across much of the 

refuge, but due to changes in ranch ownership, or 

because there were never AUMs allocated, some 

areas are not currently grazed (for example, most of 

UL Bend Refuge). Grazing occurs in some but not 

all of the proposed wilderness units. Some areas are 

grazed more heavily than others (see figure 16). Artificial water impoundments are also scattered across 

the refuge. Livestock are fenced out of some riparian 

areas along the Missouri and Musselshell Rivers, but 

in other riparian areas it is difficult to keep cattle out 

(for example, Big Dry Arm). Livestock congregate 

along water resources on the refuge, and monitoring 

has shown many of these areas to be degraded both 

in the biological and physical sense (refer to riparian 

areas and wetlands in section 4.3 below). 

Several studies have looked at visitor perceptions 

about livestock grazing on public lands, specifically 

how grazing relates to visitor experiences. Johnson et 

al. (1997) surveyed more than 1,000 visitors from different backgrounds to five wildernesses in Colorado 

and Utah. The proportion of visitors who accepted 

livestock grazing in wilderness and on public lands (43 

percent) was similar to the proportion to those who 

considered grazing unacceptable (40 percent). However, most of the visitors surveyed reported that direct 

encounters and negative livestock effects detracted 

from their wilderness experience. Wilderness visitors 

were more tolerant of grazing on nonwilderness public 

lands if properly managed to protect ecosystems like 

riparian areas. Many visitors made their judgments 

on issues related to what they observed. Mitchell et 

al. (1996) found varying attitudes from users in the 

Uncompahgre National Forest in Colorado. They concluded that as long as livestock are kept out of developed campgrounds and adjacent riparian areas used 

for fishing and dispersed camping, visitors to those 

locations are likely to be less offended by livestock 

grazing. Brunson and Gilbert (2003) found differences 

in the type of visitor seeking recreational experiences 

along with demographic characteristics. Hikers were 

more likely than hunters to have negative opinions 

about livestock management in a protected area, but 

hunters were more likely to report seeing moderate 

to heavy vegetation impacts as they were more likely 

to venture off trails. Sanderson et al. (1986) examined 

the effect of grazing intensity on scenic quality and 

found that anglers were the most vocal in responding 

to management activities that had a negative effect on 

riparian habitat. Similar to the study by Brunson and 

Gilbert (2003), they also found that the visual effects 

of livestock grazing did not bother hunters as long as 

it did not affect their chances for success. 

Prescribed Fire. Very little prescribed fire currently 

occurs on the refuge (refer to fire under disturbance 

factors affecting major ecological processes in section 

4.3 below). Fire management is a significant issue in 

this planning process and one that could affect visual 

resources. Several alternatives would increase the 

use of prescribed fire. This topic is described in detail 

under vegetation. 

Following Service policy (FWS 2000b), the Service uses prescribed fire in accordance with fire 

management plans and have the proper approvals. 

Smoke management is always a concern in using 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 175

Figures 15 and 16 follow 

(three foldout pages)
176 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 15. Map of water and geographic features in the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Figure 15 (water and geographic map, west)
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 177

 Figure 15 (water and geographic map, east)
178 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 16. Map of habitat units (grazing) in the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Figure 16 (habitat grazing units, west)
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 179

 Figure 16 (habitat grazing units, east)

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 181

prescribed fire, and planning for prescribed fires 

requires notification to local and State agencies 

(refer to air quality above). Substantial planning 

occurs in advance of a prescribed fire to limit the 

effects to visual resources (FWS 2000b) and to 

notify local agency officials. Prescribed fire is used to 

reduce vegetative litter and improve the vigor and 

health of plants, thus improving scenic values.

Airplanes and Motorboats

Although the visual sight of airplanes and motor 

boats could negatively affect some users, information 

about the aircraft and motorboat use is described 

under soundscapes below and under Access later in 

this chapter.

Other Conditions Affecting Visual Resources

Invasive species, severe drought conditions, and 

wildfires are other factors that potentially affect 

the refuge’s scenic values. Saltcedar infestations 

along the shoreline of the large rivers are pervasive. 

USACE conducts treatment below the high-watermark, but infestations move into the upland areas. 

Some former agricultural areas (river bottoms) have 

been heavily infested with invasive plants (refer to 

the discussion under vegetation). 

Wildfires, generally lightning-caused, occur 

frequently across the refuge during the summer 

months (refer to wildfires under uplands in section 

4.2 below). At times, there has been significant visible smoke during large wildfires, most recently during the large fires in 2003 and 2006. 

SOUNDSCAPES

A soundscape refers to the natural acoustic environment consisting of sounds such as wildlife vocalizations and weather events. The disruption of natural 

sounds can affect visitors and wildlife. An important 

quality of the refuge as identified by the public and 

staff is the opportunity to experience a remote recreational setting not available in other places (refer 

to “Chapter 2—Refuge History and Vision”). A tangible and intangible aspect of wilderness is maintaining soundscapes, whereby solitude is enhanced by 

the absence of distractions such as unnatural noise 

(FWS 2008c). Although the refuge is considered 

remote, there are several sources of noises found on 

the refuge that could affect a visitor’s experience:

■ motor vehicles including four-wheel-drive vehicles, ATVs, quadricycles, and snowmobiles

■ management activities associated with developed 

areas such as camping areas, restoration projects, 

and equipment

■ motorboat activity on Fort Peck Reservoir and 

the Missouri River

■ airplanes

■■ military overflights (This issue is outside the 

scope of this CCP and EIS and is not discussed 

further; refer to “Chapter 1—Introduction” for 

more information.)

Motor Vehicles

Most vehicle access occurs during the summer and 

fall months with most activity occurring during the 

hunting season. Snowmobiles are allowed on the frozen surface of Fort Peck Reservoir during the winter. All vehicles must be licensed to travel on refuge 

roads, and under Montana law noise emissions cannot exceed 96 decibels for all off-highway vehicles 

including snowmobiles.

Management Activities and Developed 

Recreation Areas

Activities associated from management activities 

and other recreation include equipment (such as 

generators), tractors, chainsaws, and other machinery. Few of the proposed wilderness units are near 

developed areas or bottomland restoration areas.

Restrictions are in place on motorboats to limit the 

effects on soundscapes along the wild and scenic 

river part of the refuge.

© Diane Hargreaves

Motorboats

From the refuge’s western boundary to the Fred 

Robinson Bridge, the Missouri River is designated as 

a unit of the Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River. Travel is limited upstream of the bridge 

from June 15 through September 15. Downstream 

travel is restricted to idle speeds only with no wake 

from Thursday through Saturday, and no motorized 

boats can travel downstream to the bridge on Mondays and Tuesdays. 

As with motor vehicles, Montana law limits noise 

emissions for motor boats (less than 86 decibels). 

Within the next few years, the Service will be initiating a study to assess the amount of boat use that 

occurs along the Missouri River, particularly during hunting season. The Service believes that more 
182 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

hunters are accessing the refuge from the river, but 

there is not enough information to assess the effects, 

if any, on wildlife populations.

Airplanes

Aircraft can only land in designated landing zones in 

accordance with USACE and the refuge’s seaplane 

landing plan (USACE 1995). There are no landing 

zones or landing areas west of Crooked Creek, but 

some landing zones and areas border or are near 

edges of proposed wilderness units (for example, 

Crooked Creek, Forchette, and Bone Trail). Landing zones are located near USACE developed recreation areas. In addition, there are several other 

landing areas on Fort Peck Reservoir. The number 

of aircraft flying over the refuge on an annual basis 

is unknown.

Hunting

Every year, more than 100,000 hunters come to the 

refuge to hunt big game, small game, and migratory 

birds (refer to the socioeconomic analysis in chapter 

5). Gunshots could potentially be heard. The distance 

that any weaponry could be heard varies greatly 

with the terrain and other factors.

LAND FEATURES, SOILS, and GEOLOGY

Many of the topographical and water sources in this 

section are identified on figure 15. The Missouri and 

Musselshell Rivers flow through deep valleys with 

narrow floodplains lying 500 to 1,000 feet below the 

average elevation of surrounding uplands. Elevations vary from slightly more than 2,000 feet above 

mean sea level near Fort Peck Dam to more than 

3,200 feet in the Seven Blackfoot area (see figure 15). 

Three main landforms—uplands, breaks and floodplains—dominate the refuge and surrounding area. 

Uplands are level to rolling prairies dissected by 

intermittent streams flowing toward the Missouri 

River in a generally eastward direction. These are 

the sagebrush–grassland plains typical of eastern 

Montana. 

The breaks lying along the Missouri River are 

typified by rough terrain often culminating in spectacular badlands. Badlands are arid, eroded land 

“breaks” of uplands that are dissected into steep 

slopes and grassy floodplains. This topography along 

the Missouri River varies from low, barren hills of 

the Big Dry area south of Fort Peck to severely 

eroded coulees of the scenic Seven Blackfoot and 

Burnt Lodge areas and the juniper, pine, and grassland ridges on the western half of refuge. Approximately 40–50 percent of lands within refuge consist 

of steep ridges and eroded coulees.

Floodplains occur along the Missouri and Musselshell Rivers at upper extremities of Fort Peck 

Reservoir and along some of the larger drainages. 

These developed from preglacial river and stream 

alluvium and are characterized by heavy clay soils, 

deciduous trees, sagebrush, and grassland. These 

floodplains are comparatively flat and vary in width 

from 25 yards to 2 miles.

The Judith River formation outcrops west of Rock 

Creek in Phillips County in major stream valleys. It 

comprises several hundred feet of interbedded shale, 

siltstone, and sandstone with scattered beds of lignite and bentonite. This formation has good stability, 

but its outcrop area is limited to steep slopes.

Bearpaw shale underlies more of refuge than any 

other formation. The breaks west of UL Bend Refuge are almost entirely composed of this shale as are 

lower slopes east of UL Bend, except in the central 

and southern parts of Big Dry Arm. Bearpaw shale 

is almost entirely composed of dark gray, clayey shale 

and includes thin beds of bentonite. The predominant 

particle size of this formation is clay, and the predominant clay mineral found in Bearpaw shale is montmorillonite. As a result, this unit swells when exposed 

in steep slopes and erodes rapidly at many locations.

Fox Hills sandstone comprises yellowish gray 

sandy shale, claystone, siltstone, and very fine-grain 

sandstone and grades upward into relatively thick 

beds of resistant fine and medium-grain yellowish 

brown sandstone. This formation is generally found 

in areas of high relief along Fort Peck Reservoir 

such as Larb Hills, Harper Ridge, and much of Garfield County. Along Big Dry Arm, Fox Hills sandstone is found south to Rock Creek (east).

The Hell Creek formation is generally found 

above 2,500 feet in elevation in the central and eastern parts of refuge. It comprises unconsolidated fine 

sediments such as claystone, shale, siltstone, and 

sandstone. Some of the clay and silt-rich zones of the 

formation tend to shrink and swell during excavation 

or when exposed to water. The Fort Union formation 

is found in Garfield and McCone Counties, east and 

west of Big Dry Arm and south of Rock Creek (east). 

It is also found in the highest parts of Larb Hills. 

Tullock member, most widely found subunit of the 

Fort Union formation of refuge, is light gray to dark 

gray shale alternating with sandy shale and gray to 

buff sandstones. Lignite beds are also found in association with this member. This formation responds 

similarly to the Hell Creek formation to most development activities.

Glacial till is found at scattered locations, particularly between Rock Creek (west), Phillips County, 

and Valentine Creek. This is dense, clay-like material with characteristics similar to Bearpaw shale. 

Outwash and related deposits are found west of UL 

Bend on low benches and in the Missouri River Valley, in the lee of bedrock ridges. These latter deposits are porous and stable.
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 183

Exposed rock found on the refuge dates to almost 

80 million years B.P. (before present, present=1950) 

or Late Cretaceous. Sedimentation dominated the 

area until about 58 million years B.P. For the next 55 

million years, sediments were successively eroded 

away as the plains and surrounding areas were sporadically uplifted. In the past 3 million years, glaciers 

advanced over the area, the most recent retreating 

northward about 20,000 years B.P.

Ice jams caused the highest levels of flooding 

on major streams such as the Missouri River, Big 

Dry Creek, and Musselshell River. Snowmelt runoff causes the greatest flood flow volumes on these 

same streams. High flows can occur on these streams 

any time from January to August. Rainstorms cause 

major flooding on smaller drainages.

All stream channels flowing through unconsolidated material meander over time. The Missouri 

River upstream of Fort Peck Reservoir has shifted 

as much as 2,000 feet over about 65 years, at average 

rates up to 30 feet per year. The Fort Peck Reservoir 

delta is the area of greatest channel change and sedimentation; other areas of channel change and bank 

erosion are found on most upstream parts of most 

stream bottoms.

Areas of current and past landslide activity 

cover about one-third of the surface area of the refuge. Steeply sloping areas in the western Bearpaw 

breaks, Garfield County, Larb Hills, and Harper 

Ridge have the most significant number of landslides. Landslides are of several types; slump-earth 

flows are the most common. Rapidly moving debris 

flows also occur, especially in the western Bearpaw 

breaks. Piping is an important erosional process in 

the Hell Creek formation and in landslide deposits. 

Pipes may collapse or create general ground instability. 

Mineral Development

There are no known gravel deposits on the refuge. Gravel used for road improvements in the Hell 

Creek area was hauled a considerable distance, making transportation costs a significant issue for future 

road improvements. Results of a mineral report 

(U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Mines 1979) 

show that parts of the area have a low to moderate 

bentonite potential and low diatreme gem potential. 

These located minerals have no economical mineral 

potential. The mineral estate was withdrawn in 1993 

(Public Land Order 6997) for 20 years on the Charles 

M. Russell Refuge and was permanently withdrawn 

on the UL Bend Refuge in 1970 (Public Land Order 

4826). There is no oil or gas development occurring 

on the refuge. The Service is currently seeking an 

extension of the 20-year mineral withdrawal for 

locatable minerals on Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge.

WATER RESOURCES

Water resources on the refuge include large rivers 

like the Missouri River, Musselshell River, and many 

smaller streams and tributaries, many of which are 

intermittent (see figure 15). In addition, there are 

livestock ponds scattered across the refuge.

Hydrology

The watershed of the Missouri River defines the 

Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. The river 

and its tributaries create a series of badlands or 

“breaks” consisting of rolling uplands, steep bluffs, 

and grassy floodplains. The river flows easterly 

through the refuge, with an average mean daily 

discharge of 8,915 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the 

entrance of the refuge above the Fort Peck Dam 

(USGS station Missouri River near Landusky, Montana, number 06115200). Peaks at this site since 

1934 have ranged from 8,460 cfs (2000) to 137,000 cfs 

(1953). The Missouri River leaves the refuge below 

Fort Peck Dam with an average mean daily discharge of 9,284 cfs. Peaks since 1934 have ranged 

from 7,200 cfs (2009) to 51,000 cfs (1946). The river 

itself flows about 300–500 feet below the refuge’s 

uplands. 

Upland areas on the refuge are drained by perennial (flows generally 90 percent of the time), intermittent (flows during wet months, generally only 

50 percent of the time), and ephemeral (flow only 

in response to storms) streams. The channels are 

deeply entrenched with floodplains being 15–20 feet 

above the water during low-water dry periods, and 

exhibit steep gradients in many areas. Clay from 

the Bearpaw and Lance shale erodes easily from the 

stream action: breaking, collapsing, and rolling into 

flows creates turbid waters and dynamic channels. 

Stressed riparian areas erode rapidly, with active 

gullying and active headcutting present in many 

watersheds. In 1995, the riparian area health of 113 

reaches on 75 separate streams was assessed (refer 

to riparian areas under vegetation for more information). All of the reaches assessed on 50 of the 75 

streams were found to be “nonfunctional.” Only six 

streams had all parts of the riparian zone at proper 

functioning condition. The water statistics in table 11 

are from streams on or near the refuge. 

The Musselshell River flows northerly through 

the refuge into the Missouri at Fort Peck Reservoir. USGS’s station at Mosby, just upstream the refuge, has an average mean daily flow of 253 cfs. Peak 

flows during 1929–2010 range from 90 to 18,000 cfs. 

Being a snowmelt-fed stream, the Musselshell River 

floods in the spring until mid-June, when flow begins 

to decrease. The low discharges in late summer and 

fall are dependent on ground water base flow and 

releases from reservoir storage. Occasional summer 

peaks appear in response to thunderstorms. MFWP 
184 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

lists 40 miles of the river from Mosby to its confluence with the Missouri as chronically dewatered 

each year. Water quality can also be an issue, as irrigation return flows bring salts flushed out of the irrigated fields. 

Due to the vastness and remoteness of most of 

the refuge watersheds, studies have been done to 

obtain better estimates of stream discharge and 

hydrograph behavior. USGS published several studies describing surface-water statistics for gauged 

and ungauged basins in and around the refuge. Parrett et al. (1983) used regional gauging station data 

to develop regression equations that describe mean 

annual streamflow for ungauged basins. Parrett and 

Johnson (2004) developed regression equations to 

estimate peak flows having recurrence intervals of 

2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 years for ungauged 

sites for all of Montana. Sando et al. (2009) used data 

more specific to the refuge and published, “Estimation of Streamflow Characteristics for Charles 

M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Northeastern 

Montana.” By using data from five gauging stations 

on the refuge, as well as long-term gauging stations 

near the refuge, the publication provides methods of 

estimating the long-term median streamflow, 2.33-

year peak flow thought to be bankfull or “channelforming,” and maintenance flows, as well as monthly 

and annual 90-, 80-, 50-, and 20-percent exceedence 

streamflows. (An exceedence flow means there is an 

“×” percent chance the actual flow will exceed the 

given value. For instance, an 80-percent exceedence 

monthly flow for July is low in value and represents 

a “dry” year, because there is an 80-percent chance 

the actual July value will be higher.) In addition, the 

study provided monthly and annual mean streamflows for ungauged watersheds.

Higher streamflows typically occur from February through August, and lower flows occur September through January. The highest mean monthly 

volumes generally occur in March and April, due to 

snowmelt runoff. April and May flows decrease as 

snowmelt amounts diminish. Late spring and summer rainstorms create fast rising and diminishing 

flood peaks in June and July. Flows in August and 

autumn are low or zero, and frequently are only a 

result of ground-water base flow. 

Ground water occurs at shallow depths in the Hell 

Creek–Fox Hills Sandstone Strata. The hydrostratagraphic sandstone intervals yield small quantities 

of water suitable for livestock and wildlife. These 

Table 11. Average daily discharge and peak flows for six USGS water stations on or near the Charles M. Russell 

and UL Bend Refuges.

Name and location

USGS 

station 

number

Average daily discharge 

(cubic feet per second [cfs])

Lowest peak 

on record (cfs)

Highest peak 

on record (cfs)

Period of record 

(cfs)

Armells Creek near 

Landusky, Montana 06115270 8.5 192 2910 2001–2004

Duval Creek near 

Landusky, 

Montana 

06115300 0.09 0 640

 2001–2004

(mean daily)

1963–2007

(peaks)

Rock Creek near 

Landusky, 

Montana 

06115350 2.36 12 1660 2001–2004

Hell Creek near 

Jordan, Montana 06130650 2.23 120 1700 2001–2004

Nelson Creek near 

Van Norman, 

Montana

06131200 1.5 5 1750 1976–2008

Big Dry Creek near 

Van Norman, 

Montana 

06131000 47.9 47 24600 1940–2006
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 185

strata occur north of Fort Peck Reservoir and in the 

southeast part of Phillips County. At lower depths, 

ground water occurs in the Judith River Formation. Water-bearing sandstone strata can yield fair 

amounts of ground water; however, quality can be 

an issue due to salinity levels. Artesian pressure created by the thick layer of impervious Bearpaw Shale 

overlying the formation allows wildlife and stock 

wells to flow without the aid of pumps.

Water Rights

The United States holds Federal reserved water 

rights appurtenant to land withdrawn pursuant to 

Executive Order 7509, dated December 11, 1936, 

which established the refuge. The reserved right has 

the priority of the 1936 withdrawal.

The United States also holds Federal reserved 

water rights appurtenant to land withdrawn pursuant to Public Land Order 4588, dated March 25, 1969, 

which established UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. This order removed some reserved lands from 

the refuge and included them within the UL Bend 

Refuge, and also withdrew additional lands from the 

public domain for the new refuge. The reserved right 

has the priority of the 1969 withdrawal.

The United States is in the process of quantifying 

these reserved rights with the Montana Reserved 

Water Rights Compact Commission. The Commission was created by the Montana Legislature in 1979 

to “conclude compacts for the equitable division and 

apportionment of waters between the State and its 

people and the several Native American tribes claiming reserved water rights within the State (MCA 

85–2–701), and between the State and its people 

and the Federal Government claiming non-Indian 

reserved waters within the State (MCA 85–2–703).”

The United States has already successfully 

achieved compacts for the Black Coulee, Benton 

Lake, and Red Rocks Lakes National Wildlife Refuges. The United States anticipates the compact for 

the refuge including UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge will be modeled in a similar manner, with protection of existing private rights, protection of enough 

water to carry out the primary purpose of the refuge, and dovetailing in refuge water protection with 

operations of the Service’s sister agency, and largest 

landholder upgradient of the refuge, BLM. The Service’s 1936 Federal reserved water right is senior to 

most BLM water rights. The United States has until 

July 1, 2013 to complete the compact.

In addition to Federal reserved water rights, the 

United States also holds State-based water rights. 

Before July 1, 1982, and in accordance with the Montana Water Use Act, the Service filed Statements of 

Claim to water rights appurtenant to the refuge and 

with priority dates earlier than July 1, 1973. Claims 

were filed for water rights vested on acquired land as 

well as land reserved from public domain. Since 1982, 

the State of Montana has proceeded with examining 

and adjudicating many of these claims. The basins 

the refuge covers and each basin’s adjudication status are as follows:

■ 40EJ, Missouri River between Musselshell River 

and Fort Peck Dam; claims are being examined

■ 40E, Missouri River, between Musselshell River 

and Fort Peck Dam; temporary decree

■ 40O, Milk River, below Whitewater including 

Porcupine Creek; preliminary decree

■ 40S, Missouri River, below Fort Peck Dam; preliminary decree

■ 40C, Missouri River, Musselshell River, below 

Roundup; temporary decree

■ 40D, Dry Creek; preliminary decree

■ 41S, Judith River; temporary decree

Temporary (decrees for areas that have Federal or 

tribal reserved water rights but where the rights 

have been left out until they are affirmed) and preliminary decrees (decrees for areas that do not have 

Federal or tribal reserved water rights) are issued 

to allow for interested parties to file objections if 

they disagree on the merits of a claim. Objections 

to Statements of Claim are resolved by the Montana Water Court, which then issues a final decree. 

Entry of the final decree begins the appeal-filing 

period where appeals are decided by the Montana 

Supreme Court. Some very small areas of the refuge are in basins with preliminary decrees but the 

United States has not waived its Federal reserved 

rights in those basins. The following are the number 

of claims filed by the United States:

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

Basin 40C: 10 claims

Basin 40D: 4 claims

Basin 40E: 142 claims

Basin 40EJ: 128 claims

Basin 40O: 4 claims

Basin 40S: 4 claims

Basin 41S: 2 claims

UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge

Basin 40E: 36 claims

Basin 40EJ: 14 claims

Most of the claims were for small, water storage 

impoundments used for wildlife and stock watering. 

Two hundred forty-eight claims were filed for ponds, 

which hold 2,138 acre-feet of water. Ninety-eight 

claims were filed for other pre-1973 water diversions such as wells, springs, dikes, instream flow, and 

stream and lake pumps.

Private individuals also filed claims to pre-1973 

stock water rights on refuge lands. The United 

States filed objections against all of these claims, 
186 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

asserting prior case law and statutes precluded and 

preempted the establishment of such rights. In June 

2005, in Case No. 40E–A, the Montana Water Court 

ruled private State-based stock water rights could 

exist on Federal land. Since this ruling, the United 

States has reviewed the validity of each claim and is 

in the process of settling. Prior court decisions have 

affirmed the United States’ position that ownership 

of these stock water rights appurtenant to Federal 

land does not grant grazing access to Federal land, 

nor does being refused grazing privileges constitute 

a taking of the private property water right.

In addition to claims for pre-1973 water rights 

and Federal reserved water rights, the refuge also 

holds permits or certificates to post-1973 water 

rights. In addition, the refuge filed late claims on 

some pre-1973 developments. The number of preand post-1973 ponds only on the refuge is 265; these 

ponds hold 2,207 acre-feet of water.

Water Quality Monitoring

Water quality on the lower Musselshell River 

exceeds State Water Quality Standards for total dissolved solids including sodium and alkalinity (Musselshell River Basin Water Management Study; U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation 1998). This study was established to monitor changes in water quality, quantity, 

and aquatic habitat as they relate to management. 

Best management practices were carried out on a 

watershed-wide basis along the Lower Musselshell 

River: offsite stock water tanks, riparian area fencing, rotational grazing, and improved irrigation efficiencies including land smoothing and installation of 

gated pipe and sprinkler systems. 

Long-term monitoring sites were established 

along the 72 miles of river from 8 miles south of 

Mosby, Montana to the refuge at Fort Peck Reservoir (Hollow et al. 2001). Nine water quality sites 

were established and samples were taken three 

times per year for 2 years. Of the 71 miles of river, 

20 miles were inventoried. The Musselshell River 

was listed by the Montana Department of Environmental Equality 303(d) list a “moderate” priority waterbody in need of total daily maximum 

loads development for the 1998–2000 biennium. The 

Lower Musselshell River was listed as a “high” priority waterbody under the 2000–02 biennium 303(d). 

It was listed as impaired for chronic dewatering and 

riparian habitat alteration and in need of total daily 

maximum loads development. DNRC has found that 

the Musselshell River meets the criteria for designation as a chronically dewatered watercourse. Lower 

part of the Musselshell River is a fourth order, perennially flowing waterbody. Flow peaks in spring after 

snowmelt and diminishes by late summer. 

The Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality has also listed several other surface waters 

besides the Musselshell River that run through 

the refuge as water quality-impaired under section 

303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Segments of Rock 

Creek and Nelson Creek, as well as the Missouri 

River and Fort Peck Reservoir, are listed as water 

quality impaired by Montana Department of Environmental Quality and require an assessment of the 

total maximum daily load (commonly called TMDL) 

of a pollutant a waterbody can receive and still meet 

water quality standards (Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality 2011). 

The Missouri River within the refuge boundary 

is listed as water quality impaired. Likely causes of 

impairment are arsenic and copper, probably from 

abandoned mine sites, none of which are located on 

refuge lands. Alteration in streamside or littoral 

vegetation cover is also listed as a potential cause of 

poor water quality. Of the 49 miles of the Missouri 

River within the refuge boundary, approximately 

95 percent of the stretch of river has been excluded 

from livestock grazing since 1995. This management 

action has improved riparian habitat on the Missouri, 

particularly on the refuge. The Missouri River riparian area corridor on the refuge, above Fort Peck 

Lake, is one of the few areas where the riparian habitat is functioning to its fullest potential. 

Rock Creek in Phillips County is also listed as 

water quality impaired with lead, mercury, selenium, 

zinc, cadmium, copper and pH as probable causes 

(likely from abandoned mine lands.) Fecal coliform 

is also listed as a probable cause of water quality 

impairment, likely from grazing in riparian zones. 

Rock Creek drainage is approximately 39 miles long, 

with the lower 7 miles inside the refuge boundary. 

The riparian zones on the refuge’s 7-mile stretch of 

Rock Creek are fenced to eliminate livestock grazing 

to protect the riparian area and water quality. There 

has been tremendous improvement to the riparian 

area health on the refuge on the lower 7 miles of 

Rock Creek drainage. Where it has jurisdiction, the 

Service will continue to manage to improve riparian 

area health on these streams and rivers. 

Nelson Creek in McCone County is listed as 

water quality impaired with sulfates, nitrates, copper, and cadmium and the altered streamside or littoral vegetative cover listed as probable causes. The 

heavy metals source is unknown, while the nitrates, 

sulfates and streamside or littoral vegetative cover 

alteration are likely caused from grazing in riparian 

zones. Nelson Creek runs 37 miles, 2 miles of which 

are on refuge lands and fenced to exclude livestock 

grazing. 

Fort Peck Lake is listed as water quality impaired 

with lead and mercury from various sources listed 

as causes. Native aquatic plants from agriculture 

are also listed as a probable cause of water quality 

impairment. Fort Peck Lake is surrounded by the 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 187

refuge lands, but drains an immense area and inherits water quality problems from contributing rivers 

and streams. 

Riparian health on a national wildlife refuge is of 

utmost importance because of the high value to wildlife. Many of the water quality impairments originate upstream of the refuge. 

In 1999–2000, the refuge contracted with the University of Montana’s Riparian and Wetland Research 

Program and Dr. Paul Hanson to conduct water quality analyses for nutrients, fecal coliform, total dissolved 

solids, total suspended solids, and flow on the refuge. 

Conductivity, pH, and temperature were also measured at each of nine established water quality sites. 

Macroinvertebrate sampling and periphyton sampling 

were performed. The analyses of periphyton populations showed no impairment and full support of aquatic 

life uses. In particular, the siltation index showed that 

sediment was not a cause of impairment. Periphyton 

is considered a good indicator of water quality because 

of the naturally high number of species and their ability to respond rapidly to both exposure and recovery 

from pollution events. The siltation index evaluates 

the percentage of diatoms that are mobile. Their abundance is thought to reflect the amount and frequency 

of siltation. The Lower Musselshell River had a siltation index of 32.84–49.26. The causes of pollution in the 

Lower Musselshell River are attributed to flow alteration and riparian area degradation. The Water Quality 

Restoration Plan includes voluntary implementation 

for irrigators and landowners to use best management 

practices by land smoothing, converting flood systems 

to sprinklers, improving irrigation ditches, and installing gated pipe, upgrading management of irrigation 

water and installing flow measuring devices, and using 

soil moisture monitoring methods. Grazing operations’ 

and landowners’ recommendations include implementing best management practices by installing cross fencing, stock water pipeline with offsite water facilities 

and developing grazing plans on rangelands.

On the refuge, the Riparian and Wetland 

Research Program’s Lotic Inventory form was used 

to evaluate and characterize the function and present condition of selected reaches of the Musselshell 

River within the riparian area corridor. Health 

scores range from 77 percent (functional at risk) to 

44 percent (not functioning). The Riparian and Wetland Research Program’s Lotic Health Assessment 

for Large River Systems was used to evaluate the 

general functioning condition of 20 miles of the river. 

Ninety-two percent of reaches inventoried showed a 

range of ratings from 60–80 percent (functioning at 

risk), and 8 percent scored less than 60 percent (not 

functioning). Reasons for low health score included 

low cover of woody species, presence of invasive 

plants, lack of native graminoids, and dewatering. Some positive findings included lack of humancaused bare ground, few exotic woody species, high 

shrub regeneration and high cottonwood regeneration as well as high densities of dead or decadent 

woody species. 

Healthy riparian systems enhance water quality by filtering out organic and chemical pollutants 

(Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). Water quality is closely 

related to soil erosion and sedimentation. These can 

be associated with vegetation cover, concentration 

of livestock grazing, and geologic erosion. High concentrations of sediment loads, and fecal coliforms can 

have a major effect in altering an existing stream 

ecosystem or even creating an entirely new ecosystem (Kauffman and Krueger 1984). 

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The following sections describe the biological resources that may be affected by implementation 

of the CCP. Biological characteristics include vegetation communities (often referred to as habitats) and wildlife including big game, furbearers, 

small predators birds, American bison, other wildlife (amphibians, reptiles, fish, and small mammals), 

and threatened and endangered species and species 

of concern. Unless otherwise noted, much of the following information is from unpublished Service data 

located in files at the refuge office. 

Habitat for wildlife is the combination of vegetation and topography that provides the water, food, 

and protection that is necessary for their survival. 

The diverse vegetation provides thousands of habitat types supporting hundreds of wildlife species 

(see figure 17) across the nearly 750,000–800,000 

acres of land found on the refuge. Habitat needs for 

some species are very general, while others are very 

specific. This section initially discusses the disturbance factors that have affected the major ecological 

processes on the refuge. Following this, the discussion is organized into four broad categories of vegetation: uplands, river bottoms, riparian areas, and 

shoreline vegetation. Invasive species are discussed 

at the end of this section. 

Vegetation types are traditionally classified into 

plant communities with specific characteristics and 

defined boundaries. While plant communities are 

useful for describing dominant vegetation types and 

constructing maps, they do not illustrate the complexity, integrity, and management needs of individual areas. For example, general plant community 

descriptions do not adequately represent subdominant plant species that are more sensitive to change 

and disturbance, are more difficult to detect yet are 

more important for biological integrity (sentinel species; refer to section 3.8 in chapter 3 for descriptions 

of focal, target, and sentinel species). Recognizing 
188 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

the complexity of vegetation and habitats and the 

importance of sentinel species as an indicator of environmental health, the Service strives to manage the 

refuge for biological integrity, diversity, and function 

rather than generalized plant communities. For this 

reason, the Service does not classify vegetation into 

traditional plant communities. Refer to appendix F 

for a list of important sentinel species.

DISTURBANCE FACTORS AFFECTING 

MAJOR ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES 

Fire, herbivory (grazing by all ungulates), and predation (including hunting) are key factors that have 

affected the plant species’ populations on the refuge. 

Other disturbance factors include invasive species, 

roads, and other public use activities such as hunting. 

The legacy of these natural and human caused disturbances has resulted in the vegetation and habitat 

mosaic that exists today. Understanding these factors, 

their history, and their influences on the landscape is 

a key component of the CCP, its alternatives and its 

implementation. The following discussion includes a 

brief history of ecological change on the refuge, followed by descriptions of the key disturbance factors.

The Great Plains have evolved over time through 

ecological disturbances like fire and grazing. These 

disturbances can be described as “pulse” and “press.” 

A pulse occurrence occurs sporadically but still occurs; 

whereas a press disturbance is constant. Historically on 

the refuge, the interaction between fire and grazing can 

be viewed over the following periods (see figure 18).

■ 1700–1882: Fire and wild ungulates interacted 

to create constantly shifting mosaic patches of 

land influenced by grazing and abandonment. 

Predation by wolves, grizzly bears, and humans 

occurred yearlong. There was a decrease in predators and wild ungulates during the last years. 

The last large wild bison herd was destroyed in 

1882 (FWS 2010d).

■ 1882–1910: This period saw the end of free-ranging 

wild ungulate herds and the shifting mosaic of grazing and abandonment with the beginning of fences 

and constant excessive grazing by cattle and sheep 

(no more periods of abandonment), the end of large 

predators, and a great reduction in fire.

■ 1910–1986: This period saw a constant grazing by 

livestock with no abandonment, a continued low 

fire frequency due to suppression and lack of fuel, 

and an increase in wild ungulates; in later years, 

there were no large predators.

■ 1986–present: This period has seen a reduction in 

livestock grazing, an increase in wild ungulates, 

continued fire suppression, few large predators, 

an increase in fine fuel, and an increase in wildfire 

size and intensity after 2000.

Fire

Wildfire, historically a pulse or sporadic disturbance, 

occurs over much of the refuge. Depending on the 

site, the average frequency of occurrence of fire in 

pre-European settlement times ranged from every 

decade or less (in many sites) to once a century in 

a few sites (Frost 2008). As shown in the timeline 

above, since European settlement, the frequency of 

fire has been dramatically reduced because of a lack 

of fuel (due to livestock grazing) and fire suppression. 

Fire-intolerant plant species such as big sagebrush 

and Rocky Mountain juniper have spread from their 

original fire refugia (areas with longer fire-return 

intervals and periods of drought) and now occupy a 

much larger part of the landscape. Exceptions have 

been the recent large fires in 2003 and 2006 in the 

middle of the refuge. The behavior of these was 

largely driven by long-term drought conditions and 

extreme fire weather. 

Prescribed fire has been used sparingly on the 

refuge. Only 15 burns have been ignited since 1992, 

treating 3,077 acres. Except for the King Island burn 

in 2008, all have been in the river bottoms, prairie 

dog towns, or on the lakeshore. The specific prescribed fire objectives were to reduce Russian knapweed infestations and enhance habitat suitability for 

prairie dogs or piping plover. The King Island burn 

was the refuge’s initial treatment of a 1,000-acre unit 

with fire to reestablish a more natural fire regime, 

enhance upland habitat, and promote pyric herbivory (grazing enhanced by fire).

Herbivory

Like fire, ungulate grazing (herbivory) was originally a pulse disturbance. Before 1882, there were 

many years with periods of abandonment (rest) by 

ungulates where less grazing took place due to its 

interaction with fire. Since 1882, it has become a constant (press) disturbance because of fences and fire 

control. As a result, highly palatable species (particularly shrubs and forbs such as chokecherry and 

white prairieclover) have dramatically declined. 

These species evolved with and are highly adapted 

to grazing when combined with several-year periods of abandonment for recovery. Palatable shrubs 

require several years to grow from seed to seedbearing maturity and are alive aboveground (or vulnerable to damage from grazing) 12 months of the 

year. Present-day livestock grazing systems typically only rest pastures for 1 entire year or less from 

livestock use (with no rest from wild ungulate use). 

Livestock and wild ungulate numbers have had 

an additive negative effect on ecological systems. 

Even though each herbivore species has a different diet, some plant species such as Maximilian sunflower and saltbush (sentinel species for herbivory) 

are eaten by all. Thus far, the management of each 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 189

Figures 17 and 18 follow 

(three foldout pages)
190 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 17. Map of habitat types for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Source: Cecil Frost. Figure 17 (habitat, west)
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 191

 Figure 17 (habitat, east)
192 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 18. Map of fire frequency for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Source: Frost 2008. Figure 18 (fire frequency. west)
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 193

 Figure 18 (fire frequency, east)

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 195

herbivore species on the refuge and elsewhere has 

been independent of the others, leading to overuse 

of sentinel plant species. 

Predation and Hunting

When Lewis and Clark first traveled through the refuge in the early 1800s (Moulton 2002), they reported 

seeing grizzly bears and other predators. Historically, in the Missouri River Breaks ecosystem, 

wolves, grizzly bears, and Native Americans once 

slowed the growth rates of ungulate populations in 

between unfavorable climatic events, which also curtailed population numbers. This helped keep ungulate populations from destroying many plant species. 

Presently hunting is the only tool used to control the 

ungulates found on the refuge. 

Fencing

As of 2009, more than 700 miles of fence have been 

constructed on the refuge with about 425 miles constructed since implementation of the 1986 EIS. 

Fencing is used to delineate the refuge boundary, 

fence between pastures, fence off riparian areas, or 

exclude wildlife and cattle for monitoring purposes. 

Fences have been used to exclude livestock in several riparian areas (for example, Rock Creek in Phillips County and Bobcat Creek in McCone County). 

Fences are generally about 42 inches high, three 

strands with 12 inches between wires with bottom wire about 18 inches above the ground to allow 

pronghorn to pass under. Most cattle exclosures are 

generally four-strand barbwire, with the bottom 

wire being 16 inches above the ground and the top 

wire being about 44 inches high. There are two types 

of total exclosures used on the refuge. One type is 

built with woven wire and the second type is built 

with modified portable stock panels. Both are about 

8 feet tall and designed to keep out all ungulates. 

There are roughly 40–50 cattle exclosures on the refuge and about the same number of total exclosures. 

Fencing is a management tool that can be used to 

improve the health of landscapes or harm them. It is 

often an unnecessary impediment to wildlife movement. Fencing, together with heavy grazing, and 

fire suppression effectively ended the historical fire 

grazing interaction. Grazing animals were no longer 

able to move freely to fire and abandon other locations, allowing other areas to rest for multiyear periods. On the refuge, boundary fences have improved 

the health of many plant species by controlling or 

eliminating excessive livestock influences from surrounding lands. 

Water Development

Impoundments for livestock water have been developed throughout the refuge (refer to the water rights 

discussion under the previous “Water Resources” 

section). These impoundments negatively affect 

riparian areas and prairie stream functions by holding water that would have supplied these areas down 

to the rivers. These artificial water resources also 

concentrate livestock, which severely impact vegetation within about 1 mile of these water sources. 

When livestock are present plant species and thus 

wildlife habitats are often damaged in large areas 

surrounding the impoundments. Impoundments 

are unnecessary for wild ungulates. They can easily 

travel to stream water sources when they have not 

been destroyed. Water in streams has been reduced 

by these impoundments, by irrigation off the refuge, by loss of beaver foods (and beaver) due to livestock grazing, and by livestock trampling and use of 

riparian stream catchments. As impoundments are 

removed and natural riparian areas are restored, 

beaver-created ponds and wetland areas will replace 

the human-constructed ponds. Wild ungulates and 

other wildlife can then easily travel to natural stream 

water sources.

Biologists have long hypothesized that in arid 

areas of the country, the scarcity of free-standing water limited numbers of game animals. During 

the 1940’s and 1950’s wildlife managers in the west 

spent considerable time and money enhancing existing water supplies as well as developing new water 

sources (Rosenstock et al. 1999). These same new 

water sources (such as ponds, catchments, stock 

tanks, and dugouts) also benefited livestock. Because 

of human use of water, many of the new, constructed, 

water supplies for wildlife are actually mitigating 

the loss of naturally occurring water sources (Krausman et al. 2006). Wildlife water developments are currently being scrutinized as to whether their benefits 

outweigh the adverse effects caused by concentrating 

wildlife in areas and at numbers that would not have 

normally been found. The use and promotion of constructed water catchments as a wildlife management 

tool remains controversial (Krausman et al. 2006). 

Waterfowl use of stock ponds has been extensively studied (Candelaria and Wood 1981). Migratory 

waterfowl use constructed stock ponds; however, natural marshes and beaver-created wetlands are better in quality (Brown and Dinsmore 1986). In North 

Dakota, studies on the distribution of breeding ducks 

and wetland habitat type showed that the highest 

number of breeding ducks were found on natural 

ponds and lakes (76 percent) and the lowest on stock 

ponds and dugouts (5 percent) (Stewart and Kantrud 

1973). The suitability of constructed ponds for waterfowl is influenced by size and characteristics of emergent and bank vegetation. The type of land use around 

the ponds most determines their use by waterfowl. 

Grassy shorelines instead of mud shorelines are a 

deciding factor as to whether ponds are useful for 

waterfowl breeding. Livestock trample shoreline 

vegetation, muddy the shorelines and water, which 
196 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

results in a decrease in the amount of aquatic vegetation and consequently wildlife food. Livestock also 

contaminates shorelines and water with droppings 

(Candelaria and Wood 1981). Studies do show that 

restoring wetlands on large tracts of native grassland 

increases duck productivity much more so than creating more water surface area such as with livestock 

ponds (Ball et al. 1995, Mack and Flake 1980, Shearer 

1960).

Studies in Montana show that the best constructed 

ponds for waterfowl are larger than 1.2 acres, with 

irregular shorelines and more than 40 percent of their 

areas less than 2 feet deep (Ball et al. 1995, Lokemoen 1973). Silted ponds receive less use by all waterfowl at all times of year. When comparing constructed 

ponds that are fenced and unfenced, little difference 

in adult pairs or brood use was recorded. Stock ponds 

are more important to breeding waterfowl than dugouts and diked dugouts, dugouts were the least important (Lokemoen 1973). When comparing stock ponds in 

South Dakota, waterfowl use was highest when there 

were natural pond basins near the constructed ponds. 

Grain fields near ponds are also important for waterfowl use (Rumble and Flake 1983). 

Constructed impoundments on the refuge are of 

little use for breeding, brooding or migratory waterfowl. Although migratory waterfowl do use constructed impoundments for resting, the refuge pond 

sizes are smaller than the “large size” ponds recommended in the scientific literature. Stock ponds 

(excluding the UL Bend) range from 140 to 800 linear feet with the majority smaller than 600 linear feet (refuge maintenance database). Pond sizes 

convert to approximately 0.03–1.2 acres with most 

smaller than 0.7 acre, which is about half the size 

recommended for breeding and brooding waterfowl. 

The natural pond basins and riparian areas needed 

close to constructed ponds are also deficient or missing in many areas of the refuge due to impoundments 

reducing natural waterflows. The refuge is also lacking the important grain fields nearby, which makes 

constructed ponds useful to migrating waterfowl. 

Roads

Roads (also discussed under public use and visual 

resources) are not a natural part of landscapes and 

destroy the native plants that were present or could 

be present on the road site. Roads, because they are 

artificial firebreaks, have contributed to the reduction in fire frequency and loss of the fire–herbivory interaction. Most invasive plant infestations on 

public lands are found alongside the roads and adjacent to roads where hunters camp or associated with 

illegal off-road use (USFS 2003). They also result 

in habitat fragmentation, which has been shown to 

exacerbate the problem of habitat loss for grassland 

birds (Johnson and Igl 2001).

Roads can become braided and unsightly, particularly during wet periods.

USFWS

Invasive Plant Species

Numerous noxious or invasive plant species have 

affected habitats on the refuge. This topic is addressed in detail at the end of the vegetation section. 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 197

UPLANDS

Uplands make up most of the refuge. The uplands 

comprise grassland, shrubland, and forest. The 

grassland and shrubland communities compose more 

than 60 percent of the upland area, and forest communities cover about 30 percent of the uplands.

Common grass species include western wheatgrass, bluebunch, wheatgrass, green needlegrass, 

and blue grama. Western wheatgrass and blue grama 

have increased while the other species have declined 

over time. With the reduction or elimination of summer grazing, bluebunch, and green needlegrass have 

responded positively and are increasing. Japanese 

brome has invaded all grasslands, especially those 

in poor condition. The forbs associated with grassland and shrubland in excellent condition include 

white prairieclover, purple prairieclover, dotted gayfeather, purple coneflower, and stiff sunflower. These 

forbs continue to decline even in the best-condition 

grasslands and, for the most part, have been eliminated from fair-condition grasslands. 

Shrubs important to wildlife include big sagebrush, silver sagebrush, juniper, chokecherry, golden 

currant, redosier dogwood, and silver buffaloberry. 

Shrubs across the refuge are not found where they 

once were. All shrubs—except for big sagebrush and 

juniper, which are in better health in areas with low 

herbivory (grazing)—have declined in historical distribution, density, and plant height.

Key upland trees include ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and some limber pine. Over time, ponderosa 

pine and Douglas-fir have increased across the refuge, especially in the western part; some trees are 

several hundred years old. A few green ash and cottonwood trees are scattered in the upland coulees 

(ravines), and aspen trees dot the sheltered coulees. 

The refuge’s total plant community contains more 

biomass of grasses than of other plant groups. Generally, the land can support a high biomass of large 

ungulates such as elk, bison, and domestic cattle 

based primarily on these grasses. However, sentinel 

shrubs and forbs, which have been affected by ungulate numbers and altered fire-return intervals, disappear long before grasses. 

Winterfat and golden currant, both shrubs, are two 

of several sentinel plant species identified for refuge 

habitats. 

.L. Wagner / Smithsonian Institution W

Golden Currant

Gary A. Monroe / USDA–NRCS PLANTS Database

Sentinel Plant Species

Sentinel plant species are early warning indicators 

for ecosystems: they are the first species to decline or 

vanish in ecological systems when evolutionary natural processes such as herbivory, predation, and fire 

change. The Service has been monitoring the health 

of these important plant species on the refuge since 

2003 and has found that some are beginning to diminish due to the changes to natural processes that have 

occurred. Different species of sentinel plants are 

adapted to all the temperature, moisture, and physical gradients present on the refuge and are more sensitive to changes in management or environmental 

conditions than general plant communities. 

The concept of sentinel species monitoring is 

not new. In 1947, Aldo Leopold discussed diagnostic plant species that were early to respond to ungulate grazing pressure (Leopold et al. 1947). More 

recently, focal species are understood to be the indi-
198 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

vidual wildlife species that have the most stringent limitations for area, dispersal, or resources or 

are limited by ecological processes (Lambeck 1997). 

(Refer to section 3.8 in chapter 3 for descriptions of 

focal, target, and sentinel species). While animal species are clearly the best indicators of habitat area 

and dispersal needs, plant species (as suggested by 

Landsberg and Crowley (2004)) are important indicators of habitat quality and the ecological processes 

that sustain it. An important limiting component for 

many, if not most, animals is the availability of quality foods (White 1978). Even generalist herbivores 

prefer the highest quality plants (Mysterud 2006), 

which are the first to decline or disappear. Sentinel 

plant species include the most valuable wildlife forage, fruit, and pollen producing food plants. Sentinel 

species are also important indicators for monitoring 

biological diversity (Noss 1991, Gibson and Bosch 

1996, Simberloff 1998, Rogers and Biggs 1999, Cousins and Lindborg 2004, Cushman et al. 2008), which 

are a critical component of wildlife conservation and 

a defining purpose of the Refuge System. Monitoring for sentinel plants is a key measure of success or 

failure of the Service’s desire to promote ecological 

resilience by managing for natural and diverse processes (see chapter 3 upland objectives). 

Sentinel species are early to respond to adverse 

or beneficial changes in management or environmental conditions, while general plant communities may 

take decades to respond, which may be too late to 

understand the implications for the most sensitive 

plant and animal species. This is why sentinel species are important for monitoring the direct effects 

of current management on ecological processes and 

overall habitat conditions. This diagnostic approach 

to habitat monitoring is an important and valuable 

tool for the ongoing management of all wildlife habitats, especially when time and money are limited.

Grasses

Grasses are important foods for the largest herbivores, such as domestic cattle and bison. They are 

not a major food for pronghorn or for bird species 

such as greater sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, or 

migratory songbirds. Grasses furnish protection for 

many species such as Baird’s sparrow and upland 

sandpiper. Grasses are fire-adapted, returning from 

roots or seeds. Unlike forbs, shrubs, or trees, grasses 

have low growing points, making them exceedingly 

well adapted to herbivory. Grasses are not considered first-to-decline sentinel species. 

Two of the taller and most palatable grasses are 

bluebunch wheatgrass and green needlegrass; these 

grasses dominate the better soils when grazing is 

light. Under the current practice of constant grazing, when these two grasses decline from overuse, 

in localized areas, palatable shrubs and forbs are 

reduced to remnants or locally eliminated. In some 

areas, as bluebunch wheatgrass and green needlegrass have declined, there has been an increase of 

low-growing grasses such as blue grama and Sandberg bluegrass that now cover much more area than 

what was described by NRCS for ecological site 

potentials. This change is probably the result of constant grazing and overuse by ungulates.

Forbs

Forbs are broad-leaved, nonwoody, flowering plants 

(for example, sunflowers). The leaves and seeds of 

forbs furnish food for many species of wildlife. Species that depend on forbs include greater sage-grouse 

(spring and summer food), pronghorn, and goldfinch. 

Forbs are perhaps the most important hosts for pollinating insects. In turn, insects are essential foods 

for most migratory and resident birds. Forbs are 

fire-adapted, meaning they return from their roots 

or seeds after fire. Unlike grasses, their growing 

points are on the tips of their stems. Several species 

are sentinels (among the first to decline from herbivory) and include white prairieclover, purple prairieclover, and Maximilian sunflower.

In some areas of the refuge, palatable forbs 

including white prairieclover and Maximilian sunflower, have been reduced to remnants or locally 

eliminated. The reduction in populations is likely 

due to constant selective grazing, fire suppression, 

and competition from less palatable native species or 

invasive species. Palatable forb populations historically benefited from fire and periods of less grazing 

pressure.

Shrubs and Trees

Shrubs and trees furnish protection and food for 

many of the refuge’s wildlife species: fruit for sharptailed grouse and cedar waxwing, browse for mule 

deer and pronghorn, and nesting sites for the redtailed hawk and Bullock’s oriole.

First-to-decline, fire-intolerant species of trees 

and shrubs were historically confined to places that 

have little fuel or are difficult for fire to reach (refugia) 

(Frost 2008). Fire refugia are common due to the refuge’s poor soils and rough topography. Fire suppression and constant herbivory pressure has benefited 

big sagebrush, junipers, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir. Ponderosa pine is usually killed by fire when it 

is young, but older trees have thick fire-adapted bark 

that often prevents death in a low-intensity fire that 

does not reach the crown. Wildfire, after long periods 

of fire suppression, can burn in these refugia areas 

due to crowning and spotting caused by the heavy fuel 

load and ladder fuel. Low-intensity prescribed fire can 

be used to preserve the heterogeneity that naturally 

resulted in the fire refugia.

Shrubs and trees that are the first to decline due 

to grazing and browsing by ungulates (herbivory) 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 199

are usually fire-adapted species. These species have 

the ability to resprout after disturbances such as fire 

and herbivory. Examples of sentinel shrubs and trees 

that are suppressed by constant herbivory include 

saltbush, winterfat, golden currant, green ash, and 

chokecherry. Furthermore, shrubs and trees are particularly sensitive indicators because they are alive 

aboveground 12 months of the year and, thus, vulnerable to damage. Also, unlike grasses, their growing points are on the tips of stems. Shrubs and trees 

are very useful for monitoring because the history of 

past years’ growth is visible and measurable.

In the past, fire and herbivory occurred more 

sporadically. These natural processes benefited fireadapted shrubs and trees such as silver sagebrush, 

green ash, chokecherry, golden currant, and saltbush 

by reducing competition and providing long periods 

of abandonment. In addition, historical juniper, pine, 

and big sagebrush populations were not as prevalent 

on the refuge as they are currently.

Fire Ecology of the Uplands

The Missouri River Breaks has had a long and rich 

history of wildfire occurrence; fire was one of the natural forces maintaining northern grasslands. It has 

long been suggested that treeless grasslands are a 

product of repeated fire, sometimes as a direct result 

of human activities. Research within the past few 

decades has confirmed that fire has been an important natural component of many grassland communities. Before European settlement, fire was the most 

common and widespread influence on the landscape 

in the Intermountain West (Gruell 1983). Natural fire 

replaced fire-sensitive woody species with species 

that were more fire-adapted (Gruell 1983).

Lightning-set fires were common in the United 

States and Canada; however, fires set by native peoples were the type mentioned most often in historical journals, diaries, and other accounts including the 

journals of Lewis and Clark (Moulton 2002, Higgins 

et al. 1986). The reduction in Native Americans’ use 

of fire after 1875 (Higgins 1986), the break-up and 

reduction of fuel caused by the livestock grazing and 

cultivation that came with European settlement, and 

then the introduction of organized fire suppression 

have caused a drastic decrease in fire occurrence and 

size (Gruell 1983, Swetnam and Betancourt 1990).

Lightning is an integral part of climate, and the 

frequency and return interval of lightning-set fires 

undoubtedly played an important role in the species 

composition and ecology of the northern grassland 

plains. Fire-scar data collected by the refuge in the 

mid-1990s indicated a fire frequency of 10–20 years in 

the fire-prone ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir habitats before settlement by homesteaders. These data 

do not indicate the source of ignition; however, firescar evidence dropped off dramatically once the area 

was settled, which indicates an increased emphasis on 

human suppression of the numerous lightning starts 

that occur throughout the summer. (Bill Haglan, former wildlife biologist at Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge; personal communication, fall 2009).

Fire exclusion has had the most marked effect on 

ecotones between two different vegetation types. 

With the omission of fire as a dominant ecological factor on some sites, there have been many changes in 

vegetation; successional changes that have occurred 

on some sites may not have occurred in the preEuropean-settlement environment, where frequent 

fires suppressed woody vegetation (Gruell 1983). 

Smoke billows from the Black Polaski wildfire in 2006.

 USFWS
200 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

As a result, an increase in density of woody species 

has occurred on some sites, as well as the invasion of 

woody species into sites where frequent fire used to 

preclude their dominance.

As described before, grassland and shrubland 

compose most of the upland area and the areas 

devoted to livestock grazing. These are also the 

primary habitat types for use of prescribed fire. 

The effects of wildfires on specific species within 

each habitat type are well documented and can be 

found in the Fire Management Information System 

(USFS 2009). In general, the effect of fire on grasses 

depends on the growth form (low-growing points or 

stem-tip growth); in addition, the effects depend on 

how fire influences and is influenced by soil moisture and other environmental conditions. Many 

grass species are fire resistant and can produce new 

shoot growth even after moderate- to high-severity 

burns. When desirable understory plants are present within the sagebrush community, prescribed fire 

can release the growth of these species. Spring or 

fall fires are most desirable and effective, because 

the soils are moist and cool and fire effects are not 

as severe. Sprouting shrubs such as chokecherry and 

snowberry respond favorably, and perennial grasses 

also benefit. Wildland fire can be used to increase 

edge effect and increase plant diversity (Wright and 

Bailey 1982).

Shrubs are generally less tolerant of fire than 

grasses. However, the season and intensity of fire on 

shrubland also determines the effects of fire. Sagebrush is the most common category of shrubland on 

the refuge, with Wyoming big sage and silver sage 

as the dominant species. Fire history of the shrublands has not been firmly established, but fire was 

probably uncommon on drier sites because of sparse 

fuel; fire was more frequent, averaging every 32–70 

years, on moister sites with more vegetation (Wright 

et al. 1979).

Recent Fire History

A recent fire history study of the refuge shows fire 

frequency intervals are extremely variable across 

the refuge (figure 18), ranging from 8 years to more 

than 200 years between fires (Frost 2008). About 30 

percent of the refuge is a forested conifer community, with Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine being the 

dominant species. Fire records show this community 

type to be the most subject to wildfire occurrence. 

Fire exclusion in this forest type can lead to accumulation of dead woody fuel, as well as the establishment of dense understory regeneration (ladder 

fuel). Ladder fuel alters fire behavior dramatically, 

oftentimes creating high-intensity crown fires. Forest succession has been substantially altered due, in 

part, to fire exclusion. Exclusion of fire allows the 

less fire-tolerant species to replace the more fire-tolerant species. This can be seen on the refuge with 

the increased abundance of juniper and higher densities of Douglas-fir. Low- to moderate-intensity wildfire in this community type sets back succession, 

promotes establishment of mature ponderosa pine 

forest, and retards encroachment of juniper and 

Douglas-fir (Keane et al. 1990).

In the refuge’s early annual narratives, staff mentioned large wildfires, but specific information about 

these fires is lacking. Formal fire records started 

in the 1960s and have documented great variety in 

the annual number of wildfires, from 1 fire in 1975 

to 44 fires in 1988. Since 1982, when records were 

initially entered into a national database, about 87 

percent of the wildfires have been caused by lightning and occurred from mid-May through the end of 

September. Fires during that period ranged in size 

from one-tenth of an acre to as large as 21,967 acres. 

In 2003 and again in 2006, several lightning-ignited 

wildfires occurred on and around the refuge, mainly 

in Garfield County. When finally extinguished, two 

fire complexes (Missouri River complex and Black 

Pulaski complex) were in excess of 130,000 acres 

each. These fires were the direct result of significant, 

dry lightning storms that ignited multiple fires, followed by cold frontal passages 1–2 days later that 

produced winds of 40–60 miles per hour. 

Most fires are directly influenced by local and general winds and have the potential to exhibit extreme 

fire behavior. Generally, a large fire will make an initial run until it hits a natural barrier or burns into 

an area of little or no vegetation. For example, in 

1994, the CK Creek fire made a run of 6 miles in one 

afternoon and burned more than 11,000 acres before 

burning into sparse vegetation.

Early in the history of the refuge, great emphasis was placed on putting out wildfires at the smallest acreage, regardless of cost, habitat management 

strategies, or land designation such as wilderness. 

Not until the Leopold Report of 1963 (Leopold et 

al. 1963) was the public informed that protecting 

plant communities from fire can lead to these negative effects: (1) catastrophic, stand-replacing wildfires; (2) decadent shrub and grass communities; (3) 

encroachment of shrubs and trees into grasslands; 

(4) increased infestations of disease and insects; (5) 

lack of diversity in plant and wildlife species; and (6) 

devastating wildfires that cannot be controlled with 

any amount of resources (Wright and Bailey 1982). 

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, land managers 

at the refuge began to look at alternatives to putting 

all fires out at the smallest acreage. With the signing of the record of decision for the 1986 EIS, managers had the option of using modified suppression. 

Modified suppression is based on an evaluation of 

each wildfire for the resources at risk, and if the risk 

does not justify the cost of full suppression, alternate 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 201

suppression tactics can be used. Suppression strategies may allow a fire to burn into clay ridges, gumbo 

knobs, alkali flats, and the Missouri River or Fort 

Peck Reservoir. As a result, parts of some wildfires 

might burn for more than one burning period. 

Based on fire records for the past 28 years, 364 

wildfires have burned 180,230 acres on the refuge 

(data comes from the 2008 Fire Management Information System database and archived individual 

fire reports, DI–1202s). Fire size has increased significantly over the past decade as shown in table 12. 

Possible causes may be changes in land management, 

climate change, natural wildfire cycles, or a combination of all three. 

The Mickey Butte fire burned nearly 3,200 acres 

of prime habitat for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

in 2003. The fire burned close to Mickey Butte, which 

is the core of the home range for upwards of 50 bighorn sheep. In 2005, the Brandon Coulee, Heartland, 

Sheep, and Shore fires burned an additional 15,647 

acres of sheep habitat on the Mickey–Brandon Butte 

and Iron Stake Ridges. 

Livestock grazing in habitat units is restricted 

for 2 years following large wildfires. This occurred 

after the CK fire of 1994, the Missouri Breaks complex of 2003, and the Black Pulaski complex of 2006. 

In such situations, the Service gives permittees the 

option of taking nonuse of their permits or temporarily moving their livestock to habitat units that no 

longer have annually permitted grazing. 

Prairie dog towns are effective natural barriers 

for wildfire during all but the most extreme fire conditions. To promote population expansion, refuge 

staff applied prescribed fire to 1,435 acres of prairie 

dog habitat during summer 2007 and 2008 in the 

Locke Ranch area of the UL Bend Refuge. 

Livestock Grazing

In 1954, there were 25,673 cattle, 3,365 sheep, and 

700 horses permitted on the refuge. Wildlife estimates for the same period were 140 elk, 8,000 deer, 

800 pronghorn, and 54 bighorn sheep. Records 

report that livestock wintered on river bottoms from 

December to March, and they grazed in the uplands 

in the summer. As a result, the river bottoms were 

heavily impacted. Although BLM did not issue winter permits, according to a refuge report, “BLM was 

aware of the fact that it had been the practice for a 

number of large ranches to run cattle on the range 

during the winter months.” After considerable urging by refuge staff, BLM did not stop winter grazing but added it to the permit. Since the passage of 

Executive Order 7509, livestock grazing has been a 

tool to manage habitat on the refuge. The specific 

application of it on the refuge is discussed below. For 

more information refer to chapter 2, section 2.1 and 

chapter 3, section 3.8, “Habitat—Upland.”

History of AUMs on the Refuge. The first range survey of actual livestock numbers was conducted in 

1953–54. Initially, there were few limits on the number of AUMs grazed on the refuge. Following the 

first range surveys conducted by BLM, the number of AUMs slowly decreased. However, the number of AUMs permitted were not the same number 

as actual AUMs. By 1962, there were 26,820 cattle, 

11,481 sheep, and 950 horses. The bighorn sheep herd 

reported in 1954 had vanished by 1962. By this time, 

the Service and BLM relationship was strained. The 

record from a 1962 inspection of the refuge by the 

Service’s Washington office staff stated, “The land of 

the Fort Peck Game Range has literally been raped 

and this despoiling is accelerating.” Although much 

of this past use came from BLM-managed lands, 

about 150,000–200,000 AUMs were grazed annually 

on the refuge in the 1950s. At least part of the overuse of grazing on the refuge was a result of how the 

program was carried out; for example, in one BLM 

unit management plan that included a refuge pasture, there were 3,400 AUMs permitted, which was 

equivalent to the 1953–54 range survey numbers. 

However, BLM allowed flexibility of up to 10,000 

AUMs to be permitted yearly without application. 

The numbers permitted on paper did not equate to 

what was occurring on the ground.

The 1986 record of decision established new livestock grazing levels. Of the 100,000 AUMs estimated 

to be supported by available forage, about 40 percent 

of this forage is allocated for livestock on 62 different 

habitat units through 73 grazing permittees. Livestock forage allocations range from 0 to 78 percent 

of the available forage. These allocations were based 

on a 1978 range survey. All lands were stocked at the 

recommended stocking rate of the then-Soil ConserTable 12. Historical fire data for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Timeframe Number of fires Acres burned Average acres per fire

1981–89 132 25,642 194

1990–99 120 35,643 207

2000–09 120 118,982 991

Peak number of fires in a single year (1988) 44 12,953 —

Peak number of acres burned in a single year (2006) 22 69,737 —
202 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

vation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service). Slope and distance-to-water deductions 

were applied to Service lands but not to State or private lands. This resulted in a 33-percent reduction 

in overall livestock AUMs on the refuge, an almost 

unprecedented action on western grazing lands. Generally, the livestock capacity of State and private lands 

increased. In pastures such as the West Indian Butte 

Habitat Unit (see figure 16) that includes non-Federal 

lands, this increase totally offsets the Federal reduction. Livestock stocking rates on the eastern part of 

the refuge typically are higher, reflecting the flatter 

terrain and nearness to Fort Peck Reservoir, as compared to the western part of the refuge that has steep, 

rugged coulees and where the distance to water is 

greater. Livestock allocations in Fergus and Petroleum 

Counties are the lowest (number of AUMs), McCone 

and Garfield Counties have the highest number of 

AUMs, and Valley and Phillips Counties have intermediate levels of AUMs. Garfield County is stocked at 

twice the level per acre as Petroleum County. There is 

a direct correlation between the forage allocation for 

livestock and conflicts with wildlife habitat.

Permitted use in 2003 was 22,304 AUMs, which 

was 17,000 AUMs less than the 1986 record of decision level and 36,000 less than the 1976 level. The 

lower AUM levels are due to a variety of reasons 

including higher grazing fees and not automatically 

transferring permits (refer to chapter 1, section “1.9 

Issues Not Addressed,” and to chapter 3, rationale 

for Upland Objective A7). Additionally, livestock 

supervision and permit enforcement have ensured 

that actual use approaches what is permitted today. 

Livestock numbers on the refuge are currently lower 

than anytime in the past century.

Transition to Prescriptive Grazing. Since 1986, the Service has gradually been making the transition to 

prescriptive grazing (refer to chapter 3, section 3.8, 

“Habitat—Upland”). Today, there are approximately 

740,030 acres of potential grazing acreage on the refuge; current livestock grazing units are shown in figure 16. About 409,849 acres are lands grazed under 

annual permit. Prescriptive grazing occurs on about 

252,706 acres, and 77,475 acres are not grazed. Under 

annual grazing, a permittee can graze a set number 

of AUMs every year. There are some limits placed on 

when and where they can graze. Under prescriptive 

grazing, the Service determines the habitat objectives for an area, and then sets the number of livestock needed to achieve those objectives. (Refer to 

the prescriptive grazing explanation in the introduction for “Habitat–Upland” in chapter 3, section 3.8.) 

This does not include grazing on other State or private lands (inholdings) within the refuge boundary.

About 86 percent of the forage is allocated to livestock within 0.5 mile of water on slopes of less than 10 

degrees. Extensive water development has resulted 

in many upland sites, moist areas, and riparian areas 

being heavily impacted by livestock. Forage in riparian areas is almost exclusively allocated to livestock. 

Because of gentle terrain and available water, some 

habitat units along Big Dry Arm have as much as 

50–78 percent of the forage allocated to livestock. 

In one unit, 40 percent of the livestock forage comes 

from 18 percent of the land—those lands within 0.25 

mile of the creek. Riparian habitats reflect the livestock allocation; fieldwork conducted by the University of Montana in 1995–96 documented the poor 

state of riparian habitat on the refuge.

Benefits of Prescriptive Grazing. Although there have 

been many issues associated with livestock grazing 

on the refuge, when prescriptive grazing is used with 

careful consideration of its compatibility with habitat 

and wildlife and other land management goals, it can 

be an effective tool (FWS 2011b). For example, it can 

be used to control invasive species or to accomplish 

other restoration and conservation objectives (refer 

to chapter 3, section 3.8, “Habitat—Upland”). When 

applied correctly, it can address some of the challenges and issues of domestic grazing systems to create effective and ecologically beneficial results (FWS 

2011b).

State and Private Lands 

There are about 36,000 acres of State school lands 

within the refuge (figure 16). The CCP and EIS only 

directly affects lands under the management authority of the Service. However, the implementation of 

prescriptive grazing could have indirect negative 

effects on DNRC in meeting its statutory obligation 

of generating revenue for local schools. 

Private lands make up about 41,000 acres on the 

refuge (figure 16), although this acreage changes 

when there are willing sellers and money exists to 

acquire more lands within the authorized boundary. Private landowners are also affected by wildlife 

migrations, and at times large ungulates have negatively affected private lands. In the past, the refuge 

has worked with MFWP who controls harvest levels 

as well as the community to address these issues (see 

table 18 under Big Game). As with DNRC, the continued transition toward implementing prescriptive 

grazing on the refuge has negative effects on landowners who are also permittees who graze on refuge lands. More information about the socioeconomic 

environment is described under 4.8, socioeconomics 

and chapter 5, section 5.10.

Vegetation Monitoring in the Uplands

The Service has been monitoring residual grass 

cover since 1986, and has also been increasingly 

emphasizing sentinel plant monitoring in recent 

years. As described above, sentinel plants are the 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 203

first to decline in response to changes to the evolutionary pattern of ecological processes and provide 

an indicator of landscape-scale biological integrity 

and health. The combination of poor and highly erosive soils, a century of historical overuse by livestock, current livestock grazing, and current use 

by wild ungulates (elk and deer), has compromised 

the health of upland habitat on the refuge. Monitoring of residual cover and sentinel species has shown 

that wild ungulate populations alone are negatively 

affecting sentinel plant species (causing negative 

growth rates and low to no seed or fruit production), and residual cover objectives are not being 

met. Livestock use compounds the problem. Several 

examples of upland monitoring results that demonstrate this current condition of upland habitat are 

described below.

Residual Cover. Since 1986, one of the primary purposes of monitoring residual grass cover has been to 

ensure nesting and roosting cover for sharp-tailed 

grouse and other grassland obligate birds. Livestock 

exclosures have been developed in many of the existing 65 habitat units. The goal of habitat management 

on the refuge has been to provide, outside the exclosures, at least 70 percent of the grass cover that is 

inside the exclosures. Measurements are taken after 

the grazing season. A cover pole or height–density pole (HDP) is observed from set distances and 

angles at points along transects, in and out of the 

exclosures, to measure the comparison.

Habitat monitoring across the refuge has varied 

annually. Several units were not monitored in the late 

1990s to early 2000s. Since 2005, almost all units grazed 

by livestock have been surveyed for residual grass 

cover. In 2008, Service personnel conducted 27 HDP 

surveys across the refuge: 8 for Jordan (5 failed), 10 for 

Fort Peck (4 failed) and 9 for Sand Creek (all 9 failed). 

Eighteen of the 27 units failed to meet objectives established in the 1986 record of decision). Most of the habitat units that failed in 2008 have not met objectives or 

improved since monitoring began. All three of the habitat units in Jordan that passed were not grazed in 2008. 

Figure 19 provides an example of one habitat 

unit, East Indian Butte, that failed to meet objectives for residual cover in every year between 1990 

and 2007. Figure 19 displays residual cover information collected from the East Indian Butte Habitat 

Unit (see figure 16). The monitoring data show that 

this unit does not meet the baseline objective of 70 

percent residual cover (red line on graph). This habitat unit is grazed by livestock in common (no separating fences) with private, State, and BLM land. 

Residual cover monitoring has shown that many 

habitat units, like the East Indian Butte example, 

are not meeting objectives and are showing negative 

effects from long-term ungulate grazing.

Sentinel Species. The Service is increasingly emphasizing sentinel plant monitoring as an indicator of 

biological integrity and health. The refuge has been 

monitoring sentinel plant species populations in and 

out of exclosures since 2003. Since 2004, biologists 

have been working on new survey methods to incorporate with current HDP monitoring to fully assess 

habitat conditions. Sentinel plants (plants that are 

the first to decline due to grazing pressure) will be 

identified and monitored across the refuge to determine overall grazing pressure on these plants. Subsequently, the refuge staff uses this information to 

influence planning and adaptive management of ecological processes. 

Currently, the Service is working with West, Inc., 

and Dr. Sam Fuhlendorf from the University of 

Oklahoma to develop a statistically sound standard 

operating procedure for monitoring sentinel species’ 

response to the adaptive management of fire and herbivory, and these are anticipated to be completed in 

2010. Below are detailed descriptions of results from 

a chokecherry site and an aspen site, as well as brief 

descriptions of monitoring results for other sentinel 

species (silver buffaloberry, grey rubber rabbitbrush, 

and saltbush). All of these examples show the effect 

of grazing pressure on sentinel plant species on the 

refuge.

Chokecherry. Chokecherry is a sentinel species of 

riparian zones and moist, north-facing slopes across 

the refuge. Formerly, this species was much more 

common. Populations of this shrub have been 

reduced by herbivory (chokecherry is highly preferred by all ungulates) and by competition from 

juniper and pine (see figure 20). 

Chokecherry fruit is important to many species 

of resident and migratory birds. Fruit production 

is perhaps more affected by herbivory than height 

growth; many species including chokecherry produce fruit only from stems not browsed the year 

before. Furthermore, fire often stimulates chokecherry growth, resulting in fruit production a few 

years after a fire.

In 2006, refuge staff constructed two types of 

exclosures to monitor chokecherry fruit production 

on a site that burned in 2005: (1) one type excluded 

both large ungulates and cattle; and (2) the second 

type excluded cattle but not other large ungulates. 

In 2009, the average chokecherry plant in the total 

ungulate exclosures produced 312 berries; chokecherries in the cattle exclosure averaged 103 berries; 

and chokecherries outside of exclosures averaged 5 

berries.

In addition, monitoring showed that grasses in 

the exclosures were mostly not grazed. Even the 

most palatable grasses are not first-to-decline sentinel species.
204 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

The dark blue line shows information collected from HDP transect EIB–4, which is about 1 mile from water.

The pink line shows information collected from HDP transect EIB–8, which is about 2 miles from water.

The red line shows the objective set by the 1986 record of decision for habitat units: 70-percent residual cover. 

The black line is the overall trend at 1 mile from water.

Figure 19. Graph of residual cover after grazing in the East Indian Butte Habitat Unit of the Charles M. Russell 

Refuge (1990–2007).

Aspen. Aspen, a sentinel species, is one of the first 

species affected by herbivory. Occurring in scattered 

relict groves, aspen is highly preferred by livestock 

and all species of wild ungulates. In addition, aspen 

is fire-adapted and dependent on fire to occasionally 

remove fire-intolerant conifers, which are more competitive over long periods without fire. Within the 

refuge, aspen is also a climate-sensitive sentinel. It 

only occurs in pockets of the landscape such as coulee 

bottoms that are moister than the landscape in general. Aspen would likely be affected first by a warming climate with less soil moisture. 

In 2005, the refuge staff constructed an exclosure 

within an aspen site in a coulee in the Soda Creek 

watershed. At that time, the new growth of plants 

both in and out of the exclosure was similar (about 

14 inches) and the plants were heavily impacted 

by browsing and were unable to grow taller. This 

site burned in a wildfire in 2006, eliminating all 

above-ground growth both in and out of the exclosure. In subsequent years (2007, 2008, and 2009), 

aspen growth within the exclosure has exceeded 

the growth outside of the exclosure, with averaging 

about 7, 34, and 52 inches, respectively, compared to 

about 4, 12, and 15 inches outside of the exclosure. 

Current browsing levels prevent the plants outside 

the exclosure from growing taller. Figure 21 displays 

these results.

It is likely that aspen will disappear from this 

aspen site in the future except for those in the exclosure and possibly a few in highly protected locations, 

areas that are steep and covered with fire-killed 

juniper. It is likely that other relict aspen sites disappeared after constant grazing by all ungulates and 

a lack of fire.
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 205

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Total Exclosure Cattle Exclosure No Exclosure

retuslc rd peeducopr seirrbe f orbenum egarevA

Series1 312 103 5

Figure 20. Bar graph of monitoring results for chokecherry fruit production 4 years after fire at the Charles M. 

Russell Refuge.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Aspen24: total exclosure 0 6.8 33.6 51.9 72.1

Aspen24: cattle exclosure 0 4.4 5.9 3.2 -1.8 nchesin ence ierffead diD /e viL

Zero Growth Line 0 0 0 0 0

Year and Value

Figure 21. Graph of monitoring results for aspen growth at the Charles M. Russell Refuge.
206 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Other Sentinel Species. Other examples of sentinel 

species monitoring include a silver buffaloberry site 

in the Rock Creek West Habitat Unit, a grey rubber 

rabbitbrush site in the East Indian But Habitat Unit, 

and a saltbush site in the Rock Creek East Habitat 

Unit. Results of monitoring the average annual plant 

growth (height to base of current year’s growth) at 

these sites are summarized below.

■ Buffaloberry (2005–09): About 9 inches within 

the exclosure, compared to about 6 inches with 

no exclosure

■ Rabbitbrush (2003–09): About 10 inches within 

the exclosure, compared to about 2 inches with 

no exclosure 

■ Saltbush (2004–09): About 10 inches within the 

exclosure, compared to about 3 inches with no 

exclosure (figure 22) 

Figure 22. Bar graph of monitoring results for saltbush growth at the Charles M. Russell Refuge.

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 no 2010

total cattle no total cattle no total exclosure, no

exclosure exclosure exclosure exclosure exclosure exclosure exclosure cattle exclosure

07−09 07−09 exclosure 

07−09

ntapl r pe)SPS (smet sngiducopr - eeds f oerbmune gaervA

Average SPS per plant 13.8 8.1 0 19.4 10.6 2.3 12.4 0.25 0

RIVER BOTTOMS 

Bottomlands or river bottoms are found in the floodplains of the Missouri River above maximum lake 

level. They occur only on the west end of the refuge. 

There are about 16 river bottoms on the west 

end of the refuge (see figure 23). The total area covered by these river bottoms is estimated at between 

5,000 and 7,000 acres. A diverse mixture of native 

trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses characterizes the 

river bottom plant community. Trees and shrubs 

present are green ash, boxelder, redosier dogwood, 

silver buffaloberry, golden currant, western snowberry, Woods’ rose, chokecherry, sumac, plains cottonwood, sandbar willow, peachleaf willow, and a 

couple of other willow species. Native forbs present 

include Maximilian sunflower and American licorice. 

Native grasses present are bluebunch wheatgrass, 

green needlegrass, prairie cordgrass, basin wildrye, 

western wheatgrass and reed canarygrass.

The most significant threat to river bottom health 

is from exotic species such as tamarisk (saltcedar), 

Russian olive, smooth brome, crested wheatgrass, 

quackgrass, leafy spurge, Russian knapweed, and 

Canada thistle. Invasive species have been increasing in many areas largely because of two reasons: 

(1) lack of seed source to establish native plants that 

would compete with or outcompete the invasive 

weeds; and (2) extensive browsing on sentinel plants 

that are established.

Historically many of the river bottoms on the refuge were cleared. Native plant communities were 

plowed, and nonnative agricultural crops were 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 207

planted because these were the most productive 

areas. Farming the river bottoms occurred for 

decades, but has now been eliminated. The last homesteader on the refuge stopped farming in 1983–84, 

and the last two bottoms to be planted to crops have 

not been farmed since 1985–86. The plant communities left existing on the river bottoms have now 

mostly been invaded by Russian knapweed, leafy 

spurge, smooth brome, and quackgrass, which have 

very little value to wildlife. Native plant communities that once existed on these bottoms have been 

unable to reestablish themselves. The Service is 

currently consulting with experts from NRCS and 

State agencies to determine what would be the 

best methods to restore these bottomlands back to 

healthy native plant communities. Establishing and 

maintaining healthy native plant communities is an 

important way to slow or prevent reestablishment 

of weeds after they have been treated mechanically, 

chemically or with biological control. The Service 

has begun restoration work on two bottomland areas 

(Irish and Knox Bottoms already). Figure 20 shows 

the river bottoms in need of restoration.

Figure 23. Map of river bottoms in need of restoration at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Use of Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fires were used to treat Kendall Bottoms 

(55 acres) and Leclair Bottoms (74 acres) in 1992. In 

1993, Forchette Creek (50 acres), Doney Bottoms (8 

acres), Manning Dog Corral (50 acres), Hawley Creek 

(200 acres), Irish Bottoms (110 acres), Mauland Bottoms (30 acres), and White Bottoms (30 acres) were 

treated as well. The objectives were to reduce invasive plant invasion and reestablish native vegetation. 

Prescribed fire continues to be used as a tool to treat 

river bottoms and has proved to be very effective in 

preparing the seedbed for native planting. 

RIPARIAN AREAS and WETLANDS

Riparian habitat areas include wetland and upland 

vegetation associated with rivers, streams, and 

other drainage ways. The riparian areas of the refuge occupy a relatively small part of the landscape, 

but wildlife and livestock use these areas disproportionately more than any other habitat type (Kaufman 

and Krueger 1984, Johnson et al. 1977, Ames 1977). 

Riparian and wetland areas provide important habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species, ranging 

from reptiles and amphibians that are solely dependent on streams and wetlands, to upland mammals 

that depend on riparian areas as a source of water, 

foraging habitat, and cover. Riparian areas are also 

important for many bird species, providing nesting 

and breeding habitat for migratory songbirds, openwater habitat for waterfowl, and foraging and nesting habitat for some raptors. Besides wildlife habitat, 

riparian and wetland habitats also provide important 

functions that sustain the ecosystem including sediment filtering, streambank development, water storage, aquifer recharge, and energy dissipation from 

streams (Hansen et al. 1995). 
208 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Riparian systems play an important role in maintaining the ecological function of the entire refuge, from aquatic habitats to uplands. This section 

describes the general composition of riparian habitats, the historical influence of beaver, wildlife diversity, ongoing riparian area monitoring, the influence 

of livestock grazing, and water quality considerations. 

Riparian Habitat Composition 

Riparian vegetation and habitat has historically 

been found along most of the small streams and rivers on the refuge. Vegetation within the larger riparian systems (such as the Missouri and Musselshell 

Rivers) is dominated by mature forests of plains cottonwood with an understory of shrubs, grasses, and 

wetlands. Other trees and shrubs include green ash, 

redosier dogwood, common chokecherry, and silver sagebrush, while the riparian area understory 

includes grasses (redtop, inland saltgrass, western wheatgrass, and foxtail barley) and a variety of 

forbs, sedges, and rushes. Smaller streams and coulees with a healthy riparian area are generally similar in species composition but at a smaller scale.

Many of the cottonwood riparian areas along the 

Missouri River are in a degraded condition, with limited shrub understory, limited cottonwood regeneration, and an overabundance of monotypic nonnative 

grasses (such as smooth brome). This change in 

riparian area structure along the Missouri River is 

likely due to a combination of livestock grazing and 

changes in riverflows. Hansen (1989) found the overall ratio of replacement to mature trees is 54 percent, 

suggesting a future decline in the riparian forests 

and the habitat they provide.

Several studies have be done on the riparian vegetation along the Missouri River from west of the 

refuge boundary to Fred Robinson Bridge (Auble 

et al. 2005; Auble and Scott 1998; Dixon et al. 2009; 

Scott and Auble 2002; Scott et al. 1993, 1994, 1997). 

Flows in this reach of river are influenced by several dams and diversions, most importantly, Canyon Ferry and Tiber Dams. While the timing of the 

average high and low riverflows has not been substantially altered, their relative magnitudes have. 

Scott et al. (1993, 1994) found that cottonwood establishment occurred in years with a peak mean daily 

flow greater than 49,434 cubic feet per second (1,400 

cubic meters per second) or in the 2 years following such a flow. These years include 35 out of the 111 

years of record and account for establishment of 47 

of 60 trees examined. 

Seedlings become established most years on 

bare, relatively low surfaces deposited by the river. 

The high elevation for establishment of all trees dating to before 1978 (relative to the normal river stage 

elevation) indicates that only individuals established 

on high flood deposits are able to survive subsequent 

floods and ice jams. Highest flows almost always 

occur during the ice-free period and establishment is 

more likely to occur during ice-free flooding. Mortality is higher for those cottonwoods established in relatively low channel positions. 

Bovee and Scott (2002) developed a flow model 

to reconstruct unregulated daily peak flows in the 

national wild and scenic reach of the Missouri River. 

To maximize establishment of cottonwoods, a threshold of 65,333 cfs would be necessary. Floods this size 

lead to establishment of cottonwood seedlings above 

the zone of ice-drive disturbance. Cottonwood is a 

pioneer, disturbance-dependent species that establishes from seed on bare and moist surfaces during a 

brief period following seed dispersal. 

Three human-caused factors have contributed 

to the riparian area changes on the refuge: (1) beaver have been eliminated from tributary streams; (2) 

cattle have been stocked at high densities in riparian 

areas during the growing season; and (3) upland reservoirs have altered the waterflow in major drainages (FaunaWest 1996). 

Many of the smaller streams on the refuge are in 

a degraded condition due to the combined effects of 

these factors, which have, in general, resulted in narrower riparian area corridors, fewer wetlands, and 

less robust riparian vegetation across the refuge. In 

some areas, riparian vegetation has disappeared from 

extended reaches of stream. However, the construction 

of fencing to exclude livestock from several important 

riparian areas (such as Rock Creek and Bobcat Creek) 

has allowed conditions in these areas to improve. 

Beaver

Influence of Beaver on Riparian Areas

Historical literature suggests that beaver were a 

dominant feature in parts of the original bottomland 

landscapes of the refuge before trapping reduced 

them to numbers too low to support their wetland 

mosaic. Trapping on the refuge dates earlier than 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 209

1840 when trappers worked in the area. Hundreds of 

thousands of “wolf and beaver skins and pelts of the 

deer and elk were brought to Fort Benton by Indian 

and white from the far North, from the South, from 

the Rockies and the vast extent of plains surrounding it, and were later shipped down the river to St. 

Louis” (Schultz 1902). Sometime between 1877 and 

1882 Schultz worked at a fur trading post on the refuge at Carroll bottom (Turkey Joe) where one winter he mentions that they took in 300 beaver skins. 

By 1901, beaver were so scarce that trapping was 

illegal, but this did little to stop the continued exploitation. There are historical records of beaver system 

collapse after trapping. In addition to trapping, much 

of the water from the upper watershed of Armells 

Creek was used for agriculture by 1900 (Frost 2008). 

It is likely that they maintained a now-collapsed 

wetland system along at least three major streams, 

(1) Armells Creek with headwaters in the Judith 

Mountains; (2) Musselshell River with headwaters 

in the Crazy, Little Belt, and Judith Mountains; and 

(3) Big Dry, which has a much smaller watershed. 

Beaver also maintained wetlands in the lower ends 

of several minor streams on the refuge (Frost 2008). 

Beaver change second- to fifth-order streams by 

as much as 20–40 percent by (1) changing channel geomorphology and hydrology; (2) retaining sediment and 

organic matter; (3) creating and maintaining wetlands; 

(4) changing nutrient cycling and decomposition dynamics; (5) changing plant species composition; (6) influencing the timing, rate, and volume of water and sediment 

movement downstream; and (7) through the creation of 

pools and backwaters generating new fish and wildlife 

habitats, which results in significant increases in biodiversity (Ohmart 1996). Currently, water quickly runs 

out of beaver impounded water streams like Armells 

Creek. The more beaver wetland created, the longer 

the water is held after snowmelt and rain events. As a 

result, these systems acted as sponges, slowly releasing water from one pond to the next below, and certain 

streams should have been sustained as permanent wetlands. These systems, lying in the lowest and coolest 

parts of the landscape, would not have been expected 

to dry up (Frost 2008).

Importance of Riparian Areas for Wildlife

Wildlife use riparian zones disproportionately more 

than any other habitat type, and fish, depend on the 

structure and inputs to this zone (Fitch and Adams 

1998, Hubbard 1977, Ohmart 1996). In a study within 

the Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon, 82 percent 

of the terrestrial species known to occur are either 

directly dependent on riparian zones or use them 

more than other habitats (Thomas et al. 1979). There 

are similar findings for nesting bird species (Johnson et al. 1977, Kauffman and Krueger 1984). In a 

recent study on the refuge, riparian forest edge habitat accounted for the highest bat activity (Stewart 

2007) and might be a limiting factor to bat distributions and abundance on prairie landscapes.

Closer to the refuge, Tewksbury et al. (2002) compared deciduous riparian areas with surrounding

upland communities, and repeatedly found breeding 

bird diversity and density to be greater in riparian 

communities. The ungrazed Missouri River sites were 

located on the refuge and grazed survey locations were 

in a 25-mile stretch of river bordering the refuge to the 

west. In grazed locations, about 70 percent of species 

were less abundant, 13 species were significantly less 

abundant, and only one species was more abundant 

(Tewksbury et al. 2002). Knowles and Knowles (1994) 

found twice the abundance of birds in the ungrazed 

area of Rock Creek on the refuge compared to grazed 

area of Siparyann Creek. They found birds that have an 

affinity to grasslands do well in a grazed area, whereas 

those birds associated with riparian forests were more 

abundant in the ungrazed area. The most common bird 

in Rock Creek was the yellow warbler, and in Siparyann it was the mountain bluebird. 

Bats serve a variety of ecological roles such as 

insect predators, prey, pollinators, and seed dispersers. 

Because of their sensitivity to pollution and habitat disturbance, they also serve as indicators of habitat health. 

Several species of bats use rock crevices and caves 

next to riparian area corridors for maternity colonies 

and possible year-round roosts, and use the riparian 

area corridor to forage (Lausen and Barclay 2002). In 

addition to providing important foraging habitat, cottonwood riparian zones along the Missouri River most 

likely provide important roosting habitat. Along the 

Missouri River on the refuge, Stewart (2007) detected

a high intensity of use next to all riparian forest habitat types from big brown, silver-haired, and hoary bats 

as well as the “40 kHz group” made up of long-legged 

myotis, little brown myotis, small-footed myotis, and 

eastern red bat. Stewart (2007) also found riparian habitat and complexity were significant factors influencing 

bat activity. Activity and foraging attempts were highest for the entire bat community next to riparian forest 

edges compared with more open habitat and Russian 

olive stands. Overall bat activity was also high next to 

the center of riparian forest habitat. 

Livestock Grazing and Riparian Monitoring

Historical grazing by large herds of bison and other 

ungulates included long periods of rest after intensive disturbance such as drought, fire, and grazing. 

Wild bison did not linger in riparian areas (Fuhlendorf et al. 2008, Van Vuren 1981) and did not use an 

area all season long. Cattle spend a disproportionate 

amount of time in riparian areas, 5–30 times longer 

(Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). 

Streams and their watersheds function as units 

and are inseparable. Riparian area health is affected 
210 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

by offsite factors operating at the landscape level, 

including upland range conditions that affect runoff 

timing and sediment delivery to the channel and headwater impoundments that divert water from the channel downstream (Thompson and Hansen 1999, Belsky 

et al. 1999). The desired riparian-wetland habitat of 

a watershed should dictate the grazing management 

of the surrounding uplands. 

The proper management of livestock grazing in 

riparian-wetland areas requires a recognition that 

(1) grazing management practices that improve or 

maintain upland sites may not be good management 

practice for riparian-wetland areas, and (2) seasonlong grazing is not a viable option to improve deteriorated riparian-wetland areas or to maintain a 

healthy riparian-wetland zone. To maintain necessary 

riparian function, grazing management must provide 

for adequate cover and height of vegetation on the 

streambanks and overflow zones to permit the natural stream functions to work successfully (Ehrhart 

and Hansen 1997). Currently, the refuge is working 

with cooperators above the refuge to enhance riverflow, which will potentially aid riparian area restoration. 

Over the past 15 years, several studies were conducted to evaluate riparian area conditions on the 

refuge. These include a broad-scale stream assessment from 1995–97 with followup assessments in 

2009, exclosure monitoring on Rock Creek, monitoring along the Lower Musselshell River, restoration 

recommendations along Telegraph Creek, a 5-year 

USGS study to gage streams on the refuge, and water 

quality sampling conducted on the refuge by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality in 2006–

07 (Cook et al. 1996, Parker et al. 1996, Sando et al. 

2009, Thompson et al. 1999). The findings of some of 

these key studies are described in detail below. 

From 1995 to 1997, the Riparian Wetland and 

Research Program assessed 82 streams across the 

refuge, selecting 203 segments representing 79 river 

miles. Of the selected segments, 10 percent were 

found to be functioning as healthy riparian areas, 

31 percent were functioning at risk, and 59 percent 

were scored not functioning or unhealthy (Thompson 

and Hansen 1999). The designation of “unhealthy” 

signified that those river segments could no longer 

properly filter out sediment from the water, build 

and retain erosion-resistant streambanks, and store 

adequate amounts of water throughout the summer (Thompson and Hansen 1999). In 1997, Neppl 

surveyed 2,000 feet of Duck Creek and Brown Pass 

Coulee using the Riparian and Wetland Ecological 

Evaluation Form (Hansen et al. 1993), and both were 

found to be not functioning.

Ecological Solutions Group (2009) resurveyed 

most of the same locations in 2009 as in 1995–97 (see 

figure 24). However, the Service requested more survey areas where management changes have occurred 

such as Armells Creek, Rock Creek (west), and Bobcat Creek Habitat Unit and reduced survey points in 

habitat units where management changes have not 

occurred such as CK Creek and Beauchamp Creek. 

Ecological Solutions Group (2009) found riparian 

area health has greatly improved since 1995. Most of 

the gains have come on physical site factors (soil and 

hydrology). Increased precipitation promoted vegetation growth and sediment for floodplain building. 

Additionally, changes in management (most notably 

the removal of livestock) have allowed the increased 

vegetation cover to remain onsite. This is due to 

the capture and anchoring of sediments by recently 

improved herbaceous vegetation on streambanks. 

However, much of the gain in health rating due to 

increased vegetation cover is offset by the negative 

Figure 24. Map of Riparian and Wetland Research Program survey locations at the Charles M. Russell and 

UL Bend Refuges.
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 211

further invasion by noxious weeds. Recruitment of 

woody plant species (for example, willows and taller 

shrubs and cottonwoods and other trees), including 

riparian sentinel species, has been limited over time 

due to the browsing effects of both wild and domestic 

ungulates. Therefore, woody riparian plant recruitment has not been widespread enough to affect the 

overall average riparian area health ratings.

While the overall average of riparian area health 

across the refuge has improved, not every stream 

or local area has shared this improvement. Woody 

draws located east of the Big Dry on the eastern 

edge of the refuge, have suffered significant decline. 

Streams that remain in the lower edge of “Functional At Risk” category include CK Creek and the 

Pines Recreational Area. Table 13 summarizes the 

riparian area health assessment findings and compares these to 1995–97.

A contracted firm, Riparian Resources, was hired 

to establish monitoring locations and collect vegetation data in three areas along Rock Creek (1996 and 

2005) and two areas along Siparyann Creek (1996 

only) (Miles 1996). Area 1 was on BLM land with 

normal livestock grazing densities, area 2 was on the 

refuge within a livestock exclosure built in 1991, and 

area 3 was on the refuge with spring-only livestock 

grazing. Siparyann (area 4) was located on BLM land 

inside and outside a limited fall-grazing pasture.

The monitoring between 1996 and 2005 documented an uneven, unexplainable distribution in 

cottonwoods and willows that was not tied to river 

geomorphology. Over the 9 years, the areas all experienced a 55-percent decrease in number of young 

cottonwoods (98 percent, 59 percent, and 35 percent decrease in areas 1, 2, and 3 respectively). This 

showed that the older plants are not being adequately replaced by young cottonwoods, due to 

browsing by wildlife and livestock. Timing of use is 

critical with winter use probably removing the most 

plant biomass and causing the most damage to the 

young cottonwoods. Average age of recruitment is 3 

years suggesting that cottonwood replacement did 

not equal loss. 

Browsing use by wildlife and livestock is high 

throughout the entire project area. Sixty to ninetytwo percent of the second-year stems had been 

browsed on the young cottonwoods and willows. In 

area 1, this was likely to due livestock; in area 2, 

it was likely due to elk and possibly deer; and in area 

3, it was due to both elk and livestock. These results 

were not expected. Studies have shown elk avoid 

areas with large concentrations of cattle and without 

security cover (Knowles and Campbell 1982, Stewart 

et al. 2002). Siparyann Creek (area 4) was monitored 

in 1996 for willows because only eight cottonwood 

seedlings were found along 8,000 feet of stream. The 

number of willows found inside the fence was 110, 

and 30 willows were found outside. Essentially, by 

excluding cattle in area 2, a highly attractive area 

was created, concentrating high numbers of elk. It 

is believed that quality riparian habitat would not 

be as heavily impacted if more riparian areas were 

improved or created by excluding cattle and keeping 

elk at lower numbers.

The strategies for the alternatives (“Chapter 3—

Alternatives”) stress the importance of working closely with lessees to manage livestock. A few 

weeks of unauthorized use or overgrazing can set 

back years of progress in improvements of riparianwetland systems (Duff 1983). A few head of unauthorized livestock throughout most of the hot season 

can negate any positive riparian-wetland habitat 

response (Myers 1981). According to the guide, Best 

Management Practices for Grazing in Montana (1999), 

it is the amount of time livestock spend in the riparian area that determines the amount of grazing 

impact. Success in maintaining or enhancing riparian 

area health is dependent more on the commitment 

and involvement of the manager (both refuge staff 

and livestock operator) than on what grazing system 

is employed (Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). 

SHORELINE

The nearly 1,520 miles of shoreline is a highly 

dynamic area found along the lakeshore areas of 

the refuge. The habitat is defined as the vegetation 

found between current lake levels and high pool elevation (about 2,250 feet). USACE has primary jurisdiction for management of the lakeshore areas, and 

the Service cooperates with USACE to meet habitat 

needs of several threatened and endangered species 

(piping plover, least tern, and pallid sturgeon).

An interesting observation recently is the influence of lake levels and livestock use. When lake levels 

are low, livestock spend most of their time in the 

zone between the low-watermark and the highwatermark, thus reducing grazing pressure on refuge uplands. When lake levels return to high pool, 

refuge uplands will again take the brunt of the grazing pressure.

Fire occurrence along the Fort Peck Lake shoreline is almost nonexistent. In 1992, 35 acres of shoreline at the Fort Peck Dam were prescribed burned 

to provide suitable nesting habitat for piping plover. 

An occasional wildfire may burn into the sparsely 

vegetated shoreline but quickly goes out for lack of 

burnable fuel. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

Invasive species continue to be one of the greatest 

challenges for managers in the Refuge System 

including the refuge (FWS 2007c). Service-wide, 

according to the Service’s 2007 Refuge Annual Per-
212 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 13. Comparison of riparian area health of 82 streams across the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges

(1995–2009).

Year Number of polygons Miles of stream

Riparian 

acres

Vegetation 

score* (%)

Soils and 

hydrology score (%)Overall 

score (%) Health category

All polygons on Charles M. Russell Refuge: assessed in 1995–97 and resampled in 2009

1995–97 188 88.0 1,284.0 63 55 59 Nonfunctional

2009 155 81.8 1,303.5 70 86 78 Functional at risk 

All one-to-one exact match polygons on Charles M. Russell Refuge: assessed in 1996 and resampled in 2009

1995–97 114 53.6 681.2 62 52 56 Nonfunctional 

2009 114 53.6 773.4 65 83 74 Functional at risk 

Slippery Ann (Siparyann) habitat unit 2: assessed in 1996 and resampled in 2009

1996 34 27.0 282.7 63 54 58 Nonfunctional 

2009 33 27.1 329.0 72 89 81 Functional

Germaine Coulee habitat unit 55: assessed in 1996 and resampled in 2009

1996 19 8.8 74.7 55 51 53 Nonfunctional 

2009 19 8.8 111.6 60 83 73 Functional at risk 

UL Bend Refuge: assessed in 1995 and resampled in 2009

1995 7 1.1 24.3 65 46 55 Nonfunctional 

2009 7 1.1 27.5 84 91 87 Functional

Rock Creek (northwest end of refuge): assessed in 1995 and resampled in 2009

1995 4 0.5 13.0 67 61 64 Functional at risk 

2009 17 13.8 228.1 84 97 91 Functional

Nichols Coulee habitat unit 4: assessed in 1995 and resampled in 2009

1995–97 6 3.4 33.5 63 36 49 Nonfunctional 

2009 6 3.4 34.3 70 72 71 Functional at risk 

CK Creek: assessed in 1997 and partially resampled in 2009

1997 18 20.7 379.5 63 55 59 Nonfunctional 

2009 2 3.1 49.0 63 66 65 Functional at risk 

Armells Creek: comparison of two small polygons assessed in 1995 with two larger polygons assessed in 2009 that contain them

1995 2 0.3 4.1 50 31 40 Nonfunctional 

2009 2 2.2 35.9 80 91 86 Functional

Armells Creek, all 15 polygons: assessed in 2009

2009 15 9.9 187.4 74 89 82 Functional

Pines Recreation Area (South Fork of Duck Creek to Sutherland Creek): assessed in 1995 and resampled in 2009

1995 7 0.9 18.9 68 63 65 Functional at risk 

2009 7 0.9 20.3 60 63 61 Functional at risk 

Woody Draws (Rock Creek area and north to Fort Peck Dam): assessed in 1995 and resampled in 2009

1995 3 0.5 6.9 92 91 91 Functional

2009 9 3.5 74.2 59 78 69 Functional at risk 

*Average scores, weighted on polygon size. Scoring values: 80–100%=Functional (healthy); 60–79%=Functional at risk (healthy, but 

 with problems); <60%=Nonfunctional (nonhealthy).

formance Planning database, 2.4 million acres of 

refuge lands are infested with invasive plants. In 

addition, there are 4,423 invasive animal populations on refuge lands. To combat this growing problem on refuges, Invasive Species Strike Teams were 

set up in several Service regions including region 6. 

They are mobile response units designed to rapidly 

respond to the detection of new infestation and erad-
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 213

icate them. The strike team for region 6 is based out 

of Benton Lake near Great Falls, Montana, and the 

team helps the refuge in combating invasive plants.

Although there are several types of invasive species of existing or potential concern including weed 

species, aquatic invasive species such as zebra mussels, and other pests that could be an issue in the 

future (pine beetle), weeds are the primary issue 

of concern for the refuge. MFWP monitors for the 

detection of aquatic nuisance species in Montana. 

Weed Species

Figure 25 shows the areas treated from 1997 to 2008. 

In 2008, the strike team treated five primary weed species: Russian knapweed, saltcedar, spotted knapweed, 

and whitetop (hoary cress) (refer to table 14). Additionally, the strike team conducted several other activities 

centered on prevention and education efforts, inventory 

and monitoring, and coordination and cooperation with 

other agencies. For example, the team participated in 

the Zortman weed rodeo and conducted a weed wash of 

hunters’ vehicles. More than 70 miles of road were surveyed. Because of the need to cover as much ground 

as possible, other invasive species like Canada thistle 

were not mapped. Other invasive plant threats found 

on the refuge include Russian olive, smooth brome, 

crested wheatgrass, and quackgrass (refer to river bottoms). In the uplands, the two common invasive species 

are Japanese brome and yellow sweetclover. Both species have increased as native plant species diversity has 

decreased in response to the press herbivory and fire 

suppression practices of the refuge. The healthier landscapes on the refuge (places where native plant species 

populations are diverse and viable) have less Japanese 

brome and yellow sweetclover. 

Table 14. Acreage of treated weeds at the Charles 

M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges (2008).

Weed species Treated acres

Leafy spurge 2.47

Russian knapweed 72.90

Saltcedar 30.00

Spotted knapweed 0.71

Whitetop (hoary cress) 6.00

Total 112.07

Invasive plant seeds are easily picked up and 

transported by vehicles. Because the refuge experiences much of its vehicle traffic during the hunting 

seasons, in 2007 the Rancher’s Stewardship Alliance 

in Phillips County organized a hunter-vehicle weed 

wash. This has proven to be an excellent education 

program, and several hunters reported washing 

their vehicles before coming to the refuge in 2008. 

USACE also manages for invasive species on 

the refuge. Generally, they concentrate their efforts 

on treating saltcedar below the high-watermark on 

Fort Peck Reservoir while the Service focuses primarily in the river bottoms and upland areas. The 

Service maintains close cooperation and coordination with USACE. For example, in 2008 the strike 

team combined contractor spray efforts in areas 

important to both agencies. The strike team also 

cooperated with BLM and Valley County to conduct 

an extensive invasive plant survey, recording weed 

infestations along 2,900 miles of road across several 

jurisdictions.

Several methods are currently used or could 

be used to combat invasive plants, including noxious weeds, on the refuge (FWS 2011b). Mechanical 

methods like hand pulling, power tools, and mowing and tilling are more effective for controlling 

annual or biennial pest plants. For perennial plants, 

the root system has to be destroyed, or it will continue to resprout and grow. Biological control agents 

involve the deliberate introduction and management 

of natural enemies to reduce pest populations. There 

are advantages and disadvantages to biological controls. Some biological control efforts have begun on 

the refuge. Herbicides (for example, MilestoneTM) 

are also used to treat weed-infested areas. For longterm prevention and proper maintenance of refuge 

habitats, restoration including revegetation with 

desirable (native) plants is essential (refer to river 

bottoms [above] for more information). 

Saltcedar or tamarisk is the most prolific invasive

species along the river. Canada thistle and knapweed 

are also common. Saltcedar plants are spreading 

shrubs or small trees, 5–20 feet tall, with numerous slender branches. They are an aggressive colonizer, able to survive in a variety of habitats. Often 

they form monotypic stands, replacing willows, cottonwoods, and other native riparian vegetation. The 

stems and leaves of mature plants secrete salt that 

inhibit other plants and changes soil chemistry. Saltcedar is an enormous water consumer, and a single 

large plant can absorb 200 gallons of water per day. 

Infestations can have detrimental effects on wildlife. Large infestations of saltcedar occur along the

1,520-mile-long shoreline of the reservoir. Most infestations occur along the south shore in bays and inlets 

where drainages enter the reservoir (Lesica and 

Miles 2004). Pearce and Smith (2003) estimated the 

presence of 24,500 plants on the Musselshell River of 

a river distance of 240 kilometers with concentrations 

at three nodes close to Roundup, Melstone, and the 

mouth of the river at Fort Peck Reservoir. The oldest plants on the reservoir were estimated at 21 to 

33 years in 2001. It is believed that saltcedar arrived 

on the south shore in the mid to late 1960s and most 

likely dispersed from the Yellowstone River system 

soon after it became established in southern Montana. Many people believe that the most effective 
214 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

way to treat saltcedar would be inundating them by 

raising water levels to drown them for a substantial 

length of time (Lesica and Miles 2004). During the 

winter and spring of 2010–11, historic rain and snowpack levels resulted in lake levels returning to above 

record high water levels. How the elevated lake levels would affect future treatments along the shoreline 

is unclear. As stated in “Chapter 1—Introduction,” 

raising water levels is controlled by USACE and is an 

issue outside the scope of the planning process.

In collaboration with others, the Service runs a weed-wash station during hunting season.

USFWS

BIRDS

More than 250 species of birds have been documented 

on the refuge. The unique combination of native prairies, sagebrush shrublands, forested coulees, pine–

juniper woodlands, riparian areas and river bottoms, 

and badlands makes the refuge a haven for migrant 

and breeding birds. The refuge is also extremely 

important for year-round residents such as sharptailed and sage-grouse. This section discusses sharptailed grouse (which is specifically mentioned in 

Executive Order 7509) in addition to other important bird species not mentioned before.

Grassland Birds

Some grassland birds found on the refuge are among 

the fastest and most consistently declining birds in 

North America due to the loss of native grasslands 

and the management of remaining grasslands (Cunningham and Johnson 2006, North American Bird 

Conservation 2009). Each grassland bird species has a 

unique set of habitat needs, which may include plant 

species present as well as plant structure and development. Some birds prefer extremely shortgrass 

heights (upland sandpiper) whereas others prefer tall 

(Baird’s sparrow). Some avoid areas of woody vegetation (short-eared owl) and others do not (McCown’s 

longspur). Needed food plants may be present but 

may not produce needed seed or fruits due to herbivory or timing of fire. Needed insect foods may 

be dependent on specific plant species that may or 

may not be present. Raptor prey items (rodents and 

small birds) may depend on individual plant species 

and plant structure or insects on an individual plant 

species. Nesting requirements may be different 

than brooding requirements and both might need to 

be near each other. Bird species may also be dependent on unbroken blocks of grasslands of certain sizes 

(NRCS 1999). 

According to the North American Breeding Bird 

Survey data from 1966 to 1993, 70 percent of 29 prairie 

species have experienced population declines 

(Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001). Resident and documented breeding refuge birds that are in trouble or 

showing sharp declines include western meadowlarks, short-eared owls, mountain plover, Sprague’s 

pipit, lark bunting, Baird’s sparrow, chestnut-collared and McCown’s longspurs, and greater sage 

and sharp-tailed grouse (North American Bird 

Conservation 2009). Compounding these declines 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 215

Figure 25. Map of invasive species occurrence at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Figure 25 (invasive species)

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 217

are the current and future effects of global climate 

change on grassland birds. Global climate change 

has and will continue to affect ranges of grassland 

birds by causing changes in summer range such as 

exclusions (Sprague’s pipit), contractions (Brewer’s 

sparrow), expansions (Say’s phoebe), or additions 

(scissor-tailed flycatcher). It could also alter migration behavior and habitat and could ultimately affect 

their survival ability (Price and Glick 2002).

Sharp-tailed Grouse. Sharp-tailed grouse are distributed throughout the refuge, but similar to other 

species, habitat suitability varies spatially and seasonally. Sharp-tailed grouse are considered an indicator for large grassland landscapes and other 

grassland birds. Although Executive Order 7509 

specified that the refuge should be managed for a 

maximum of 400,000 sharp-tailed grouse, those numbers have not been observed on the refuge.

Since the mid-1970s, 177 sharp-tailed grouse leks 

have been mapped (figure 26) and some 2,100 counts 

of sharp-tailed grouse attending leks have been 

counted. Leks are specific areas where grouse gather 

in the spring for courtship displays and mating. 

There have been 15,000 sharp-tailed grouse counted 

on the refuge (including repeat counts of the same 

leks within years). Exact lek counts are difficult to 

obtain because sharp-tailed grouse have lower site 

fidelity than other species (such as sage-grouse), and 

multiple counts within a season are challenging due 

to the size of the refuge. Because of these logistical 

challenges, an annual listening survey was started in 

1989 as an index to track regional sharp-tailed grouse 

population levels. Some 330 stations were established in potential sharp-tailed grouse habitat, each 

spaced about 1 mile apart on roads. An observer listens for sharp-tailed grouse breeding sounds early in 

the morning and records presence or absence at each 

station. When populations are high, more birds make 

more sounds and new satellite leks become established, all contributing to hearing birds at a higher 

proportion of listening stations. The opposite is true 

when populations are low. Figure 27 summarizes listening data collected since 1990.

Figure 26. Map of lek locations for sharp-tailed grouse on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Other Birds

Other bird groups found on the refuge include colonial-nesting birds, waterfowl, raptors, and owls. 

Early refuge narratives document the declines of 

colonial-nesting birds and waterfowl as water levels 

rose after the Fort Peck Dam was completed. Pelicans, great blue herons, and cormorants were common nesters in the large cottonwoods along the river 

but these birds gradually disappeared as the cottonwoods were drowned out and covered by water. 

Ducks and geese were also documented as common upland nesters along the Missouri River before 

the lake rising. Most goose nests were located in the 

dense underbrush found along the river whereas 

duck nests were located in the grassy uplands. Nesting waterfowl numbers seem to have fluctuated early 

on with the rise and fall of the lake. Refuge personnel 

noted that the lake provided little food to waterfowl, 

and over time the refuge became more of a migratory loafing area than a nesting area. Winter flocks 

of waterfowl used the refuge during times when area 

farmers stockpiled cereal crops such as barley and 

oats for winter livestock feed. Supplemental feeding of wintering waterfowl on the refuge was also 

quite common during the 1940s and 1950s. Currently, 

waterfowl remain in the river below the Fort Peck 

Dam during fall and winter months. 

In the mid-1950s, refuge personnel began documenting raptors and owls mainly because they 

counted the numbers of both that had been killed by 

refuge employees. It was also noted that local residents and hunters also shot these birds on sight. 
218 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 27. Chart of survey results for the listening route for sharp-tailed grouse on the Charles M. Russell and 

UL Bend Refuges (1990–2008).

Both golden and bald eagles were commonly shot as 

well as great horned owls (crows and magpies were 

also shot on sight). Other raptor species documented 

included northern goshawk, prairie falcon, roughlegged hawk, and northern harrier (“marsh hawk”). 

Ospreys were first recorded along the lake in 1958. 

Their numbers have increased due to nesting platforms being built by refuge employees. Eagle numbers have also increased due to the elimination of 

strychnine poisoning and shooting. 

Neotropical migratory birds use the refuge both 

as nesting habitat but also as a stopover area during 

spring and fall migrations while heading both north 

and south of the refuge. The millions of neotropical 

birds using the refuge primarily as a stopover area 

are also negatively affected by grazing for many of 

the same reasons as nesting birds. Foraging habitat (multiple layers of plant species) needs to be protected along with the food-producing plants (seed and 

berry producers) and food-sheltering plants (plants 

insects feed on) (Pool and Austin 2006).

Although riparian zones make up less than 1 percent of western landscapes, they harbor the most 

species-rich avifauna of all the major habitats in the 

western United States (Young et al. 2001). In the 

western United States, more species of breeding 

birds are found in these limited riparian zones than 

the far more abundant adjacent uplands. More than 

60 percent of neotropical migratory birds use riparian areas as stopover areas while migrating north 

and south or as breeding habitat (Krueper 1993). 

They are also the most modified suffering a loss at 

greater than 95 percent. Shorebird species found on 

refuge wetlands, shoreline habitats and grasslands 

are also in decline (Brown et al. 2001).

The National Audubon Society has recognized 

the refuge as an Important Bird Area. The program 

recognizes that coupled with global warming, habitat loss and fragmentation are the most serious 

threats facing populations of birds across American 

and around the world (National Audubon Society 

2009). The refuge has been recognized as a Global 

Important Bird Area based on three criteria: (1) the 

site regularly holds significant numbers of a globally 

threatened species or other species of global conservation concern; (2) Montana State holds species of 

State Conservation Concern; and (3) Montana State 

has greater than 1 percent of the State’s population. 

Of the 276 species of birds actually recorded near or 

on the refuge, there are several species of global or 

continental conservation concern. The refuge lies 

directly south of the Glaciated Prairie Sage-Steppe 

Important Bird Area for Greater Sage-Grouse and 

northeast of the Musselshell Important Bird Area 

for Greater Sage-Grouse (Montana Audubon 2008).

Focal Bird Species

The Service has identified several species as focal 

birds, those that serve as indicator species on the 

refuge. These are species that regularly nest on the 

refuge, species of conservation priority or concern, 

Service’s target species, stewardship species under 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 219

the North American Landbird Conservation Plan, 

species of concern under the North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Following are the focal birds 

for the major habitat types on the refuge.

■ Uplands: long-billed curlew, Sprague’s pipit, 

Baird’s sparrow, brown creeper, sharp-tailed 

grouse, and greater sage-grouse

■ River bottoms: red-eyed vireo, Brewer’s blackbird, and veery

■ Riparian areas and wetlands: ovenbird, Cordilleran flycatcher, black-billed cuckoo, and western 

wood pewee

For more information about focal bird species, refer 

to chapter 3, section 3.8, “Wildlife—Birds.”

Grazing and Fire Effects

Management tools such as livestock grazing and fire 

can cause profound changes in the composition and 

abundance of plants, which in turn affects bird species composition and numbers (Bock et al. 1993, Murphy 2008, Fuhlendorf et al. 2006). Refuge narratives 

as early as 1942 noted the negative effects grazing 

was having on grouse species: “Locally, the upland 

game depends largely on habitat and weather, the 

habitat in turn depending on grazing pressure.” 

When ungrazed and grazed streamside riparian 

areas were compared on the refuge, almost twice as 

many individual birds were found on the ungrazed 

areas than grazed (Knowles and Knowles 1994, 

FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants 1996). Bird species 

composition showed a higher number of grassland 

species (sparrows) on the grazed areas, whereas the 

ungrazed areas had species more commonly found in 

forested riparian areas such as flycatchers, warblers, 

and cavity nesters including kestrels.

Bock (1993) states, “the principal means by which 

livestock grazing affects bird populations is by altering habitat structure and food availability.” Relationships between birds and grazing—whether by bison, 

wild ungulates, prairie dogs, or domestic livestock—

are complex because there are such wide ranges in 

intensity, season, duration, and style of grazing. Individual bird species such as horned lark and mountain 

plover may respond positively to grazing, although 

they still require shade plants to survive summer 

heat (Shackford 1996). Other birds such as Baird’s 

sparrow may respond negatively, and some birds 

such as grasshopper sparrow have a mixed response. 

These same species may respond differently in the 

taller grasses of the Midwest versus the response in 

the shorter grasses of the Great Plains. Adding seasonal changes in precipitation and possible long-term 

changes in climate only complicate things further.

Grassland birds can be affected by fire in several 

ways. Fire can eliminate trees and shrubs, which negatively affects some bird species that are adapted to 

nesting in prairie grasses. Although birds and nests 

decline immediately after a fire, within a few years 

they can exceed preburn levels. Short-term loss of 

breeding habitat is often outweighed by long-term 

benefits to the changes in vegetation (Murphy 2008). 

Using a management tool such as patch-burn grazing results in a mosaic of habitats that consistently 

shifts. One benefit is that it provides needed habitat 

for the full range of year-round resident, migratory, 

breeding, and nonbreeding birds (Churchwell et al. 

2007). The severity of fires can also influence bird 

abundance and species, which suggests a need for all 

kinds of fires and not just the low-severity fires used 

most in prescribed fire plans (Smucker et al. 2005).

The short- to midgrass prairies of the Great 

Plains evolved with frequent disturbances including intense grazing by prairie dogs and bison. Grassland birds also changed with these grazing effects 

on the vegetation. Birds selected a variety of different grass heights created by the intense grazing by 

prairie dogs and bison. Native grazers created a natural patch ecosystem, and each patch had different 

site characteristics that favored the entire prairie 

bird fauna. When contrasted with current grazing 

patterns, now there is less of a patchwork of habitat because more of the grassland is the same. This 

change has contributed to a decline in native birds 

(Vickery et al. 2008). Increasing the disturbances in 

grasslands through patch burning and grazing can, 

in time, reverse this decline by increasing diversity 

in both food and structure (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006).

Road and Public Use Effects

Roads have the potential to fragment wildlife habitat, 

which can exacerbate the problem of habitat loss for 

grasslands birds. One of the concerns for bird species 

is the edge effect whereby birds that live on the edge 

of an area are able to invade and attack interior species. Understanding the effects of habitat fragmentation is complex and not easy to assess (Johnson 2001).

THREATENED and ENDANGERED SPECIES 

and SPECIES of CONCERN 

There are currently four species found on the refuge that are listed on the threatened and endangered species list: black-footed ferret, least tern, 

piping plover, and pallid sturgeon. The grizzly bear 

(threatened) is found in Montana but not on the refuge. Endangered whooping cranes migrate through 

McCone, Phillips, and Valley Counties. These threatened and endangered species and several species of 

concern are discussed below. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

The Service is following recovery plans for the following listed species found on the refuge: blackfooted ferret, least tern, and pallid sturgeon, which 
220 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

are all listed as endangered, and piping plover, which 

is listed as threatened.

Black-footed Ferret (Endangered). Black-footed ferrets, 

listed as endangered, were first reintroduced in 

Montana in 1994 on black-tailed prairie dog colonies 

located at UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. The 

thinking at the time was that reintroduction techniques could be figured out on the refuge part (10 

percent) of the experimental reintroduction area 

and, once refined, expand reintroductions north 

onto what had been about 26,000 acres of prairie 

dogs as mapped in 1988. There were also hopes to 

expand even further and try to populate with ferrets 

another 25,000 acres of prairie dog colonies on the 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation.

Black-footed ferrets require at least a few thousand acres of healthy prairie dog colonies to provide 

habitat and prey because they are obligate predators of prairie dogs and they live in the tunnel systems created and maintained by prairie dogs. Many 

public land managers and landowners have a general 

intolerance for very many acres of prairie dogs and 

throughout the black-footed ferret’s historical range, 

generally small and fragmented prairie dog occupied 

landscapes are limiting ferret recovery. In addition 

to limited human tolerance of prairie dogs, epizootics 

of sylvatic plague can eliminate thousands of acres of 

prairie dogs in a few weeks, thus eliminating expansive areas of black-footed ferret habitat. In addition, 

ferrets exposed to plague die within 3 days. Plague 

was first ever detected in Phillips County, Montana 

in 1992 when many prairie dog colonies suddenly disappeared. By 1996, nearly 80 percent of 26,000 acres 

of prairie dog colonies had died out. Epizootic plague 

(high level of mortality over a short period) was 

never observed at the UL Bend Refuge until 2007.

Sylvatic plague is a nonnative disease foreign to 

the evolutionary history of North American species. 

Plague was inadvertently introduced into the United 

States around 1900. Sylvatic plague is a bacterial 

infection transmitted primarily by infected fleas. It 

can affect the black-footed ferret directly via infection and subsequent mortality or indirectly through 

the disease’s effects on prairie dogs and the potential for dramatic declines in the ferret’s primary 

prey. Plague can be present in a prairie dog colony in 

either an enzootic state (persistent, low level of mortality) or epizootic state (high mortality). Recovery 

efforts for the ferrets are hampered because both 

ferrets and prairie dogs are extremely susceptible to 

plague.

Despite these obstacles, a huge amount of effort 

has gone into trying to establish black-footed ferrets in north-central Montana. There have been 229 

captive-reared ferret kits released in three areas 

of the UL Bend Refuge, 95 north of the refuge on 

BLM lands and 167 in two areas of the Fort Belknap 

Indian Reservation. In addition, at least 236 wildborn kits have been observed at the UL Bend Refuge. The last confirmed sighting of a ferret on Fort 

Belknap was in 2003, 2006 on BLM lands and six ferrets (two male and four female) were observed at UL 

Bend during April 2009. The following graph (figure 

28) illustrates the population history of black-footed 

ferrets at UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge.

During 2007 and continuing in 2008, epizootic 

plague eliminated about 60 percent of the prairie dog 

acreage where ferrets had resided at the UL Bend 

Refuge. Plague was also reported to be widespread 

north of the refuge and was eliminating a substantial portion of remaining prairie dogs throughout 

Phillips County. To protect the remaining prairie 

dogs and resident ferrets (six ferrets present in 

April 2008—four male and two female), all remaining 

active portions of prairie dogs in the Locke and Hawley area were treated with 0.05 percent deltamethrin 

during early summer 2008 to kill fleas (a vector for 

plague and shown to improve ferret and prairie dog 

survival in plague-prone areas (Matchett et al. 2010 

and Biggins et al. 2010). More than 34,000 burrows 

were treated, and both prairie dog and ferret populations have persisted through fall 2009.

Despite the failure to establish a self-sustaining 

black-footed ferret population in Montana, the Service remains hopeful that a ferret population contributing to the rangewide recovery of the species 

will be established in Montana. Already, much has 

been learned along the way that has greatly helped 

national efforts for ferret recovery. For example, 

Matchett et al. (2010) has shown that in addition to 

epizootic plague affecting ferrets, enzootic plague 

(that is, the presence of disease-causing Yersinia 

pestis when there is no noticeable decrease in prairie 

dog abundance) also reduces ferret survival and that 

both flea control and an experimental plague vaccine 

for ferrets were effective.

It is likely that if an oral plague vaccine can be 

developed, prairie dog numbers will increase and 

stabilize on the refuge, and the area may be able to 

sustain a population of ferrets that will contribute to 

its recovery rangewide. If the current ferret population at UL Bend Refuge dies out before prairie dog 

numbers can increase, the opportunity remains to 

use the existing expertise and management framework to recover ferrets when more favorable conditions occur. Refuge staff will continue monitoring the 

remaining ferrets at the UL Bend Refuge. Several 

wild-born kits were observed during fall 2009, but 

with a total spring breeding population of only six 

animals during the last 2 years, the Service expects 

the population to die out completely in the near 

future.

As summarized below, MFWP has spent considerable time constructing plans for prairie dog and 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 221

associated species conservation. Refuge staff and 

many cooperators have worked diligently for some 

20 years trying to maintain and enhance complexes 

of prairie dogs capable of supporting a viable population of black-footed ferrets in Montana. With the 

multiple planning efforts and committees established by MFWP, the Service views them as the lead 

agency for these efforts.

In response to black-tailed prairie dogs becoming 

a candidate species (warranted, but precluded) for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2000, 

MFWP developed a statewide prairie dog conservation plan that was completed in 2002. They then 

worked hard to complete a local region 6 (northeast 

Montana) prairie dog plan in 2006. After completion 

of that local plan, MFWP established a facilitated 

“Implementation Committee” to attempt locating and 

managing for complexes of prairie dogs suitable for 

black-footed population establishment as called for 

in the previous two plans (Category I Complexes). 

That Implementation Committee made its recommendations to MFWP in 2008, but fell short of drawing any lines on maps. 

Figure 28. Graph of data for the black-footed ferret population at the UL Bend Refuge.

Least Tern (Endangered). The interior population of the 

least tern was listed as endangered by the Service 

in 1985. The least tern was first documented in Montana at Fort Peck Lake in 1987. Annual surveys have 

been conducted since 1988 on both Fort Peck Lake 

and the Missouri River below the dam. The most 

successful breeding year for least terns on the reservoir was in 1994 and nesting has been sporadic since 

then (USACE 2008), as shown in table 15. 

Table 15. Least tern nest success at Fort Peck Lake.

Year Number of nests Successful nests*

1994 8 3

2004 0 0

2005 0 0

2006 2 1

2007 2 1

*Number of nests producing fledglings. (USACE 2008).

Fort Peck Reservoir is at the northwestern limit 

of the interior least tern’s breeding range resulting 

in the low numbers of birds in this area. In addition, 

the amount of available habitat changes with the 

lake level and affects the number of birds attracted 

to the reservoir in any given year. The Missouri 

River below the dam and the Yellowstone River 

attract more birds than the reservoir. Survey results 

show that Montana has met or exceeded the recovery goal of 50 adult birds as set forth in the 1990 

Interior Least Tern Recovery Plan (Atkinson and 

Dood 2006a). 

Pallid Sturgeon (Endangered). The upper Missouri 

River above Fort Peck Reservoir is one of the six 
222 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

recovery-priority management areas, identified as 

RPMA 1 in the Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan

(Dryer and Sandvol 1993). Historically, pallid sturgeon were found along this 230-mile reach; however, 

losses of habitat and the migration barrier caused by 

the completion of Fort Peck Dam in the 1930s, and 

construction of Canyon Ferry and Tiber dams in the 

1950s, has caused their near extinction. Additionally, 

the population was found to be senescent and that 

there had been no significant recruitment in the last 

10 years (Gardner 1996). Very few wild pallids now 

remain in RPMA 1 (probably 10–20). The core area 

where most of the pallids are now primarily found is 

a 61-mile reach between Cow Island (river mile 1944) 

and Beauchamp Creek (river mile 1883). 

MFWP, in cooperation with the Service, initiated 

pallid sturgeon recovery in RPMA 1 with the release 

of 733 hatchery-reared, yearling pallid sturgeon during 1998. Table 16 shows the stocking history of the 

Missouri River in Montana. 

Table 16. History of stocking pallid sturgeon in the 

middle Missouri River, Montana (1998–2008).

Year 

(class)

Year 

stocked Stage Number stocked

1997 1998 yearling 733

2001 2002 

2004 

yearling

age 3

 2,058

 189

2003 2004 yearling 3,113

2004 2005 yearling 706

2005

2005 

2005 

2006 

larval

fingerling

yearling

 33,300

 2,480

 4,737

2006 2007 yearling 4,534

2007 2007 

2008 

fingerling

yearling

 38,608

 5,699

2008 2008 

2008 

larval

fingerling

 62,055

 24,980

Total 176,393

The goal for stocking is to restore the population to 1,000 adults, age 15 years or older (including about 20,000 pallids less than 15 years) by 2027. 

The population of 15-year-old and older adults will be 

maintained by stocking for one generation. The population of 1,000 adults was selected based on maintaining genetic diversity and reasonable population 

demographics. 

The present habitat condition will be maintained 

in at least the present form (minimum instream flows, 

water quality, and riparian areas). Main stem and tributary dams in the area have had profound effects on 

natural flow conditions and therefore dam operation 

effects on pallid sturgeon habitat will be evaluated. 

There seems to be considerable pallid use of the transitional river and reservoir reach (river mile 1867–98) 

near the river delta in Fort Peck Reservoir. There may 

be potential for enhancing the riverine habitat here for 

pallid sturgeon by developing a more favorable water 

level management plan (Gardner 2003). Gerrity et al. 

(2008) found pallid sturgeon avoids reaches of river 

with islands and secondary channels, selecting reaches 

without islands and main channel habitats. Water level 

management can influence the amount of habitat available for pallid sturgeon. Fish are the primary prey of 

juvenile pallid sturgeon, because sturgeon chub and 

sicklefin chub composed 79 percent of the diet of sampled pallid sturgeons (Gerrity et al. 2006). These two 

cyprinids are on the species of concern list. 

Piping Plover (Threatened). There are three breeding 

populations of piping plovers in North America, 

which were listed under the Endangered Species 

Act in 1985. Plovers nesting on Fort Peck Reservoir are considered part of the northern Great Plains 

population and are listed as threatened. 

Plovers are attracted to gravel beaches on the lakeshore and islands that are exposed during periods of 

low lake levels. In 2002, the Service designated 77,371 

acres on Fort Peck Reservoir as critical habitat (see figure 29). According to the 2006 Montana Piping Plover 

Management Plan, critical habitat “refers to specific 

geographic locations that contain features essential for 

conserving a species and may require special management considerations” (Atkinson and Dood 2006b).

Although plovers were observed in Montana during the 1970s and were known to breed on Fort Peck 

Reservoir, formal surveys did not begin until after 

they were listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

USACE conducts annual surveys of the reservoir 

and monitors nest success (refer to table 17). The 

amount of available habitat changes with the lake 

level and affects the number of birds attracted to 

the reservoir in any given year. However, long-term 

monitoring shows that most inland sites have failed 

to reach specified recovery levels and the northern 

Great Plains population as a whole is declining 

(Atkinson and Dood 2006b).
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 223

Figure 29. Map of critical habitat for piping plover at 

Fort Peck Reservoir.

Table 17. Piping plover nest success at Fort Peck Lake.

Number of Number of Nesting 

 Year plovers nests success*

2004 9 4 4

2005 26 11 7

2006 20 7 6

2007 16 8 6

*Number of nests producing fledglings. Table taken from 

 Fort Peck Dam/Fort Peck Lake Master Plan (2008).

Grizzly Bear (Threatened). Grizzly bears are generally larger and more heavily built than other bears,

and can be distinguished from black bears by longer, curved claws, humped shoulders, and a face 

that appears to be concave. When Lewis and Clark 

explored the West in the early 1800s, an estimated 

50,000 grizzly bears roamed between the Pacific 

Ocean and the Great Plains, across vast stretches 

of open and unpopulated land. But when pioneers 

moved in, bears were persecuted and their numbers

and range drastically declined. As European settlement expanded over the next hundred years, habitat 

for these large omnivores, along with their numbers 

drastically declined. Today, only a few small corners of 

grizzly country remain, supporting about 1,200–1,400 

wild grizzly bears. Of 37 grizzly populations present 

in 1922, 31 were extirpated by 1975. In 1975, the Service listed the grizzly bear as a threatened species in 

the lower 48 States under the Endangered Species 

Act, placing the species under Federal protection.

On March 22, 2007, the Service announced that the 

Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of grizzly 

bears is a recovered population no longer meeting 

the Endangered Species Act’s definition of threatened or endangered. However, on November 11, 

2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 

the Greater Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of grizzly bears should remain protected under 

the Endangered Species Act. On April 18, 2007, the 

Service announced the initiation of a 5-year review 

of grizzly bear (as listed in the lower 48 States). The 

Service conducts these reviews to ensure that a classification of each species as threatened or endangered on the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants is correct. A 5-year review is 

an assessment of the best scientific and commercial 

data available at the time of the review. 

The Service, in cooperation with numerous partners, has purchased several conservation easements 

along the Rocky Mountain Front to help grizzly 

bears (and other wildlife species) by conserving corridors for grizzly bears to move to other large blocks 

of secure habitat. Over the past 2 years, juvenile 

grizzly bears from the Rocky Mountain Front have 

ventured toward the Missouri River Corridor. As 

grizzly bear populations grow and more habitat is 

conserved, the probability of grizzlies traveling from 

the Front to the Missouri River and subsequently 

onto the refuge increases. As a result, the CCP 

addresses the Service’s response if grizzly bears naturally migrate down the river onto the refuge.

Whooping Crane (Endangered). Endangered whooping cranes migrate through three of the six counties 

(McCone, Phillips, and Valley Counties). The cranes 

may pass over the refuge during spring or fall migrations and stop briefly to feed, but there are no resident or breeding populations on the refuge.

Species of Concern

There are several species of concern found on the 

refuge. They generally rank no greater than G3 

or S3 from Montana Natural Heritage Program 

(2008), or are currently being considered for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act.
224 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 30. Map of the maximum extent of black-tailed prairie dogs at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges 

(1979–2007).

Black-tailed Prairie Dog. Black-tailed prairie dog colonies on the refuge are most abundant in the Phillips 

County part of the refuge and near the southern end 

of the Big Dry Arm of Fort Peck Reservoir, along 

with a single colony of about 1,000 acres in Valley 

County. The perimeters of prairie dog colonies have 

been mapped through the years and figure 30 shows 

the maximum extent of where prairie dogs have been 

recorded from 1979 through 2007 and totals 15,700 

acres. The last time all colonies on the refuge were 

mapped was in 2003 and totaled 7,300 acres. Epizootic plague was widespread in Phillips County during 2007 and reduced prairie dog acreage there by 

50 percent from 5,200 acres mapped in 2004 to 2,600 

mapped in 2007.

The vast majority of the refuge is not suitable 

habitat for prairie dogs and much of the refuge is on 

the fringe of suitable habitat. Many existing colonies 

have limited expansion potential because of topography, hydrology and shrub or tree cover limitations. 

Sylvatic plague was first documented in Phillips 

County in 1992 after thousands of acres of prairie 

dogs suddenly disappeared throughout the county. 

The Manning Corral prairie dog colony on the refuge 

in southern Phillips County was nearly 1,400 acres in 

size before being affected by plague in 1992 when it 

was reduced to 16 acres in about a month. Plague epizootics continued in varying degrees through 1996 

and prairie dog populations have slowly recovered 

since, until 2007 when plague once again eliminated 

many colonies over a wide area. More discussion 

about prairie dogs and plague is located under the 

black-footed ferret section.

Prairie dog range in the early 1900s reached from 

southern Saskatchewan southward across the Great 

Plains to northern Mexico. Although prairie dog colonies covered up to 98 million acres (Knowles and 

Knowles 1994), current estimates place the area 

occupied at 1–2 percent of historical levels (Miller 

et al. 1990, Marsh 1994). Prairie dogs have lived on 

the Great Plains for thousands of years, providing 

food or habitat for numerous species. The endangered black-footed ferret, for example, depends 

solely on prairie dogs for food, and on prairie dog 

burrows for shelter.

Prairie dogs are a keystone species for the Great 

Plans (Kotliar 2000). Prairie dogs are prey for other 

species, dig burrows used as nest sites and shelter 

for invertebrates and vertebrates, and alter nutrient 

cycling, plant species composition, and plant structure. Sensitive species closely associated with prairie dogs include the mountain plover and burrowing 

owl. Predator species include black-footed ferrets, 

raptors, badgers, bobcats, mountain lions, coyotes, 

and western rattlesnakes. Nine of the 208 species 

listed in the literature as observed on or near prairie dog colonies have quantitative evidence of dependence on prairie dogs (Kotliar 2000). 

In 1998 the prairie dog was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. In 2000, the 

Service found that listing was “warranted but precluded” meaning that listing was warranted but 

other species had higher priority. In 2004, the Service issued a “not warranted” finding on a resubmitted petition removing it as a candidate species. In 

2007, the prairie dog was petitioned again for listing 

and on December 2, 2008, the Service issued a positive 90-day finding for the prairie dog. Most recently, 

the Service completed a status review and found 

that it does not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act at this time. 

Section 87–5–103(1), Montana Code Annotated 

states that nongame wildlife species should be “perpetuated as members of ecosystems.” The prairie 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 225

dog itself is listed on the Natural Heritage Program 

and MFWP “Species of Concern” list (Montana Natural Heritage Program and MFWP 2009), as well 

as BLM’s “Special Status Species” list in Montana. 

Several species associated with prairie dogs also are 

listed by the State and BLM as species of management concern. BLM has a heightened responsibility for species that it designates as “sensitive,” in 

that it should afford them special protection to ensure that their populations and habitat are conserved.

The refuge has been an active member of the 

Montana Prairie Dog Working Group that produced MFWP’s “Conservation Plan for Black-tailed 

and White-tailed Prairie Dogs in Montana” (MFWP 

2002b, 2006b). Refuge staff continue to work with 

MFWP and other partners to establish and maintain 

a complex of prairie dog colonies capable of supporting a viable black-footed ferret population as called 

for in the plan, but little progress has been made. 

Prairie dogs remain a controversial species, considered a pest in need of control by agricultural interests, the focus of recreational shooters (not on the 

refuge), and plague continues to be problematic. 

All these factors make it difficult to grow and maintain adequate prairie dog acreage to support ferrets. 

Experience with black-footed ferret reintroductions over the last 19 years across the Nation clearly 

shows that larger complexes of prairie dog colonies 

close together have better success establishing ferret populations than areas with small and scattered 

colonies.

Watchful prairie dogs atop their mound.

© Diane Hargreaves

Swift Fox. Swift fox were common throughout central 

and eastern Montana prairies before poisoning 

efforts directed at coyotes and wolves in the early 

1900s (Foresman 2001). After the large poisoning 

efforts on the prairies and 50 years without documented observations, Hoffmann et al. (1969) suggested the swift fox was extinct in Montana. Since 

1969, sporadic observations have been documented 

throughout eastern Montana. Reintroduction efforts 

on the Blackfoot Indian Reservation in northwestern Montana in 1998 and southern Saskatchewan 

and Alberta from 1983 to 1991 are thought to be the 

source population of many of these sightings (Foresman 2001). These populations continue to expand to 

the south and east in Montana, and recent surveys 

have documented swift fox in many of the counties 

bordering Canada in north-central Montana (Moehrenschlager and Moehrenschlager 2001). Trapping is 

not currently allowed in Montana. 

Swift fox are not known to regularly occur on the 

refuge, but there were two reported sightings in the 

UL Bend area during the late 1990s and one along 

Bone Trail in southern Valley County during July 

2006 along with a couple older sightings along Highway 191 north of the refuge. 

Not unlike prairie dog habitat, much of the refuge 

is topographically too rough for swift fox that generally prefer wide-open areas with gentle topography 

and generally sparse vegetation. The World Wildlife 

Fund is planning a camera trapping survey of 16 

townships in Phillips County beginning in September 2009 and will include two townships on the refuge. Results of that survey should provide better 

picture of swift fox abundance in southern Phillips 

County. 

There are no current plans for any swift fox reintroductions into suitable habitat on the refuge, but they 

have been considered in the past, and could be again. 
226 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

In 2001, the Service found that swift fox should be 

listed as a threatened species under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Greater Sage-Grouse. Portions of the refuge provide 

quality sage-grouse habitat, but similar to other 

prairie species, much of the refuge is on the fringe of 

more expansive areas of prime sage-grouse habitat 

(Doherty et al. 2010). However, recent research by 

Rebecca Smith, M.S. candidate, University of Montana (FWS 2011f) has shown the refuge provided 

critical habitat for survival of about 300 sage-grouse 

that migrated nearly 100 miles from southern Saskatchewan and northern Montana during the harsh 

winter of 2010–11, which saw record snowfall. The 

extent of the use and the importance of the refuge 

to the survival of this international population are 

just beginning to be better understood, and ongoing research will better quantify the importance 

of the refuge for sage-grouse. Sage-grouse populations are monitored primarily with counts of birds on 

breeding leks in the spring (figure 31). Overall population levels fluctuate annually for a variety of reasons. Long-term population levels and trends appear 

to be stable on the refuge. An important threat to 

sage-grouse is the effect of West Nile virus, an exotic 

disease first introduced to sage-grouse in Montana 

during 2003.

The refuge staff monitored more than 100 radiomarked adult female sage-grouse during late summer 

and fall 2003 and measured a 16-percent mortality 

rate in about a month (Moynahan et al. 2006b). During the two summers before this West Nile virus outbreak, mortality among radio-marked hens averaged 

1 percent. It is very difficult to confirm West Nile 

virus as the cause of death as carcasses degrade rapidly in the summer heat, but West Nile virus was 

confirmed as the cause of death in four birds. Subsequent monitoring of radio-marked sage-grouse 

through 2006 also detected West Nile virus–caused 

deaths, but mortality rates were lower.

In March 2010, the Service found the greater 

sage-grouse was “warranted, but precluded” for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act. Greater 

sage-grouse are now considered a candidate species 

and will be managed on the refuge as if they were 

listed as threatened. The refuge has been an integral part of several graduate research studies on 

sage-grouse in recent years (Battazzo 2007; Moynahan 2004, Moynahan et al. 2006a, 2006b; Sauls 2006). 

In addition, refuge staff has collaborated with many 

others throughout the West on sage-grouse conservation and the effects of West Nile virus (Naugle et 

al. 2004, 2005).

The Service has found that public harvest of sagegrouse can continue provided that habitat remains in 

good condition and populations are healthy. In areas 

where populations have declined, it may be prudent 

to close the season. Conditions could vary across 

national wildlife refuges. On the refuge, sage-grouse 

populations are generally robust and healthy. Harvest levels likely have limited, if any, influence on 

population dynamics. In the absence of new information, the Service has adopted State-recommended 

harvest management strategies for sage-grouse.

Figure 31. Map of lek locations for greater sage-grouse on and near the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Mountain Plover. In May 2011, the Service found that 

the mountain plover does not warrant protection 

under the Endangered Species Act. Loss or degradation of mountain plover habitat has generally been 

identified as the greatest potential threat to the species. Black-tailed prairie dogs create favorable breeding habitat for the mountain plover in several States 

including Montana. Efforts to maintain prairie dog 

colonies and the prairie ecosystem would, in turn, 

benefit mountain plover. Mountain plover occurrence 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 227

on the refuge is primarily associated with nesting 

habitats located on prairie dog colonies. Many prairie 

dog colonies on the refuge are not selected by mountain plovers for nesting (for example, most of the prairie dog colonies on the UL Bend Refuge), but others, 

primarily located on upland ridges and often with glacial till and desert pavement substrates, are prime 

nesting areas. Researchers have conducted long-term 

mountain plover monitoring efforts, primarily in Phillips County. Mountain plover populations and nesting 

success closely parallel black-tailed prairie dog abundance and like prairie dogs, are greatly influenced by 

the effects of sylvatic plague. Once plague effectively 

eliminates a prairie dog colony, within a year, that colony is no longer suitable for mountain plover nesting 

habitat as vegetation heights become too high without prairie dog activity.

Sicklefin Chub, Sturgeon Chub, and Blue Sucker. Sicklefin 

chub and sturgeon chub were proposed for listing as 

an endangered species in 1994, and in 2001, the Service found they do not warrant listing as threatened 

or endangered. Sicklefin chub is currently a Category 

1 species (Grisak 1998), and is ranked S1 on the Montana species of concern list. MFWP conducted a population survey on the Missouri River starting in 1996. 

Distribution around the refuge includes the middle 

Missouri River from Cow Island downstream to the 

headwaters of Fort Peck Reservoir. The sicklefin chub 

lives to 4 years of age and becomes sexually mature at 

2 years old. Spawning occurs in main channel areas of 

large turbid rivers during the summer. Early life history is unknown. They prefer deeper water and sandy 

substrate. The major threat is habitat alteration by 

dams and irrigation development. Further reductions in streamflows associated with irrigations could 

degrade existing habitat. 

Sturgeon chub is common in eastern Montana but is 

listed as a Montana species of concern (S2S3). Recently, 

surveys have found it to be more widely distributed 

than previously thought. It is indigenous to the Missouri–Mississippi river basins. The sturgeon chub 

spawns from June to July, reached sexual maturity at 2 

years, and few live to 4 years old (Gould 1998). They are 

adapted to turbid water, associated with moderate currents and depths and prefer sand or rock substrates. 

They require riffles and runs in turbid shallow waters 

or deeper running waters. The major threat is habitat 

alteration by dams and irrigation development. Further reductions in streamflows associated with irrigations could degrade existing habitat (Gould 1998). 

Blue sucker (S2S3) populations are healthy in 

Montana, but it is listed as a species of concern. It 

is adapted for life in swift currents of large rivers, 

migrating in spring upriver and congregating in fast 

rocky areas to spawn. They can live 17 years but seem 

to have very low reproductive success. The species is 

considered an indicator species for ecosystem health 

because of its habitat-specific requirements. Habitat 

protection includes establishment of more natural 

seasonal flows on rivers (Williams et al. 1989). 

Northern Leopard Frog. Northern leopard frogs were 

proposed for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2009. A positive 90-day finding was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 

2009, and a 12-month status review of the species was 

completed in October 2011. The Service found that 

the leopard frog does not warrant Federal protection as a listed species. While the species has experienced reductions in its historical range, particularly 

in the western United States and western Canada, 

the species is still considered to be widespread and 

relatively common in the eastern United States and 

eastern Canada. It is considered uncommon throughout western States including Montana. They breed 

in a variety of habitats including slow-moving or still 

water along streams and rivers, wetlands, permanent 

or temporary pools, beaver ponds, and stock tanks 

(Rorabaugh 2005). These areas do not contain predaceous fish or other predators and contain emergent 

vegetation for breeding and tadpole habitat (Smith 

2003). Subadults migrate to feeding sites along the 

borders of larger, more permanent bodies of water 

(Merrell 1970). Adults require stream, pond, lake, 

and river habitats for overwintering and upland habitats next to these areas for summer feeding. In summer, adults and juveniles commonly feed in open or 

semi-open wet meadows and fields with shorter vegetation, usually near the margins of waterbodies, and 

seek escape cover underwater. During winter, leopard frogs are found inactive underwater on the bottom of deeper streams or waters that do not freeze to 

the bottom and are well-oxygenated (Stewart et al. 

2004) Males call in shallow water during breeding 

season. Eggs are laid in breeding habitat and are 

attached to the vegetation, just below the water surface. Larvae develop in shallow, still water exposed 

to sunlight. Tadpoles are generalist herbivores, eating attached and free-floating algae (Hoff et al. 1999). 

Adult and subadult frogs are generalist insectivores 

(Merrell 1977, Smith 2003). During spring and fall 

migrations and juvenile dispersals, leopard frogs 

have been tracked 5 miles from original locations 

(Werner et al. 2004).

Incidental observations of northern leopard frogs 

on the refuge have been recorded in early narratives. Sightings of between one and three individuals 

are common but on two occasions, two areas on the 

refuge have had more than 50 individuals recorded. 

In 2009 at the UL Bend Refuge, 50 individuals were 

found south of Dry Lake; in Valley County, more 

than 100 leopard frogs were found in ponds by Duck 

Creek (see figure 32). 
228 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 32. Map of leopard frog locations on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges (1996–2009).

Sprague’s Pipit. In September 2010, the Service 

reviewed the conservation status of the Sprague’s 

pipit to determine whether the species warrants 

protection under the Endangered Species Act. The 

status review found that listing Sprague’s pipit as 

threatened or endangered is warranted, but listing is 

precluded by the need to complete listing actions of a 

higher priority. Sprague’s pipit has been documented 

on the refuge, and it has been identified as a focal bird 

species of the uplands (refer to objectives in chapter 3 

for birds and TES and species of concern).

FURBEARERS and SMALL PREDATORS

Little is known about the populations of furbearing 

species on the refuge. There have been few studies 

or inventories conducted on the refuge on the abundance or ecology of furbearer species regulated by 

MFWP (muskrat, beaver, mink, and swift fox [discussed under Species of Concern], bobcat, and 

river otter) or unregulated by MFWP (least weasel, long-tailed weasel, short-tailed weasel, striped 

skunk, badger, raccoon, red fox, and coyote). Beaver 

and bobcats are the only two furbearers that have 

been studied or inventoried on the refuge. Beaver 

and muskrat sightings on the refuge are numerous 

enough to suggest well-established populations on 

the Missouri River and Fort Peck Lake. However, 

occurrence of these species on associated tributaries 

within the refuge is relatively unknown except for 

anecdotal observations. Expanding suitable riparian 

habitats would provide the basis for increased populations of muskrat, beaver, river otter, and mink. Current population numbers of the remaining furbearer 

species is unknown, most have undocumented observations by staff and other visitors; however, continued restrictions would be beneficial to maintaining 

viable populations. 

A research project on bobcats conducted in 1979–

80 indicated illegal hunting to be the largest mortality factor among radio-collared bobcats on the refuge 

(Knowles 1981). Current population numbers on the 

refuge remain relatively unknown; however, continued restrictions would help support a viable bobcat 

population in the Missouri River Breaks as areas 

around the refuge continue to be trapped.

The market for beaver fur in the 19th century played 

a major role in the exploration of western North America (Wilson and Ruff 1999). Throughout North America 

and Europe, beaver populations were trapped to near 

extinction by 1900; however, the response by game 

management agencies in the last century prevented 

total elimination (Foresman 2001). Beaver populations 

have since recovered and even considered a nuisance 

in some areas due to their gnawing of trees and dam 

construction. Beginning in 1949, but more consecutively 1960–87, refuge staff inventoried beaver caches 

along the Missouri River within the refuge boundary. 

Total beaver caches varied from 18 to 115 with an average of 55 per year. The last inventory was completed in 

1992, with 64 caches from the west boundary of the refuge to the Musselshell River bottom. Although observations of beaver are quite common along the Missouri 

and Musselshell Rivers, current population numbers 

on the refuge remain relatively unknown.
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 229

AMERICAN BISON

Wild bison (Adams and Dood 2011) have been eliminated from the Missouri River Breaks for more than 

100 years. One permittee in the Grass Coulee Habitat Unit has grazed bison as a form of livestock in 

recent years. The American Prairie Reserve now has 

about 200 bison that came from Wind Cave National 

Park and are currently classified as domestic livestock. Those animals graze primarily on private and 

BLM land next to the refuge, although some grazing 

does occur on the refuge in an exchange of use for 

AUMs that the American Prairie Reserve holds on 

State leases within the refuge.

Currently, there is no proposal to reintroduce 

wild bison on the refuge, but there has been considerable discussion about the possibility of the refuge 

participating in a restoration effort. Should such a 

proposal be developed, there will be multiple agencies, partners, and cooperators involved and a public 

process for consideration and evaluation of any bison 

restoration proposal (Adams and Dood 2011). The 

Service is willing to participate with others if such 

an effort develops and emphasizes the need for cooperation, coordination, and public input (refer to chapter 3, objectives for American bison).

GRAY WOLF

There have not been any confirmed sightings of 

wolves on the refuge since they were extirpated in 

the late 1800s or early 1900s, although refuge staff 

have received a few unconfirmed sightings in recent 

years. There was a hybrid wolf killed in northern 

Garfield County after several livestock depredations 

in 2007. Scattered reports of wolves on the refuge 

have been received for the past couple of years, but 

neither the Service nor MFWP staff has documented 

any packs on the refuge. 

Wolf reintroductions into Montana and Wyoming 

occurred in 1995 in Yellowstone National Park. Populations increased rapidly and spread to surrounding lands in both States and Idaho. In recent years, 

populations have declined slightly as packs and prey 

densities become more established. There have been 

wolves observed in eastern Montana during the last 

20 years, but they have all been transients and no 

packs have been established. 

In May 2011, the Service published a final rule 

reinstating the terms of the 2009 rule that removed 

part of the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves from the endangered species list. This included gray wolves found in 

western Montana. The Service has also delisted the 

biologically recovered gray wolf population in the 

Western Great Lakes. There are no plans to reintroduce wolves on the refuge but, given their dispersal 

capacity and the established population in western 

Montana, eventually wolves could immigrate to the 

refuge (refer to chapter 3, objectives for gray wolf).

BIG GAME

The primary big game species found on the refuge 

include Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, white-tailed 

deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, 

and mountain lion.

When the Fort Peck Game Range was established in 1936, elk, bighorn sheep and mountain lions 

were absent, mule deer populations were depressed 

and pronghorn were quite scarce. Conservation of 

wildlife was in its infancy at the time and setting 

aside a large block of land, specifically for game, was 

a bold and novel move. Through the years, reduced 

big game harvest, reintroductions and management 

with a wildlife emphasis has resulted in the relatively abundant big game resources present today. 

The emphasis to manage primarily for wildlife was 

reaffirmed when the Game Range became a National 

Wildlife Refuge in 1976 and was strengthened even 

further with the 1997 passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (see chapter 1 

for more details on refuge establishment and the 

purposes of the refuge).

Rocky Mountain Elk

Considered abundant in 1805 when Lewis and Clark 

traveled through what is now the refuge, elk were 

extirpated from the Missouri River Breaks 100 

years later. Some 50 years after that, elk were reintroduced on the refuge during winter of 1951–52 

with the transplant of 161 animals from Yellowstone 

National Park. A refuge report (unpublished report 

on file at refuge headquarters) from December 1964 

described the game counts on the south side of the 

Missouri River on the refuge:

“The primary purpose of this portion of the 

survey was to census and locate elk in the 

area prior to a State-opened permit hunt. 

The area from Highway 191 east to Crooked 

Creek [the refuge portion of hunting district 

410] was transected at 2-mile intervals north 

and south. A total of 39 elk were sighted in 

an area approximately 300 square miles; 117 

elk could be projected providing that the elk 

were distributed throughout the entire area. 

[equates to 0.39 elk per square mile] On the 

basis of these surveys, it is estimated that elk 

number not less than 64 or more than 76 in 

the area between Highway 191 and the Musselshell River.”

In comparison, some 40 years later, 712 elk were 

counted during aerial surveys of 79 square miles in 

five sample blocks of the refuge in this same area 

during December 2005 (observed 9.0 elk per square 
230 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

mile). Total harvest of elk in the Missouri River 

Breaks was estimated to be 291 during 1987 and 

peaked in 2006 with 2,235 elk harvested. The current population of elk in the Missouri River Breaks 

is thought to be substantially above objective levels 

that MFWP established in its 2004 Elk Management 

Plan (MFWP 2004). Therefore, elk permit quotas 

and seasons have been relatively liberal in the Missouri River Breaks during the last several years. 

More than 9,000 elk were harvested in Missouri 

River Breaks hunting districts from 2004 through 

2008, averaging 1,850 annually (MFWP 2009b). The 

refuge has a relatively small and variable proportion of administrative hunting district boundaries as 

established by MFWP. Those hunting districts contain continuous wildlife habitat on and next to the 

refuge.

Table 18 lists MFWP’s elk objectives by hunting 

district, their most recent population estimate, and 

the degree of population reduction needed to achieve 

the upper end of their population objective range.

Table 18. MFWP’s elk population objectives, estimates, and needed herd-size reductions for hunting districts 

covering the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Hunting 

district County

MFWP maximum objective 

in 2004 elk plan

Most recent MFWP 

population estimate

% Reduction needed to 

meet MFWP objective

410 Fergus, 

Petroleum 2,300 2,300 0

417 Fergus 400 600 33

620, 621, 622 Phillips 1,650 2,868 42

630, 631, 632 Valley 350 650 46

700 Garfield 1,100 1,676 34

Total 5,800 8,094 28

Mule Deer

Mule deer populations across the refuge fluctuate for 

a variety of reasons and densities are highly variable 

(figure 33). One of the oldest and continuously monitored mule deer study areas in Montana is located 

on and adjacent to the refuge and is known as the 

Sand Creek study area on the southwestern part of 

the refuge. Mule deer investigations and monitoring began there in 1960 and continues today. In addition, refuge staff has conducted a variety of aerial 

mule deer surveys over the years. A standardized 

sampling design (figure 34) for aerial surveys covering 430 square miles was implemented in 2000 and 

has been conducted annually after the hunting season since then. Observations from survey blocks of 

like colors are combined to produce mule deer density and ratio estimates for county areas.

The total number of mule deer estimated on the 

refuge has varied from around 7,000 to more than 

14,000 over the last 10 years. Mule deer are a highly 

sought game animal in northeastern Montana. The 

refuge has managed the population so that older 

aged bucks are well represented in the posthunting 

season population (figure 35). The Service feels it is 

appropriate to have the older-aged bucks as an indicator for achieving naturally functioning ecological 

systems and for providing quality recreation experiences for the public on a national wildlife refuge 

(refer to public use for more information about quality wildlife-dependent uses).

Overall, the public has supported the Service’s 

approach for mule deer because of the variety of 

hunting opportunities. For example, in one hunting 

district on the refuge (652), mule deer hunting is by 

permit only and in 2008, nearly 900 people applied 

for the 100 permits. In other areas, the refuge has 

established regulations that shorten the hunting season to the first 3 weeks of the standard 5-week season in most of the rest of Montana. The logic for the 

shortened season is to allow more mature bucks to 

survive the hunting season by limiting hunting pressure during the rut, when bucks are more vulnerable to harvest, generally during the last 2 weeks of 

the hunting season. In another hunting district (700), 

refuge regulations permit mule deer hunting for the 

full 5-week season authorized by MFWP.

There are no mule deer harvest estimates specifically for the refuge, but MFWP does produce estimates for each hunting district in the State. More 

than 6,000 mule deer were harvested in those hunting districts that encompass the refuge in 1995 and 

mule deer population levels were near all-time highs. 

That level dropped to less than 3,000 during the following several years and populations were near alltime lows. Slowly, populations have rebounded, but 

they still fluctuate, and harvest from 2006 through 

2008 was around 5,000 mule deer annually (figure 36).
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 231

Figure 33. Chart of mule deer densities within six counties covering the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. 

Figure 34. Map of the aerial survey blocks for mule deer and elk at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

White-tailed Deer

White-tailed deer are much less abundant than mule 

deer and are found primarily along the Missouri and 

Musselshell Rivers and major tributaries. They are 

also seen often on parts of UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge and occasionally in other upland sites. 

No monitoring specifically geared toward whitetailed deer has been done and hunting seasons on 

the refuge have been the same either-sex, 5-week 

season as adjacent areas. In addition to a deer A–

tag valid on the refuge for either deer species and 

either sex in most areas, MFWP also offers a B–tag 

for an antlerless white-tailed deer that can be used 

throughout eastern Montana and those tags are valid 

on the refuge. There are a few hunters who concentrate on hunting for big bucks in the river bottoms of 

the refuge, but the hunting pressure for white-tailed 

deer is far less than for elk and mule deer.

There are no white-tailed deer harvest estimates 

specifically for the refuge, but MFWP does produce 
232 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 35. Chart of the ratios of adult mule deer bucks to does within the six counties covering the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Figure 36. Chart of the number of mule deer harvested in hunting districts on and next to the Charles M. Russell 

and UL Bend Refuges.
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 233

estimates for each hunting district in the State. 

About 1,000 white-tailed deer were harvested in 

those hunting districts that encompass the refuge in 

2000 and then dropped to an average of 500 for all 

eight hunting districts for the next 4 years. The estimate for 2008 was a harvest of about 1,100 whitetailed deer.

Pronghorn

The 1936 Executive Order 7509 establishing the Fort 

Peck Game Range specifically identified the need to 

protect and manage for pronghorn (refer to “Chapter 2—Refuge History and Vision”). Pronghorn are 

a highly mobile species and recent research using 

GPS collars has documented migrations of more 

than 300 miles from animals collared near the Montana–Canada border north into Alberta and Saskatchewan. The collar from a pronghorn doe marked 

north of Malta during January 2008 was retrieved 

1 year later some 70 miles south, within 1 mile of the 

refuge boundary. With deep snow and bitterly cold, 

subzero temperatures during December 2008 and 

January 2009, many hundreds of pronghorn were 

observed migrating south from Canada and northern Montana and likely crossed the refuge and the 

Missouri River and wintered farther south. During 

the spring, pronghorn have been observed crossing 

the Missouri River headed north, or attempting to 

head north, but stranded on the south side of Fort 

Peck Reservoir. They have been observed pacing 

the south shoreline of Fort Peck Reservoir during 

spring and sometimes attempting to swim across to 

the north, having migrated south across the ice during the previous winter.

Despite the mandatory focus on pronghorn in the 

Executive order, very little survey work has been 

done on pronghorn and no research studies have 

ever been conducted. Much of the refuge is not considered pronghorn habitat as the topography is too 

rough or is covered with trees and juniper. However, pronghorn are regularly observed using many 

areas on the refuge, but the role the refuge lands 

play in a larger landscape and pronghorn ecology 

are unknown. Studies designed to better understand 

pronghorn ecology using GPS collars have been proposed, but have not yet materialized. 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

Quoting from the refuge’s 1980 annual narrative 

report:

“The future of the remnant Two Calf transplant herd was sealed this fall when the last 

remaining ram was poached. FWS special 

agents have not been able to develop enough 

evidence to make an arrest.

The ram was poached at the beginning 

of the rut and it is doubtful any breeding 

occurred. The number of surviving lambs is 

unknown but probably less than five. There 

are no yearling rams and poor survival in 

the past has resulted in some very old ewes. 

A BLM transplant occurred some 25 miles 

upriver and possible dispersal might replace 

some animals.

On March 8, 1980, 27 bighorn sheep from the 

Sun River herd were released near Mickey–

Brandon Buttes. The majority of the ewes 

and two small rams stayed on the buttes. The 

older rams wandered to the north throughout the summer and at least 4 returned to the 

buttes area for the rut. Another small group 

of ewes was reported by hunters to be on Iron 

Stake Ridge, 15 miles northeast of the main 

herd group. A December aerial count showed 

4 rams, 11 ewes and 3 lambs.”

Bighorn sheep are occasionally observed in the 

Two Calf Creek and Heller Bottom area on the 

very southwestern part of the refuge. It is thought 

these animals are part of a larger sheep population that extends upstream from the refuge. In the 

Mickey/Brandon Buttes and Ironstake Ridge/Larb 

Hills area, an average of 94 bighorn sheep (range of 

74–128) were counted annually from a combination of 

ground and aerial surveys from 1986 through 1997. 

Counts during December ground surveys from 1998 

through 2004 increased steadily from a low of 96 to 

a high of 174 in 2004. MFWP personnel counted bighorns in hunting district 622, west of Timber Creek, 

while conducting helicopter elk surveys in 2006 and 

2007 and observed close to 200 sheep each year. The 

refuge staff conducted an aerial bighorn sheep survey in July 2009 (see figure 37). This was the first 

time such a comprehensive summer survey of all 

potentially occupied sheep habitat was attempted. 

Results were reported as follows:

“An aerial bighorn sheep survey was completed on July 16–17, 2009 in HD 622. Of special 

note was seeing 24 sheep, including at least 6 

lambs, east of Timber Creek. This is the first 

time we’ve tried a summer aerial survey and 

although we counted 190 sheep, I’m sure we 

missed seeing rams.”

For many years the refuge proposed moving bighorn sheep into suitable habitat east of Timber Creek. 

During the last several years, there have been anecdotal reports of sheep in this area. It appears they 

have begun colonizing this area on their own. MFWP 

released its Draft Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy in August 2009 (MFWP 2009a) for public comment. Their population objective for Hunting District 

622 bighorn sheep is 175–200 observed sheep, but does 

not include the approximately 20 square miles of habitat now occupied by sheep east of Timber Creek. With 
234 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

the recent expansion of hunting district boundary 622, 

this could be revised in the future. Two either-sex bighorn sheep tags were issued in 1987 for Hunting District 622. From two to seven either-sex permits have 

been issued annually since then along with a few permits for ewes. Ninety-eight rams and 10 ewes have 

been harvested from 1987 through 2008 and the longterm average ram age was 6.7 years old (range of 4.9–

7.8). Almost two-thirds of the total harvest has come 

from the Mickey/Brandon Buttes area.

There is about 200 square miles of bighorn sheep 

habitat in northern Garfield County, of which more 

than 90 percent is on public land (figure 38). Refuge 

staff are in the early phases of working with landowners, MFWP, and other partners to see if bighorn 

restoration into this area is possible. For comparison, there is about 110 square miles of habitat where 

about 200 bighorn sheep currently live in the Mickey/

Brandon Buttes and Ironstake Ridge areas.

Figure 37. Map of the aerial bighorn sheep survey at the Charles M. Russell Refuge.

Mountain Lion

Hunting for mountain lion is not currently allowed 

on the refuge. Mountain lion sightings, encounters 

with hunters and poaching on the refuge have been 

numerous enough in recent years to suggest a wellestablished population. The abundance of elk and 

deer, especially on the western half of the refuge, 

would provide an adequate prey base to support 

mountain lions. No studies on mountain lion abundance or ecology have been conducted in the Missouri River Breaks, so little information is known.

More than a dozen mountain lions have been fitted with GPS collars in recent years in the nearby 

Bears Paw Mountains and Little Rocky Mountains. 

Data from marked animals there and other observations showed very high mortality rates, primarily 

from human harvest in these mountain ranges. This 

study was expanded to the refuge during winter 

2010–11, and five of eight independent lions detected 

on the western part of the refuge, north of the Missouri River, were fitted with GPS collars by refuge 

staff. In addition, 3 litters with at least 6 kittens 

were also seen. Refuge staff is continuing to capture 

and track lions. The objectives of this study are to:

■ characterize movements of mountain lion within 

the refuge and possible dispersal between the 

Missouri River Breaks, Bears Paw Mountains, 

and Little Rocky Mountains;

■ describe habitat use and selection;
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 235

■■ estimate cause specific mortality rates;

■■ determine the proportion of mountain lion home 

ranges within the refuge (to what degree are 

mountains lions available for potential harvest 

outside the refuge);

■■ use data in support of the statewide population 

estimation project that will include estimates of 

area-specific densities within the Missouri River 

Breaks, Bears Paw Mountains, and Little Rocky 

Mountains.

Figure 38. Map of areas within 328 yards (300 meters) of escape cover for bighorn sheep at and around the 

Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

OTHER WILDLIFE

This section discusses the smaller animals found on 

the refuge including amphibians, reptiles, fish, and 

small mammals.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Nineteen amphibian and reptile species are present on the refuge. Incidental observations from 1974 

to present, as well as systematic surveys conducted 

in 1998–99 (Hendricks 1999), have documented nine 

species of herpetofauna listed as a Montana species 

of concern with either a ranking of S2 (milksnake, 

western hognose snake, and Great Plains toad) or 

a S3 (greater short-horned lizard, plains spadefoot 

toad, common sagebrush lizard, painted turtle, spiny 

softshell, and snapping turtle). The northern leopard 

frog was proposed for Federal listing, but on October 4, 2011, the Service concluded that listing under 

the Endangered Species Act was not warranted. The 

tiger salamander, boreal chorus frog, Woodhouse’s 

toad, gopher snake, eastern yellow-bellied racer, 

common, terrestrial and plains garter snakes and 

western rattlesnake also occur on the refuge. 

Amphibians and reptiles require a mosaic of habitats suitable for breeding or nesting, foraging, protection, and overwintering. Habitat linkages are 

required to meet all the life stages, allowing animals to migrate seasonally between different areas 

to feed, overwinter, and reproduce. The permeable nature of amphibian skin makes these animals 

extremely vulnerable to contaminants in the environment (Pilliod and Wind 2008).

Tiger salamanders often live in rodent burrows 

during much of the year and migrate to shallow ponds 

to breed in the spring. Some may keep larval characteristics including external gills and larval body form 

and reach sexual maturity in a process called paedomorphosis or neoteny. These are strictly aquatic 

and may exist with individuals that metamorphose. 

Most amphibians use upland forests, shrublands, and 

grasslands for foraging, overwintering, or dispersal. 

Many reptiles are adapted to be less dependent on 

waterbodies (Werner et al. 2004). Boreal chorus frogs 
236 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

breed in glacial potholes and reservoirs and feed in 

moist areas around ponds, or move into terrestrial 

settings to feed on ants and spiders. Adults forage 

0.5 mile or more from breeding sites. They overwinter in underground rodent burrows or crevices.

Great Plains toads are found up drainages and 

on the prairie where they are seen around glacial 

potholes, stock reservoirs, irrigation ditches, and 

smaller coulees. They require clean water so heavily 

used stock ponds may not be conducive to breeding. 

They spend time underground sometimes in prairie 

dog burrows. They will forage 1 mile from breeding 

sites. Woodhouse’s toads are common along rivers, 

large lakes and reservoirs. They overwinter below 

the frost line in rodent burrows, crevices or among 

tree roots. Breeding occurs in river backwaters, 

stock reservoirs, larger ponds, or lakes. 

Plains spadefoot toads are found in more arid 

environments close to water. They spend much of 

their time underground, but will, depending on temperature and moisture, throughout the day, emerge 

from and retreat to burrows dug with the spur on the 

back of their feet. They burrow below the frost line 

during winter and occasionally use rodent burrows. 

Greater short-horned lizard occupy sagebrush 

and shortgrass prairie, especially south-facing slopes, 

rocky rims of coulees, and shale outcrops. Common 

sagebrush lizard is associated with sagebrush habitat, but also live in ponderosa pine and juniper along 

the Missouri River and in shortgrass prairies. The 

lizards seek refuge under rocks, in crevices at the 

base of trees, or in rodent burrows. 

Painted turtles live in ponds and wetlands, and 

spiny softshell turtles and snapping turtles live in 

the Missouri and Musselshell Rivers. They lay their 

eggs on land, often spending winter months buried 

and inactive in soft mud. Spiny softshells dehydrate 

much faster than hardshell turtles, and they are rarely 

found far from water. Nesting occurs in sand or gravel, 

usually 100 yards or less from water. Snapping turtles 

are omnivores that live in large rivers, lakes, ponds, 

and marshes. They dehydrate more rapidly than most 

freshwater turtles, so are vulnerable to high temperatures and low humidity. They overwinter under cutbanks, submerged logjams, or in the bottom mud of 

larger rivers or marshes (Werner et al. 2004).

Western hognose snake and prairie rattlesnake 

use burrows, dens, and tunnels dug by prairie dogs 

and pocket gophers for cover and as places to search 

for food. Rock outcrops in grassland areas provide 

important cover and basking sites. Western hognosed snakes like well-drained, sandy soils, so are 

often seen along exposed riverbanks, sandstone outcroppings, and old riverbeds. Eastern yellow-bellied 

racers use open habitats such as prairie, sagebrush, 

and badlands. They overwinter in mammal burrows, rock crevices, and sandbanks, alongside garter 

snakes, rattlesnakes, or gopher snakes. Milksnakes 

inhabit grasslands and spend most of the day in burrows around sandstone outcroppings, riparian zones, 

cedar–juniper hillsides, and margins of agricultural 

lands (Werner et al. 2004).

Western Painted Turtle

© Michael Mauro

Fish 

Numerous fish species are found in both the large 

and small streams on the refuge. Bramblett et al. 

(1999) performed a literature review for fish on 

the refuge. He found MFWP unpublished reports 

(Needham 1978, Needham and Gilge 1980) summarized fish sampling on the refuge. In 1977, MFWP 

sampled larval fish and benthic macroinvertebrates 

in Timber, Nelson, Big Dry, Sand, and McGuire 

Creeks. Larval cyprinids and catostomids and benthic macroinvertebrates (Diptera spp., Coleoptera

spp., Neuroptera spp., Ephemeroptera spp., Trichoptera spp., Odonata spp., Hemiptera spp., Annelida

spp., and Amphipoda spp.).

In Big Dry, Little Dry, Timber, Nelson, and 

McGuire Creeks, in 1979 and 1981 MFWP sampled 

17 taxa in Big Dry Creek including goldeye, common 

carp, fathead minnow, flathead chub, Hybognathus

spp., lake chub, longnose dace, sand shiner, river 

carpsucker, shorthead redhorse, white sucker, black 

bullhead, channel catfish, walleye, yellow perch, and 

freshwater drum (Needham and Gilge 1980). The 

Montana Rivers Information System lists 17 spe-
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 237

cies in Big Dry Creek. These include some of the list 

above with the following additions bigmouth buffalo, 

plains minnow, smallmouth buffalo, and western silvery minnow but not other Hybognathus spp., freshwater drum, or shorthead redhorse.

The 15 taxa in Little Dry Creek included common carp, fathead minnow, flathead chub, Hybognathus spp., lake chub, longnose dace, pearl dace, 

sand shiner, river carpsucker, shorthead redhorse, 

white sucker, black bullhead, channel catfish, walleye, and yellow perch. Nine taxa in Timber Creek 

included common carp, fathead minnow, Hybognathus spp., lake chub, longnose dace, pearl dace, sand 

shiner, buffalo, and white sucker. The 12 taxa in Nelson Creek include common carp, fathead minnow, 

flathead chub, Hybognathus spp., lake chub, longnose dace, sand shiner, buffalo, white sucker, plains 

killifish, brook stickleback, and yellow perch. Two 

museum specimens from Nelson Creek were a lake 

chub and a fathead minnow. Five species in McGuire 

Creek were common carp, fathead minnow, lake 

chub, sand shiner, and white sucker. 

The Montana Rivers Information System database lists the following: (1) fathead minnow as the 

only species in Flat Creek; (2) four species in Squaw 

Creek—fathead minnow, lake chub, longnose dace, 

and western silvery and plains minnow; (3) four species in Timber Creek (north side)—fathead minnow, 

longnose dace, northern redbelly dace, and white 

sucker; (4) six species in Timber Creek (Big Dry 

Arm)—fathead minnow, lake chub, northern pike, 

northern redbelly dace, western silvery and plains 

minnow, white sucker; and (5) four species in Woody 

Creek—fathead minnow, lake chub, longnose dace, 

and western silvery and plains minnow. 

Wagner (1996) sampled Rock Creek and found 

three species in the upper section (white sucker, longnose dace, and northern redbelly dace), six species 

in the middle section (white sucker, longnose sucker, 

carp, longnose dace, fathead minnow, and flathead 

chub), and no fish in the lower section because it was 

completely dry.

MFWP, who is responsible for monitoring and 

managing fish species in the Missouri and Musselshell Rivers, sampled fish in the Lower Musselshell River in August 2000. Sauger is probably not 

still common in the Lower Musselshell. McMahon 

and Gardner 2001 comments on Musselshell River 

habitat, “No data are currently available on the status of sauger ... Chronic dewatering limits its suitability as sauger habitat.” They estimate that sauger 

populations may have declined by 50 percent in the 

Lower Musselshell. The Montana Rivers Information System lists the following 24 species in the Musselshell River: black bullhead, blue sucker, channel 

catfish, common carp, emerald shiner, flathead chub, 

firewater drum, goldeye, lake chub, longnose dace, 

northern pike, northern redbelly dace, plains minnow, river carpsucker, sand shiner, sauger, shorthead redhorse, smallmouth bass, smallmouth buffalo, 

stonecat, walleye, western silvery minnow, white 

sucker, and yellow perch. 

MFWP (Gardner 2003) evaluated the fisheries 

conditions in the middle Missouri River, which 

includes parts of the refuge. Methods used included 

electrofishing, trammel net drifting (deeper areas), 

seining (shallow areas), trawling, and creel surveys. Shorthead redhorse, goldeye, longnose sucker, 

emerald shiner, and sauger were most abundant 

species found during electrofishing. Flathead chub, 

Hybognathus spp., shorthead redhorse, and emerald 

shiner were most abundant in the seine sampling. 

Channel catfish, sicklefin chub, and sturgeon chub 

made up 75 percent of the fish sampled by trawling 

and goldeye and channel catfish were the most common fish caught according to creel census surveys. 

Sauger catch rates were 13.8 fish per hour in the 

Fred Robinson Bridge section (Robinson section) 

giving a density 126 sauger per mile.

In 2005–06, electrofishing samples found shorthead redhorse, goldeye, emerald shiner, Hybognathus spp., and flathead chub to be the most abundant 

species. Emerald shiner and Hybognathus spp. were 

the most abundant species captured by seining. The 

exceptionally abundant representation of emerald 

shiner was one of the most noticeable changes compared to past years with catch rates nearly three 

times greater than the trend. The most abundant 

species captured by trawling were the shorthead 

redhorse, longnose dace, channel catfish, sturgeon 

chub, and sicklefin chub. Sauger catch rates in the 

Robinson section were 12.3 fish per hour. 

In addition to the above-listed common species, 

the following species were also found in the Missouri 

River (Gardner 2003): bigmouth buffalo, burbot, carp, 

rainbow trout, flathead chub, freshwater drum, longnose dace, river carpsucker, shovelnose sturgeon, 

smallmouth buffalo, smallmouth bass, stonecat, walleye, and white sucker. All six State species of special 

concern were sampled: pallid sturgeon, blue sucker, 

paddlefish, sauger, sicklefin chub, and sturgeon chub. 

Small Mammals

Minimal information has been collected on the distribution and occurrence of small mammal species on the 

refuge. Although there have been cooperative efforts 

with the Montana Natural Heritage Program, Montana Tech University, the University of Montana, and 

the University of Denver that have targeted specific 

questions about small mammals, few have identified 

the current composition of small mammal communities that exist on the refuge. Half of the studies identified the presence of specific diseases (plague and 

Hantavirus) in terrestrial small mammals (Douglass 
238 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

and Hughes 2003, Holmes et al. 2006) while others 

have attempted to identify the composition of small 

mammal communities in and surrounding the refuge 

(Hendricks et al. 2007, Stewart 2007). 

The Montana Natural Heritage Program has an 

ongoing study aimed at filling in the distribution 

gaps for small mammals in Montana and included 

several sites within or surrounding (within 10 miles) 

the refuge boundary. Terrestrial small mammal species were captured using a combination of Sherman 

live traps, snap-traps, and pitfall arrays. Although 

research in 2006 extended ranges of several terrestrial small mammals, no new species were captured outside known occupied counties (Hendricks 

et al. 2007). Time and personnel limited the trapping effort and many terrestrial species of low abundance or relatively rare were not captured. Further 

research would be needed to quantify the occurrence 

and abundance of these rarer species. 

Research targeting bat species identified range 

expansions and filled distribution gaps for several 

species found in central Montana. Bat species were 

documented using recorded vocalizations during survey periods in 2003–04 by University of Denver and 

again in 2006 by the Montana Natural Heritage Program. Results from these studies showed new locations within counties for several species (Hendricks 

et al. 2007, Stewart 2007), signifying the lack of information available for many species’ distributions. 

4.4 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT

AREAS 

The Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges have 

other special land designations being reviewed as 

part of the CCP and EIS. The Service has several 

types of jurisdiction across the refuge.

■ Service Primary: Lands that were withdrawn or 

acquired for the sole purpose of managing as part 

of the refuge. 

■ Service Secondary: Lands that are withdrawn or 

acquired that have a secondary purpose subject 

to the primary purpose.

■ Withdrawn Lands: Lands that were withdrawn 

from public domain and reserved for a specific purpose such as a national wildlife refuge or USACE 

project. Public domain lands would include lands 

that were never homesteaded or Bankhead–

Jones lands that came back to the public domain 

when the original homesteader defaulted. 

■ Acquired Lands: Lands that were purchased in 

fee title by USACE for the Fort Peck Project or 

purchased by the Service for the management of 

the refuge.

The Service works closely with USACE, BLM, and 

the National Park Service in managing lands within 

the refuge that have other Federal-jurisdiction land 

designations. 

WILDERNESS 

In 1976, Congress designated about 20,890 acres as 

the UL Bend Wilderness. This acreage was later 

modified to its current size of about 20,819 acres. 

Within UL Bend Wilderness, visitors can expect to 

experience undeveloped land that has kept its primeval character providing an opportunity for solitude 

and unconfined recreation. For further information 

on the specific boundaries of each tract reviewed for 

its wilderness character, refer to appendix E.

As guided by the Service’s Wilderness Stewardship Policy, which provides an overview and foundation for implementing the Wilderness Act, and as 

part of the development of the draft CCP and EIS, 

a wilderness review has been conducted updating 

the existing lands within the refuge and their current wilderness potential. Proposed wilderness units 

are those areas that have previously been reviewed 

by the Service and approved by the Secretary of 

the Interior as a parcel of land that meets the wilderness character found within the Wilderness Act 

of 1964. The refuge currently maintains 15 areas of 

about 155,288 acres as proposed wilderness units. All 

15 units are spread across the 1.1 million-acre refuge. Because Congress has not officially designated 

these 15 areas as wilderness, they are managed as 

proposed wilderness units in which Service policy 

(FWS 2008c) requires them to keep their wilderness 

character in the event they are designated as wilderness. In 2002, roads were closed in several proposed 

wilderness units in compliance with Service policy.

Several of the existing proposed wilderness units 

are grazed prescriptively or have no Federal grazing 

allotment. Some of the proposed wilderness units are 

currently annually grazed: units 8 and 14 and part 

of units 1, 5, 7, and 11 (see figures 7 and 16). Refer 

to “Habitat—Upland” in chapter 3 for more information on livestock grazing in the uplands.

Appendix E provides further information on the 

specific boundaries of each tract reviewed for its wilderness character. 

LEWIS and CLARK 

NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL

In 1978, Congress amended the National Trails System Act to include national historic trails and designated the Lewis and Clark Trail as one of four national 

historic trails. It commemorates the events that 

form the trail’s central theme through historic interpretation, preservation, and public use. The trail is 

approximately 3,700 miles and follows the Missouri 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 239

and Columbia Rivers including the section that flows 

through the entire refuge. The official headquarters 

for the trail system is located in Omaha, Nebraska 

and is administered by the National Park Service. 

The Lewis and Clark expedition camped at 19 sites 

on the refuge, which are shown in figure 15.

HELL CREEK and BUG CREEK 

NATIONAL NATURAL LANDMARKS

The primary goals of the National Natural Landmarks Program, which was established by the Secretary of the Interior in 1962, are to recognize 

landmark resources and support their conservation. On the refuge, there are two of these areas: the 

Hell Creek Fossil Area and the Bug Creek Fossil 

Area. Both areas were designated because of their 

paleontological resources. The program is administered by the National Park Service and involves an 

annual inspection. A plaque has been installed at 

each site designating the area. Future refuge management involving prescribed fire, grazing, and scientific research should consider this designation 

when making management decisions (see figure 15). 

There are several sites on adjacent BLM land including Ash Creek Divide, Hell Creek, Bug Creek, and 

Sand Arroyo. 

RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS “Research natural areas” are part of a national network 

of reserved areas under various ownerships where natural processes are allowed to predominate and that are 

preserved for the primary purpose of research and 

education. Currently, there are 210 research natural 

areas on national wildlife refuges. They exist to fulfill three objectives, delineated by the Service’s Refuge Manual as follows: (1) to participate in the national 

effort to preserve adequate examples of all major ecosystem types or other outstanding physical or biological phenomena; (2) to provide research and educational 

opportunities for scientists and others in the observation, study, and monitoring of the environment; and (3) 

to contribute to the national effort to preserve a full 

range of genetic and behavioral diversity for native 

plants and animals including endangered or threatened species. Research natural areas are areas where 

natural processes are allowed to predominate without human intervention. The Service’s Refuge Manual 

states that a research natural area “must be reasonably 

protected from any influence that could alter or disrupt 

the characteristic phenomena for which the area was 

established.” Future management decisions must 

be evaluated to ensure the characteristics for which 

these areas are recognized and protected for their 

ecological values. There are eleven research natural 

areas listed for the refuge on the Service’s Web site: 

Dillon Island, Fourth Ridge, Grand Island, Limber 

Pine, Manning Corral Prairie Dog Town, Missouri 

River Bottomlands, Prairie Dog Island, Spring Creek 

Bay Coulee, Two Calf Douglas-fir Community, Two 

Calf Island, and York Island. Several of these areas 

are actually part of the same natural area, resulting 

in seven research natural areas that the refuge recognizes (see figure 15).

UPPER MISSOURI BREAKS 

WILD and SCENIC RIVER

In 1968, Congress passed the Wild and Scenic River 

Act, and in 1976 the Upper Missouri Breaks Wild 

and Scenic River was established, which includes 

the western most 10 miles of the Missouri River on 

the refuge. This designation recognizes the wildness and scenic values that exist along that part of 

the river. Management decisions should ensure that 

those values are protected for the American public. 

Such activities as livestock grazing on the river and 

vehicle traffic on refuge roads 209, 307, 308, 874, 845, 

and 853 should be evaluated to ensure these activities do not detract from the wild and scenic values. 

MISSOURI BREAKS 

BACK COUNTRY BYWAY

The National Scenic Byways Program is part of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration. The program is a grassroots collaborative effort established to help recognize, preserve, and 

enhance selected roads throughout the United States. 

In addition to the national designation, many agencies 

promote their own sets of scenic roads and byways. 

BLM has identified several “backcountry byways” 

including the Missouri Breaks Back Country Byway, 

designated on July 21, 1989, which passes through 

BLM lands and through several refuge roads along the

western boundary including the Knox Ridge Road to 

U.S. Highway 191. This byway is not officially recognized under any Service designation.

LANDS where USACE has 

PRIMARY JURISDICTION

These are lands within the refuge that have been 

withdrawn or acquired and are subject to the purposes and operation of the Fort Peck Project. Most 

lands where USACE has primary jurisdiction have 

either been outgranted to the Service, or by agreement, allow the Service to manage those lands as 

part of the refuge for the purposes of wildlife and 

wildlife habitat. Some USACE primary lands within 

the refuge have been retained by USACE. These 

include the developed recreation sites and administrative sites such as the dam and power plant. 

USACE has 16 designated recreation sites on 

the refuge. The sites are managed by a multitude of 
240 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

agencies and governments including counties, BLM, 

MFWP, and the Service. The level of recreation 

development is defined in the Fort Peck master 

plan (USACE 2008). Agencies responsible for management of individual recreation sites changes 

depending on funding levels. The Service participated in the development of the master plan.

UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS 

NATIONAL MONUMENT 

On January 17, 2001, President Clinton created by 

proclamation The Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument. The monument abuts the refuge to the west, and the stretch of the wild and scenic 

river on the refuge is managed as if were part of the 

monument. Specifically, this pertains to river travel 

only. At the terminus of the wild and scenic river 

is Kipp Recreation Area near the Fred Robinson 

Bridge (figure 15), which is a designated USACE recreation site. USACE permits BLM to run the Kipp 

site. The recreation site is located where USACE 

has primary jurisdiction and the Service has secondary jurisdiction. At times, this has created management challenges, particularly when development of 

the recreation facilities involves habitat loss or degradation on the refuge. In the past, the Service and 

BLM have coordinated development activities to 

minimize habitat loss or manipulation. Ideally, this 

should be continued and formalized with the three 

agencies involved to ensure conflicts over future use 

of the area does not affect each agency’s purposes. 

4.5 VISITOR SERVICES

The nearly 250,000 visitors to the refuge enjoy a variety of recreational activities related to the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses that are identified 

in Improvement Act as the priority uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education). Due to the refuge’s immense size and remote location, there are 

several other activities such as camping and boating that are allowed on the refuge, and these enable 

the Service to facilitate providing for the priority 

public uses on the refuge. Service policy guides the 

management of wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

(FWS 2006c).

The refuge’s estimates of current visitation figures come from a variety of sources including traffic counters; physical counts of visitors who come 

through the headquarters, field stations, and the 

Fort Peck Visitor Center; paddlefishing data; and 

hunter permits. While the Service uses traffic counters across an estimated 40 roads across the refuge, 

there are neither enough counters nor personnel to 

count every visitor on the numerous roads found 

across the refuge and estimates are used.

This section discusses the priority public uses, 

access, and other activities that the Service is 

involved with in managing the refuge. Recreational 

areas that USACE manages are mentioned briefly, 

but because the Service does not manage these 

areas, these are not analyzed further. 

HUNTING

Hunting has been an important traditional public use 

of the refuge throughout its history. For many visitors, the refuge is synonymous with big game hunting. Long known for its ability to offer outstanding 

opportunities to hunt for Rocky Mountain elk, mule 

deer and white-tailed deer, as well as Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, the refuge offers multiple opportunities for outdoor recreation. Hunters currently 

are able to take part in a variety of hunting opportunities from areas with significant road access to areas 

with relatively no roads as provided for through wilderness and proposed wilderness units. Each year, 

about 103,900 hunters come to the refuge. Of these, 

there are about 90,000 big game visits, 2,900 waterfowl and migratory bird visits, and 10,000 upland 

game visits reported annually (refer to the socioeconomic analysis in chapter 4). 

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership conducted a poll of hunters and sporting groups 

(figure 39). The results showed that the Missouri 

River Breaks, including the refuge, ranks among 

the most highly valued recreation areas in Montana 

(Dickson 2008).

Hunting for upland birds and waterfowl is currently permitted and some visitors take part in this 

activity, although not at the level of big game hunting. In recent years, the refuge has instituted several special hunting opportunities including hunts 

open only to young people with a refuge-sponsored 

orientation day at the refuge and an accessible hunting blind to provide wheelchair-bound hunters a 

quality opportunity to hunt elk and deer. 

The refuge takes in parts of eight hunting districts within three administrative regions managed 

by MFWP. Season-setting and permit allocations 

are primarily done through a process administered 

through MFWP. The refuge is an active partner in 

this process and refuge wildlife objectives are considered in the refuge’s management recommendations in these efforts. At times, the refuge has 

promulgated more restrictive regulations to address 

wildlife objectives within the refuge. For example, 

there is a current, 3-week, mule deer, rifle season 

in place for parts of the refuge where mature buck 

ratios are below the set objective, which differs from 

the State-regulated, 5-week, mule deer, rifle season.
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 241

Figure 39. Map of areas in Montana that are valued by hunters and anglers. Source: Dickson (2008).

Commercial outfitting for hunting is also allowed 

on the refuge. Currently, there are about 11 permits 

issued annually (refer to commercial recreation 

below).

FISHING

About 60,000 fishing visits are attributed to the refuge throughout the year as anglers participate in 

several fishing opportunities including bank fishing, 

fishing from boats, and also ice fishing on the surface 

of Fort Peck Reservoir and the Missouri River. This 

does not include the number of fishing visits attributed to USACE recreation areas or the lake, which 

is about 160,000 fishing visits (USACE 2009c).

The State of Montana (MFWP) has primary 

responsibility for all fisheries management within 

the refuge, which is consistent with the Service’s policy on fishing (FWS 2006e). This includes regulating 

harvest, egg collecting efforts, and stocking activities (MFWP 2008a). 

One of the more popular fishing opportunities is 

the spring paddlefish run, which brings some of the 

greatest angler concentrations to the banks of the 

Missouri River seen throughout the year. Anglers 

also pursue walleye, sauger, northern pike, channel 

catfish, and shovel nose sturgeon. Additionally, lake 

trout and salmon are found in Fort Peck Reservoir and 

provide for great open-water-fishing opportunities.

Anglers are able to access the river and reservoir on the refuge through the numbered road system, which provides for several roads leading to the 

water’s edge, some with primitive or improved boat 

ramps. Recreation sites administered by USACE 

are located throughout the Fort Peck Reservoir and 

provide anglers with camping and boat launching 

facilities.

Sport fishing on Fort Peck Reservoir and upstream sections of the Missouri River has always 

been a popular activity with locals and nonresident 

anglers alike. The main game species present include 

walleye, northern pike, chinook salmon, lake trout, 

smallmouth bass, and paddlefish. With the exception of paddlefish, lake trout, and smallmouth bass, 

all of these are stocked to varying degrees in the 

reservoir, because natural reproduction is not sufficient to meet the needs of anglers. The State of Montana runs a warm-water fish hatchery in Fort Peck 

and this hatchery supplies most of the fish that are 

stocked in any given year. Supplemental fish releases 

also occur from fish reared at the hatchery in Miles 

City, Montana.

Walleye tournaments are popular on the reservoir, with a varying number of them occurring each 
242 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

year. The most popular and well-known of these is 

the Governor’s Cup Tournament, which is held in July 

and can have as many as 200 teams participating. In 

addition, the Jordan chapter of Walleyes Unlimited 

annually sponsors a Kid’s Fishing Day at Hell Creek 

Recreation Area, and the refuge always collaborates 

on this event. These tournaments are regulated by 

USACE, with enforcement activities being provided 

primarily by MFWP. In recent years, the number of 

participants in these local tournaments has declined.

Another popular time of year for fishing use on 

the refuge is in May and June when large numbers 

of paddlefish move upriver from the reservoir to 

spawn upstream of the refuge in the upper Missouri 

River Breaks National Monument. Fishing pressure 

is most prevalent from Rock Creek Boat Ramp to 

the Fred Robinson Bridge and can attract large 

crowds when fish numbers and weather conditions 

are favorable. The State of Montana regulates the 

harvest and typically sets a quota number that only 

allows for catch and release fishing after that number of permitted fish has been reached.

Paddlefish are among the largest freshwater fish. 

Remarkably adapted to its environment, the paddlefish is a classic example of millions of years of ecological fine-tuning and could be the oldest big game 

animal surviving in North America (MFWP 2009c). 

In Montana, the Slippery Ann area is one of a few 

important paddlefishing areas along the Missouri 

River. Historically, paddlefishing was open to all, and 

hundreds of anglers would pack into accessible areas 

from Kipp Recreation Area to the Rock Creek boat 

ramp along the Missouri River to try their luck in 

the spring. Law enforcement officers remained busy 

keeping order and preventing resource damage from 

camping and bank fishing. In recent times, MFWP 

has placed limits on days open for paddlefishing, the 

number of permits issued and number of paddlefish 

harvested. 

Throughout the refuge depending on the lake 

elevation, there are about 16 boat ramps available 

to the public for launching boats, although most of 

these are managed and maintained by USACE. In 

general, overall fishing use of the reservoir and river 

is highly variable and depends on reservoir levels 

and boat access along with how good fishing success 

is in any given year. 

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION 

and PHOTOGRAPHY 

The refuge provides outstanding wildlife-viewing 

opportunities due to the abundance of elk, mule deer, 

bighorn sheep, eagles, burrowing owls, sage and 

sharp-tailed grouse and other grassland birds. Consistent with the opportunities to view wildlife, many 

visitors also take the opportunity to photograph 

these critters and their associated habitats. These 

photographers take advantage of early mornings 

and late evenings to make breathtaking photographs. The refuge receives approximately 20,300 

photography visits a year. The auto tour route and 

elk-viewing area receives approximately 4,000 visitors during the elk rut. Other visitors take advantage of photographing prairie dogs and burrowing 

owls, sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse on leks, 

and bald eagles around Fort Peck Dam in the winter. Numerous professional photographers have 

photographed the scenery and diversity of wildlife 

for numerous book projects and magazine articles. 

Videographers with National Geographic and other 

television programs come to the refuge to capture 

provocative images of the Missouri River Breaks. 

Over the years, numerous volunteers and neighbors 

have obtained some extraordinary photographs of 

refuge wildlife and scenery. These people have graciously shared their photographs with the refuge 

and they have become invaluable in the development 

of brochures and publications.

Commercial photography occurs sporadically with 

a few requests annually from still photographers and 

videographers. Most of these requests are from professionals that are writing books on the area or preparing an informational video associated with other 

work in the area such as American Prairie Reserve 

and the World Wildlife Foundation. Temporary 

blinds are allowed but they must be removed at the 

end of the filming periods. All permit holders are 

required to provide the Service copies of their work 

for use by the Service for public use programs, brochures, and other needs. A nominal fee is charged. 

Additionally, the Service collaborates with other local 

photographers to obtain refuge media for brochures 

or other needs. 

INTERPRETATION

Interpretation is closely tied to the other priority 

public uses. The guiding principles are to promote 

visitor understanding and appreciation for America’s 

natural and cultural and conservation history. The 

communication process should forge emotional and 

intellectual connections between the audience and 

the resource (FWS 2006g). Interpretation provides 

opportunities for visitors to make their own connections to the resource. Examples of interpretive 

resources found on the refuge include interpretive 

programs, exhibits, signage, facilities, and special 

events.

Each of the refuge’s four field stations—Lewistown (headquarters), Sand Creek, Jordan, and Fort 

Peck—provide a visitor contact area; however, the 

attractiveness and accessibility vary between the 

stations. In 2007, region 6 conducted a visitor service 

review, and the reviewers recommended sprucing up 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 243

these areas with wildlife mounts and displays. There 

are also kiosks with interpretive panels at each office 

and at several other places on the refuge. Several 

kiosks need to be moved to more suitable locations 

and almost all of the panels need to be updated. Most 

of the refuge brochures and other printed materials 

comply with Service’s graphic standards.

The Fort Peck Dam and Interpretive Center is 

a cooperative effort between USACE, the Service, 

and Fort Peck Paleontology Incorporated. One-third 

of the facility is dedicated to interpreting the fish, 

wildlife, and habitat of the refuge. There is a memorandum of understanding in place that requires a 

Service staff presence at the center but this position 

has been vacant since 2007. Two seasonal employees 

are hired during the summer to help USACE with 

running the facility. 

There is a 20-mile auto tour route near the Sand 

Creek Field Station with a graveled road and updated interpretive panels. Based on traffic counters 

set up at different access points, an estimated 10,000 

vehicles use the tour route each year. Several hiking 

trails are located at Sand Creek Field Station, which 

provide access to wilderness and there are paved 

accessible walking trails near the Fort Peck Interpretive Center on the east side of the refuge.

The Slippery Ann Elk Viewing Area on the west 

side of the refuge is very popular with the public, 

particularly during the fall. From September to 

early October, visitors can watch as many as 300 elk 

in the bottomlands near the Missouri River. During peak times, on weekend evenings as many as 

175 vehicles have been counted entering the viewing area. In 2009 on one peak day (September 26), 

161 vehicles entered the viewing area with 585 visitors counted. From September 5–October 18, there 

were an average of 35 vehicles a day and about 107 

visitors a day. Out of 56 counties in Montana, visitors from 40 counties (75 percent) visited the viewing area. Additionally, there were visitors from 32 

States (65 percent), two Canadian provinces and several international visitors. Some of the main issues 

have been how to handle the increasing interest in 

the viewing area. Public safety and effects on refuge 

resources are of concern. Dust from vehicles, inadequate and appropriate parking along the route, and 

visitors not adhering to refuge regulations all need 

to be addressed.

The refuge offers bus tours several times during 

the fall and has produced a brochure with information on the viewing area and elk biology.

A 30-minute video about the refuge and refuge 

management is being produced by the Service’s 

National Conservation Training Center. In the future, 

the video will be shown at the Fort Peck Interpretive 

Center, on bus tours to the elk-viewing area and will be 

on a continuous loop at the Lewistown headquarters. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 

Environmental education is a process designed to 

teach visitors and citizens the history and importance of conservation and biological and scientific 

knowledge of the Nation’s natural resources. Within 

the Refuge System, it incorporates onsite, offsite, 

and distance learning, activities, programs, and 

products that address the audience’s course of study 

(FWS 2006d). 

Often environmental education is associated 

with teaching children (kindergarten through high 

school) through the local schools using the State 

standards for the curriculum that is taught. Most of 

the schools in the six counties surrounding the refuge are located far from the refuge, which makes 

field trips difficult due to time constraints and school 

transportation budgets. There has been no formal 

environmental education program since 2007 when 

the outdoor recreation planner stationed at Fort 

Peck Field Station left the Service but refuge staff 

give classroom presentations when requested. There 

is no refuge-specific curriculum. Staffs at Fort Peck 

and Jordan Field Stations take part in annual environmental camps in cooperation with other agencies. 

Seasonal employees at the Fort Peck Interpretive 

Center give presentations throughout the summer 

and there are educational trunks available for loan 

through the Fort Peck Interpretive Center. 

The refuge offers limited programs in environmental 

education.

USFWS
244 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

OUTREACH

Currently, key outreach tools for the refuge are public presentations, news releases, weed tours, county 

commissioner meetings, the Ranchers Stewardship 

Alliance, and Missouri River Conservation Districts. 

The refuge Web site is currently being expanded and 

updated to increase its usefulness and appeal. As of 

August 2009, the Web site attracted an average of 

almost 3,000 visitors a month. 

ACCESS

The refuge staff and the public access the refuge by 

a variety of modes or means including vehicle, boat, 

aircraft, foot (including snowshoes or cross country 

skis), bicycle, or horseback. ATVs are allowed on 

the refuge only on numbered routes that are open 

to all other vehicles. All ATVs using the refuge are 

required to be street-legal and display a metal license 

plate. Snowmobiles are not allowed any part of the 

refuge other than the ice of Fort Peck Lake. Snowmobiles may be offloaded at any point that a numbered route reaches that lake ice, but are restricted 

from any other travel within the refuge.

Access is an important consideration particularly 

for outdoor recreationists, the primary user of the 

refuge. Other needs for access include staff access 

in the performance of duty, permittee access, and 

access for fire suppression.

Current information about access is in the Service’s guide map and information brochure (last 

updated in 2009). In 2002, several roads in proposed 

wilderness areas were closed in accordance with 

Service policy for managing wilderness. 

Roads

There are approximately 670 miles of refuge roads 

(see figure 7, alternative A map, in chapter 3). These 

include several paved highways that traverse the 

refuge, gravelled roads, and dirt or two-track roads. 

All refuge routes have a three-digit number from 

101 to 899. Typically, the lower the number, the more 

frequently traveled and maintained the road will be.

U.S. Highway 191 traverses the refuge on the 

west end near the Sand Creek Wildlife Station. It 

is an asphalt two-lane road, crosses the refuge for 

about 9 miles, and crosses the Missouri at the Fred 

Robinson Bridge. State Highway 24 passes through 

or immediately adjacent to about 11 miles of the refuge near the Big Dry Arm and the Fort Peck Field 

Station. Both highways are maintained by Montana 

Department of Transportation. 

There is at least one graveled, all-weather access 

road leading to the refuge from each of the six adjacent counties with 60 miles of all-weather access 

within the refuge boundary. Most of the refuge’s 

roads are small two-track dirt trails that require a 

high-clearance four-wheel-drive vehicle. All open 

routes on the refuge are uniquely numbered. The 

nature of the soil types found within the refuge make 

road conditions impassible in wet conditions unless 

significant improvements have been made such as 

gravelling or pavement. An all-weather road does 

not equate to all-season access. 

The refuge grades approximately 137 miles on an 

annual basis. Most of the work is done on the west half 

of the refuge. Some years, depending on weather conditions, certain portions of roads will be maintained up 

to three times during the frost-free season. In addition, about 2 miles of road are worked on each year 

with other refuge equipment to repair washouts and 

culverts. In Garfield County, about 56 miles of road 

are maintained by the county under a special use 

permit. In McCone County, about 25 miles of road are 

maintained under a special use permit. Valley County 

also maintains about 8 miles of refuge road leading to 

the Pines and Bone Trail Recreation Areas. 

Money for road improvements primarily comes 

from the Service’s refuge roads program, which was 

created under the 1998 Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (TEA–21) and subsequently revised by passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act. It is administered under the Federal Land Highways program. 

Any money that is obtained can only be used for refuge roads, and money must be used for maintenance 

and improvement. 

On the refuge, roads have been created by county 

commission resolution or by petition. In addition, 

attempts have been made to establish roads by grant 

(easement), but at times this has met with local landowner opposition. 

County Commission Resolution. The Crooked Creek 

Road (refuge road #103) was designated a public road 

by a Petroleum County Commission resolution in the 

1990s. After the refuge graveled about 5 miles of the 

road with TEA–21 money, the county established it 

as a public road and, in effect, agreed to maintain the 

road. The road leads to the Crooked Creek Recreation Area where Petroleum County has a USACE 

permit to manage the site. 

Petitioned Roads. There are an unknown number of 

petitioned roads on the refuge within the six counties. 

Some counties’ road books and files will have complete sets of petitioned road records for individual 

roads. Some will have portions of the legal requirements for a legally petitioned road. Usually the only 

time the necessary research is done to determine if a 

road is truly a petitioned road is when a private landowner or land management agency proposes to close 

a road. On the refuge, road 343/606 that leads to the 

Musselshell Bottom in Garfield County was closed at 

the refuge boundary by a new landowner. Because 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 245

this was a major access point to a large part of the 

refuge, the Service and the county challenged the 

closure. Information presented at a public commission meeting showed that the refuge had periodically 

maintained the road, and historically the road led to 

an old post office. The county commissioner’s decision was based on historical information provided by 

the Service and neighboring landowners. The road 

remains open today, and it would be considered a public road. In the early 1990s, a fire destroyed the Garfield County courthouse that housed all the county 

road records. In Garfield County, it will be difficult 

to establish public roads without having the historical records. In several areas, access to the refuge 

has been blocked because roads cross private land 

that has been closed. Through land acquisition and 

buying rights-of-way, vehicle access to the refuge 

for the public will need to be improved. In addition, 

Garfield County may be willing to establish roads by 

easement if landowners and agencies can identify a 

public and private benefit. 

Each of the six counties has a variety of complete 

or incomplete road records. Some records parallel 

and overlap nicely the current refuge road system. 

In some instances, county records show petitioned 

roads that may never have been built or have never 

been shown on refuge maps. As stated in chapter 1, 

determining the legal validity of petitioned roads is 

outside the scope of this CCP and EIS. This document would not affect the counties’ or a private 

landowner’s legal ability to contest the existence or 

nonexistence of a road on the refuge that may or may 

not be open to the public. 

Where possible the counties and the Service may 

agree on which roads on the refuge are open to vehicle travel. In some situations, it would be beneficial to identify roads as being refuge roads to allow 

the expenditure of Service’s refuge roads program 

money to improve all-weather access. In some situations, it may be best to recognize a road as a legal 

county road to facilitate maintenance. Over the past 

18 years, approximately 45.5 miles of refuge roads 

have been graveled on the refuge with the use of 

refuge road dollars. If a road is designated a county 

road, such as the Crooked Creek Road, money from 

the refuge roads program cannot be used to improve 

or maintain the road in the future. This must be considered before declaring a “county road” versus leaving a road a “refuge public road.”

Other Public Access Issues

Most of the open refuge roads are publicly accessible. 

Roads that lead to the refuge are designated for public use and allow legal access to the existing and open 

refuge roads. However, some refuge roads currently 

remain open, yet are not open to the public. This situation primarily occurs in the Garfield County area 

where several roads that access open refuge roads 

cross private land bordering the refuge. These roads 

that cross private lands are not open to the public 

and subject to the private landowner’s permission. 

In Garfield County, this situation occurs on 21 individually numbered routes and has created an exclusive use situation. 

Boats. Numerous types and sizes of boats are used to 

access the Fort Peck Lake and the Missouri River. 

Montana boating laws and regulations apply to refuge waters. The Service has little data on the total 

number of boaters using the Fort Peck Reservoir or 

Missouri River but informal observations by staff 

suggest that more boats could be accessing the refuge from the river or lake during hunting season 

than in the past. 

Restrictions are in place from June 15 to September 15 for the wild and scenic river part of the 

refuge along the western boundary (refer to soundscapes in section 4.1 above). In reporting on visitor 

and boat use through the Upper Missouri Wild and 

Scenic River, about 22 percent of boaters use the 

stretch from Judith Landing to the James Kipp Recreation Area located on western edge of the refuge 

(BLM 2008c). The latest information for 2008 on boat 

use for the Upper Missouri River shows there were 

about 4,495 registered users (personal correspondence with Vicki Marquis, Missouri River Districts 

Council, November 2009), so it is estimated that 

nearly 990 boats take out at Kipp during the summer 

season. Since 1976, the highest number of registered 

users occurred in 2002 with 6,034 registered users 

with 1,272 using a commercial operator. 

Water levels on the Missouri River fluctuate considerably and dictate what types of boats may be 

suitable for use. Boat access to the water varies 

from improved USACE concrete boat ramps located 

at developed recreation areas that allow larger 

craft to launch to areas where vehicle access leads 

to the water edge but only small watercraft (such 

as canoes) can be used. Access to those boat launch 

areas vary as well from paved highway and graveled 

and improved all-weather roads to unimproved twotrack roads that are impassible when wet. 

Access by Foot, Horse, or Bicycle. There are no restrictions for access by hiking or walking on the refuge 

other than the elk-viewing area and Sand Creek 

Administrative Area on the west end of the refuge. 

Additionally, there are no designated or improved 

hiking trails on the refuge (an established hiking trail 

is located at Hell Creek State Park within the refuge). 

Similarly, there are no restrictions to horseback riding on the refuge other than the previously mentioned 

areas closed to foot traffic. As with foot travel, there 

are no designated trails or paths for horse travel, and 

some parts of the refuge are unsuitable or unsafe for 
246 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

horse use. Certified weed-free hay is required when 

keeping horses on the refuge. Bicycles are allowed 

on numbered roads only including seasonally closed 

roads.

Universal Access. There are several hundred miles of 

open refuge roads that are available for hunters of all 

abilities to hunt from with the proper Montana State 

license. Additionally, an accessible blind is available 

to hunters needing wheelchair access along the Missouri River. 

Use of Game Carts. Game carts were originally designed 

for retrieving big game in areas where road access 

was limited. They often consist of a small cart with 

two wheels that a hunter pushes or pulls. On much of 

the refuge, it is not feasible to use one because of the 

rugged, steep terrain, and hunters have to carry an 

animal out to where they can use a game cart. Game 

carts are not allowed in UL Bend Wilderness. However, the use of a game cart is approved for the proposed wilderness units. A minimum requirement 

analysis is being completed as part of the wilderness 

review (refer to appendix E).

RECREATION SITES

USACE recreation areas include Crooked Creek, 

Forchette Bay, Devils Creek, Hell Creek, McGuire 

Creek, Nelson Creek, Rock Creek, Fort Peck, and 

The Pines. Because the Service does not have primary jurisdiction over these areas, they are not analyzed further.

The Service managed several primitive camping areas that have vault toilets including Slippery 

Ann, Rock Creek, Turkey Joe, Withrow Bottoms, 

Jones Island, and Rocky Point (figure 15). A few 

other areas that were outgranted to the Service in 

the Enhancement Act of 2000 have no facilities (Bear 

Creek and Bobcat). 

Except where designated as closed, camping 

(other than backpacking) must take place within 100 

yards of the Missouri River and Fort Peck Reservoir 

or within 100 yards of numbered and open roads. 

Camping is limited to 2 weeks within any 30-day 

period. The use of dead and down wood is allowed 

for making a campfire. Camping is not permitted on 

the islands.

COMMERCIAL RECREATION

There are several commercial recreation activities 

that occur on the refuge including hunting and outfitting, fishing, and photography. Any commercial 

activity requires a special use permit. Currently, 

the Service has provided little to no oversight for 

the commercial harvest of fish or mussels in the past 

because most of it falls within the primary jurisdiction of USACE. This topic is discussed in detail 

under fishing in chapter 3. Commercial outfitting 

also occurs on the refuge but is limited to 11 special 

use permits annually. 

A small wind turbine at refuge headquarters is used to 

offset energy costs. 

USFWS

REFUGE HEADQUARTERS 

and FIELD STATIONS

The headquarters for the refuge is located along Airport Road in Lewistown, Montana. It consists primarily of a headquarters building, a maintenance 

shop, and a few other buildings. Additionally, there 

are three field stations located at Sand Creek, Jordan, and Fort Peck and a small research facility at 

the UL Bend Refuge. Each field station consists of a 

few buildings that provide office space, a fire cache, 

some maintenance capability and storage, and residences or bunkhouses.

4.6 HUMAN HISTORY and

CULTURAL RESOURCES

From prehistoric times to the present day, the refuge has a rich human history that has shaped the 

landscape.
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 247

PREHISTORIC HISTORY

As a river corridor, the refuge was an important 

land feature for aboriginal people due to the variable 

resources provided by a major waterway in relatively dry country and unique hunting opportunities 

provided by the Missouri River Breaks. Most of the 

prehistoric people of the plains depended on animal 

products for subsistence. Areas along the Missouri 

River Breaks probably tended to concentrate large 

ungulates along the breaks, funneling animals into 

narrow passages to cross the river during winter 

migrations. These natural game funnels would have 

made likely ambush points for prehistoric hunters. 

An area of the refuge near UL Bend is known as an 

important migrational area for large ungulates and 

it is obvious that aboriginal cultures exploited this 

knowledge based on the presence of prehistoric sites 

documented in the area. Documentation of the use of 

the refuge by native people is known mostly through 

surface remains. Some archaeologists believe that 

the actively eroding nature of the soils along the 

refuge have erased the remains of many of the earlier sites, but recent archaeological work has shown 

that some earlier prehistoric sites could be deeply 

buried (Loflin 2008). Formal archaeological investigations have been sporadic and were associated 

primarily with Federal projects. Planning documents and some large-scale fieldwork has been produced by BLM on their lands surrounding the refuge 

(Davy 1992, Ruebelmann 1982). Known prehistoric 

site types suggests that the early inhabitants of the 

river were highly mobile and did not create permanent villages as is seen further east in the Missouri 

River floodplain. This is consistent with the use of 

the area by groups of people exploiting the area for 

hunting bison. To date, little archaeological excavation has taken place on the refuge, but archaeological testing was conducted on a few sites in 2008 and 

more testing is scheduled for 2009 (Boughton and 

Peteson 2007). 

Paleo-Indian Period (9500 B.C.–6500 B.C.)

Although no paleo-Indian sites are known on the refuge, in the 1960s, one Folsom point was reported at 

the UL Bend Refuge by a nonprofessional (Reubelmann 1982). More recently, Davy reports that a Folsom and a Hell Gap point have been recovered on 

the surface and in a buried context by professionals 

(1992). Investigation into the buried artifact showed 

that there was no site associated with it. 

Middle Prehistoric Period (6500 B.C.–200 A.D.)

Depending on location, it appears that these people were largely focused on exploiting bison, but the 

tool kit expanded from paleo-Indian times suggesting dependence on a broader spectrum of plant and 

animal resources in more varied habitats. Climatologically, it was becoming dryer and Plains Archaic 

populations tended to inhabit areas with protected 

water sources. Sites typically occur in basin and foothill regions, river valleys and in open prairie. During 

the Altithermal, some of the Great Plains became dry 

enough to cause the formation of dune fields, which 

pushed the bison and native people to other areas. 

There is a wide variation of projectile point (spear or 

atlatl) types associated with the Middle Prehistoric, 

no doubt due to the varied species, environments 

and hunting techniques used to obtain game in this 

fluctuating climatic regime. The spear thrower was 

introduced allowing greater range than spear throwing and necessitating smaller projectile points. Communal hunting continued, but researchers have 

suggested that smaller hunting groups were used 

at various times of the year. There is also more evidence of processing of vegetal resources suggesting 

reliance on a broader spectrum of resources. There 

are very few excavations of Middle Prehistoric sites 

near the refuge, although surface finds prove that 

these people were present. 

Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 200–1750)

During this phase, prehistoric people moved out 

onto the prairies and new technologies were introduced including the bow, arrow, and pottery. Complexes included in this tradition include Besant, 

Avalonea, Benson’s, Butte/Beehive, and Old Women’s. The Besant complex represents the earliest 

adoption of pottery and bow and arrow use in this 

area of the northern Great Plains. In the Dakotas, 

it has been documented that sites of this phase have 

burial mounds along the Missouri River although 

none have been reported in Montana. In areas of 

the lower Missouri, village-dwelling, semi-agricultural, aboriginal people lived in earthen lodges, making forays at certain times of year to other areas to 

secure resources. Although none of these village 

sites is known from the refuge, a nonprofessional 

reported that an earthen lodge existed on the river 

before it was flooded to create Fort Peck Reservoir 

(Reubelmann 1982).

Although the horse was in use in the southern 

plains earlier, in the northern plains they were not in 

widespread use until A.D. 1725–50. Bison continued 

to be the primary resource exploited by Protohistoric 

groups, but the addition of the horse to hunting techniques drastically affected social organization, settlement patterns, and effectiveness of bison hunting. 

Protohistoric people were able to react more quickly 

to the movements of the bison herds, were able to 

hunt further away from base camps and began to 

leave women and children in camps while hunting. 

Although many of the prehistoric sites on the refuge do not have datable artifacts, it has been suggested that a majority of the known prehistoric sites 
248 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

are attributed to this period. This may be because most 

of the sites are known from surface finds and is logical that the latest materials would be on the surface. 

It is also likely that aboriginal populations were much 

higher during this period as more groups were pushed 

into the plains with the advancement of Anglos and the 

effect trade goods were having on tribal politics. 

HISTORICAL PERIOD

During this period, trade goods and interaction 

between Anglos and tribal people began to directly 

affect aboriginal lifeways. This process started well 

before Anglos reached the area around the refuge. 

Trade goods and the desire for them changed Native 

American lifeways by shifting hunting activities for 

household consumption to a means to obtain trade 

goods. As more of the aboriginal people were being 

pushed into the area, conflict between tribes in 

search of bison became more frequent. Taking control of territories for hunting grounds and high mobility became increasingly important. Furthermore, 

during the 19th century, the area around the refuge 

was the stage for many conflicts between Anglos and 

tribal people due the increasing use of this section of 

the river to move goods to and from western Montana to support the fur trade, bison robes trade, and 

gold mining.

One well-documented, aboriginal historic site 

from this period is located south of UL Bend on the 

opposite side of the river (Park 1998). The site consisted of a bison kill located in a series of coulees. 

Artifacts observed in the surface included a projectile point (arrowhead), stone butchering tools, a piece 

of iron, and a potsherd. The site consists of three 

activity areas where butchering was conducted each 

having evidence of buried deposits including evidence of hearths. This site is planned for archaeological testing to demonstrate its eligibility for the 

National Register. 

Native American Tribes

Archaeologists and linguists debate the origin of 

aboriginal groups in eastern Montana before 1500. 

In eastern Montana, by the 1600s, it is generally 

accepted that the River Crow were situated on the 

Missouri River and the Mountain Crow along the 

Yellowstone River. The Blackfoot were situated 

northwest of the River Crow into Canada and the 

Assiniboine to the northeast of the River Crow into 

Canada. Before the introduction of trade goods, the 

Sioux lived in Minnesota. At that time, they were 

at war with the Chippewa, who had been armed 

through trade with Anglos, and began moving westward and south. Firearms gave the Chippewa an 

advantage in warfare, which destabilized the traditional relationships between the groups. 

 The Sioux left their aboriginal homelands in 

Minnesota and began to disperse west and south 

following major river drainages. This process was relatively rapid beginning in Michigan, Iowa, and South 

Dakota. No doubt, the mobile lifestyle required by 

bison hunting made the process faster. Early Anglo 

explorers wrote that they had seen some horses 

among the Sioux in Minnesota during the first Anglo 

contact in the 1600s. Many of the eastern Sioux have 

certain culture traits that are more woodland oriented while the western tribes have aspects of their 

culture that are similar to other plains groups. In the 

east, early accounts of the Sioux document at least 

some level of agriculture or intensive plant exploitation along with hunting as the basis of the economy. As the Sioux moved west onto the plains, their 

economy was directly linked to bison as their major 

resource. With this orientation toward hunting bison, 

shifts in their material culture and mobility patterns 

were required to stay in close association with the 

bison herds. For instance, the use of tipis for shelter was necessary for mobility and the use of horses, 

increased the effectiveness of hunting bison. Access 

to guns and other trade items also made bison hunting more effective. To acquire trade goods, the Sioux 

became involved in the bison robe trade. 

The Assiniboine split from the Sioux and began to 

move north and westward onto the Canadian plains 

to hunt bison. By the late 17th and early 18th centuries, they were trading with the Hudson’s Bay Company in Saskatchewan, Canada allowing them access 

to guns and trade goods. In the fur trade, the Assiniboine acted as intermediaries between the company 

and other plains tribes. Eventually the Assiniboine 

would expand their control from Lake Superior to 

northeast Montana.

In the late 18th century, increased movement of 

Anglos in the northern plains caused the first outbreaks of smallpox among the native people (Fandrich and Peterson 2005). By 1781, reports in 

Saskatchewan Canada relate that 30–60 percent 

of the native population was lost. Diseases introduced by Anglos would greatly affect tribal politics 

and warfare because the loss of population numbers forced certain tribes to create partnerships 

that would allow them to defend themselves against 

native enemies. Anglo contacts grew more frequent 

with ongoing movement of riverboats associated 

with the fur trade and discovery of gold in western 

Montana. This increased opportunities for diseases 

to spread through the native populations. With the 

introduction of the steam-powered riverboats using 

the Missouri River to ship supplies, diseases were 

able to move faster across the region. The Gros Ventre, Sioux, and Plains Cree did not experience radical 

population losses from the outbreak. The companies with which they had been trading vaccinated 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 249

the Sioux and Cree to prevent population losses. 

The Mandan and Hidatsa, who lived in dense village populations, were devastated by the outbreak 

and never played a major role in the region’s native 

political arena. Interruptions in hunting caused by 

the Sioux, who had moved further up the Missouri 

to take advantage of the territory that opened up 

with the movement of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara, kept these groups from sustaining themselves 

by hunting bison. This forced the Mandan, Hidatsa, 

and Arikara to become dependent on the Federal 

Government for support. The Assiniboine also lost 

two-thirds of their population and became vulnerable to attacks from the Crow, Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, Hidatsa, and Sioux. They were never again able 

to regain their former political power. 

In the late 1860s, the Sioux were becoming a 

major political force in the area. In 1868, 1,000 Sioux 

of the Cuthead Band of the Yanktonai and two 

Bands of the Sissetons arrived at Fort Buford. They 

agreed to make peace with the Federal Government and made an alliance with the Lower Assiniboine. These Sioux were able to sustain themselves 

in the first year with annuities shared by the Assiniboine. Yellowstone Kelly noted that Medicine Bear 

of the Sioux moved up the Missouri River displacing 

the other groups, which opened the eastern mountains up to hunting for the Sioux. Sioux conflicts 

with the Assiniboine resulted in the recommendation from Indian Agent Sully that the Assiniboine go 

north to the Milk River Agency and join the Gros 

Ventre. Some Assiniboine agreed, while others did 

not, which split the group into the Upper Assiniboine allied with Long Hair and Whirl Wind and the 

Lower Assiniboine of the Canoe Paddler Band allied 

with the Yankton, Yanktonai, and Santee Sioux. 

They resided near the mouth of the Popular River. 

The San Arcs and Tetons controlled the area west of 

Big Muddy Creek to the Musselshell River. 

During the 1880s, the climate and conditions for 

native people in northeastern Montana were at their 

worst. The bison were now gone from the area and 

a series of harsh winters left most tribal populations 

without adequate food. Government supplies were 

not sufficient to feed the tribal populations and without bison hunting for supplemental nutrition, starvation ensued. At the Wolf Point subagency, 300 

Assiniboine starved as well as tribal members at 

other locations.

Lewis and Clark Expedition

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson organized the Corps of 

Discovery after the Louisiana Purchase from the 

French ended any European claim to the land. At 

the time, this part of the western United States was 

largely undocumented. Jefferson realized the need 

to survey the area in preparation for settlement and 

was also in search of a Northwest Passage to the 

Orient. At that time, there was no navigable route 

that connected Eastern and Western North America, requiring ships to sail around South America and 

Africa. Ultimately, this goal of the Corps was not 

realized because the route was difficult to navigate 

and required several portages making movement of 

large watercraft unpractical. When the Corps of Discovery returned to Saint Louis they brought with 

them field maps documenting the locations of waterways and resources they had encountered. The Corps 

found large numbers of wild furs and wildlife that 

inhabited the region would later spur the fur trade. 

Although the Lewis and Clark Expeditions of the 

region are generally thought of the as the first Anglo 

visitors to the refuge, they were predated by trappers who traveled the area in the 18th century. Some 

of these trappers were of French Canadian origin 

working with the Hudson’s Bay Company. 

Fur Trade

With the rise of beaverpelt prices, in the 19th century, more whites came to the Upper Missouri to 

trap. Once the beaver were trapped out of the area 

near the refuge, the fur trade shifted to the bison 

robe trade. Several small forts were established 

along the refuge part of the river for two reasons: 

(1) forts allowed the tribes easy access to traders for 

their furs; and (2) the river boats coming from Saint 

Louis often could not get further up river from the 

refuge because the river become shallower upstream. 

The shallower parts of the river were not navigable 

by riverboats when the water was low and the shallower sections froze up earlier in the year. Much of 

the river cargo was destined for Fort Benton near 

modern day Great Falls. Fort Benton served as a 

hub of transport for supplies and people because a 

road network leading to mining and other resource 

areas in the region connected the town. 

By the 1820s, the American Fur Company began 

to sponsor forts along the river to secure a share of 

the trade in animal products from native and white 

trappers. In 1829, the American Fur Company established Fort Union near the mouth of the Yellowstone 

River creating the first substantial settlement of 

Anglos in the region (Brumley 2006). Fort Williams 

and Fort Jackson were established upstream of Fort 

Union to expand company control of trading. Several other forts were established to compete with 

the American Fur Company, but most failed due to 

the fierce competition with American Fur Company 

or frequent attacks by native people. One reason so 

many forts, trading posts and riverboat landings 

were constructed within the refuge was due to the 

difficulty with getting up river from this point. The 

stretch of river from Cow Island to Fort Benton was 

known as “Rocky River” marking the point where 
250 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

elevation increased approximately 2 feet per mile as 

one went upstream (Davy 1992). From the refuge, 

riverboats could be unloaded and freight put on wagons to be hauled to Helena, Great Falls, or the Judith 

Mountains. Typically, the forts did not stay in business very long because conditions of the river and 

animal populations themselves affected their success. Fort Carroll is an excellent example. In the 

early 1880s, it was located within 150 miles of the 

remaining bison herds. It did brisk business with 

the riverboats in 1874 and 1875 because the river 

was low, and freight was unloaded at the town to be 

hauled by wagon to Great Falls (FWS 1996). Afterwards, when the river was elevated, riverboats were 

able to get up river to Fort Benton without help and 

the town’s prosperity dwindled. By 1881, about 2,130 

bison robes were traded at Carroll, down from earlier years of 4,000 robes. Soon after, the bison robe 

trade ended. 

Thirty-one trading posts were built on the Missouri River between the North Dakota boundary to 

Fort Benton between 1828 and 1885 (Davy 1992). 

Those located in the refuge boundary are Fort Peck 

(1867), Fort Pouchette (1870), Fort Musselshell 

(1869), Kerchival City (1866), Fort Sheridan (1870), 

Fort Andrews (1862), Carroll (1874), Fort Hawley 

(1866), Wilders Landing (1875), Rocky Point (1875), 

Little Belt Mountain City (1875). Forts with a military function were Fort Peck, Rocky Point, Fort 

Carroll, and Fort Reeve (1867). In addition to forts, 

there were riverboat landings along the Missouri 

River, because riverboats could not get up the river 

to Fort Benton during icy and low water conditions. 

Cargo had to be unloaded and moved by wagon to 

the forts up river. Fieldwork in the 1970s showed 

that remains of these landings as well as sunken riverboats can still be found (Wood 1977). 

Throughout the 19th century, the fur trade in 

eastern Montana was dependent on riverboats to 

move the goods to the region. Originally, the trade 

consisted of beaverpelts, but in the 1840s the animals had been overexploited and fur prices dropped, 

changing the focus of trade to bison robes. Growth 

of this industry was rapid as 2,600 bison robes 

were sent east annually in the early 1800s, whereas 

approximately 90,000 or more would be shipped 

annually from St. Louis by the 1850s. By 1850, the 

tribes were dependent on trade goods, which they 

obtained through the bison robe trade. 

With the discovery of gold in western Montana 

in the 1860s and the development of the fur trade, 

steamboat travel was a vital supply line to towns 

such as Fort Benton and Helena that had few other 

options for travel because of the lack of well-established roads or railways to supply these towns. Food, 

supplies, and trade goods required for miners and 

trappers would be hauled up from St. Louis. Goods 

including furs, bison robes, and gold would be sent 

downstream to the markets. Steamboat traffic was 

common on the river from 1859 until 1888 and averaged about 20 boats a year. 

Railroads

During the 1880s, railroads were established, linking eastern Montana to large cities and markets for 

the natural resources that were available for exploitation at the time. With the establishment of the 

railways, movement of goods was faster, more predictable, and cheaper than riverboat travel along the 

Missouri. The grasslands left vacant by the removal 

of bison and the placement of native people on reservations made the area particularly suitable to 

livestock grazing. With the addition of the railroad 

to the State’s transportation system, the reliable 

movement of cattle to large markets in the east was 

ensured. The industry flourished, and high stocking rates were common due to unmanaged grazing 

on free land. This early success was tainted in the 

winter of 1886–87 when severe snow and cold froze 

many cattle that walked with the wind into coulees 

and fences and became trapped. Some estimates of 

losses of cattle in the region are as high as 50–90 percent. Of the State’s 220 cattle operations in business 

before that winter, 120 financially survived. 

By 1900, a homestead boom began that would 

last until 1918. Initial settlement of the region was 

in river bottoms that were readily cultivated. It was 

spurred by the cheap transportation by railways, 

profitable shipment of grain to market and advertisement campaigns by the railroad companies for 

free land. The Federal Government had given the 

railways land along tracks to pay them for the construction costs. When an area was settled, the railroads would not only be able to sell the land, but 

would also create more traffic for freight as the settlers would need to move their products to market. 

The homestead boom was so intense that Montana 

had more homestead entries than any other State. 

The boom continued successfully as high moisture 

during the period of 1909–16 made dry farming of 

cereal grains successful. The combination of shipping 

grain by rail made moving the grain to large eastern markets financially profitable and reliable. Once 

conditions became dryer, the farming boom ended 

as farmers began to understand the lack of predictable moisture in the eastern part of the State limited dryland farming. This, in combination with the 

Great Depression, caused a mass exodus from Montana in which half of Montana farmers lost their 

farms between 1921 and 1925. This process has continued in to modern times as illustrated by Garfield 

County, which in 1919 had 30 settlements with post 

offices. By 1968, five remained (Davy 1992). Creating 

predictable water for farming in eastern Montana 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 251

would not be resolved until large-scale Government 

irrigation brought predictable water to the agricultural fields. 

Roosevelt Era

In response to the Great Depression and the drought 

of the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created a series of Government programs to provide 

jobs and income for impoverished families. Most of 

these programs were construction projects including 

dams, roads, and public works. The largest of these 

projects in Montana was Fort Peck Dam, which is situated on the eastern end of the refuge. The project 

was authorized by Roosevelt in 1933 and constructed 

under management of USACE. This work was completed from 1933 to 1940. The dam originally had 

two purposes: providing jobs to Montanans who 

were jobless and creating flood control for the Missouri River. In 1938, the dam was altered to generate 

electricity in preparation for the United States 

involvement in the Second World War. It is the largest 

earth-filled dam in the world. Inside the clay core of 

the structure are 17,000 tons of steel sheet pilings 

that span the river. The project was so large that 

several towns were established to house workers. 

Some of the names of the towns include New Deal, 

Square Deal, and Roosevelt Heights showing their 

direct relationship with the project. During the construction period in the mid-1930s, the city of Fort 

Peck unofficially had a population of 30,000. Fort 

Peck is distinguished as being the first planned community, other than military post and religious communities, in the United States (Davy 1992). It was 

designed by USACE in 1933. At its peak, the project 

employed 10,546 people. 

Homesteads and Ranching 

Old homesteads dot the landscape.

Brett Billings / USFWS

Ranching in Montana began as small operations providing beef to miners primarily in the western part 

of the State to support the mining operations. In 

1866, the first cattle drive from Texas took place and 

started the first open-range ranching in the grasslands that were vacant after the destruction of the 

bison herds. (Malone et al. 1976).

By the late 1870s, the large cattle raising operations west of the Continental Divide were searching 

for more range lands. By the mid-1870s, ranchers had 

brought medium-sized herds into central Montana. The 

rapid expansion of the cattle industry on the northern 

Great Plains ended suddenly in the late 1880s south of 

the Missouri River and in 1906–07 north of the river. 

Ranchers failed to take action to ensure the range was 

not overstocked and during the brutal winter of 1886–

87 and again in 1906–07, approximately 50–75 percent 

of stock in central and eastern Montana was lost. The 

winter of 1886–87 ended open-range ranching south of 

the Missouri River and started the ranch cattle operation. Open-rangeland ranching continued north of the 

river until the winter of 1906–07 when again another 

severe winter killed thousands of stock. 

The Homestead Act had little effect in central 

Montana until 1909 when the Enlarged Homestead 

Act was passed. This act allowed a person to receive 

320 acres instead of the original 160 and one-eighth of 

the land had to be cultivated continuously. The countryside became dotted with homestead shacks, and 

trails became roads as more and more traveled their 

course. “The homestead rush began slowly, but in 

less than 20 years an immense grassland in Central 

and Eastern Montana, over 500 miles long and 300 

miles wide, was overrun, divided up into 320-acre 

tracts, plowed up and was producing some of the 

lushest crops ever seen.” These homesteaders were 

mostly farmers, whereas those that preceded them 

were cattle and sheep men (Willmore 1990). 

The beginning of the end of the boom years was 

1919. It was the driest year ever recorded in central 
252 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Montana, and there were no crops. More dry years 

followed until the Great Depression of the 1930s. 

Wheat harvests averaged only 2.4 bushels on land 

that had previously averaged 50 bushels and prices 

tumbled. Hordes of grasshoppers and cutworms, intense heat, and winds all added to the homesteader’s 

misery. Families were starving and the exodus from 

the area accelerated. More than half of the farmers 

lost their land through bankruptcy and abandonment or sold to the Government under the Bankhead–Jones Farm Tenancy Act of 1937. The ranches 

that survived these times had diversified their operations to include a combination of stock and crops. 

Many of the area’s farmers and ranchers of today are 

the children, grandchildren, and even great grandchildren of the men and women who made it through 

the difficult, sometimes impossible, days (Willmore 

1990).

Historic Artists

Artists beginning in the early 19th century have portrayed the refuge. In 1833, Prince Maxmillian from 

Germany visited the refuge documenting its natural 

wonders. Maxmillian brought with professionally 

trained Swiss artist Karl Bodmer who painted the 

first scenes from the area by a classically trained artist. As an scientist, Maxmillian’s observation along 

with Bodmer’s illustrations provide a valuable source 

of scientific information about the natural features 

and native people inhabiting the area at that time. 

Maxmillian’s expedition was from Fort Union to Fort 

McKenzie, which is just downstream of Fort Benton. 

Charles M. Russell, the namesake of the refuge, 

was an artist and cowboy who was born in 1864 and 

came to live in the Judith Basin in 1880. His primary 

artistic subjects were the cowboys of eastern Montana. Russell worked as a cowboy for 11 years beginning in 1882. These experiences left him with scenes 

of cowboy life from the late 19th century from which 

to draw on as an artist. Russell disagreed with the 

practice of dryland farming in the eastern Montana 

prairie, because he realized that the crops would fail 

in dry periods causing soil destruction. Known for 

his early conservation ethic, Russell was given the 

honor of having the refuge named after him. 

KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The refuge has 363 known archaeological sites. Approximately 275 of the known archaeological sites are either 

National Register–eligible or have not been evaluated 

and therefore have to be treated as eligible. Very few of 

the archaeological sites on the refuge have been visited 

by a professional archaeologist. Many of the aboriginal 

sites that have been reported by refuge staff are stone 

circles or what are commonly called tipi rings or are 

historic farmsteads. Most of the known archaeological 

sites have been reported to the Montana State Historic 

Preservation Office; however, the information recorded 

was not done by current professional standards, making management of the resource difficult. Overall, less 

than 1 percent of refuge lands have been formally surveyed for archaeological sites. 

REFUGE RESOURCES 

IMPORTANT to TRIBES 

In 2005, USACE completed a study of the traditional 

cultural properties near the refuge. During this 

study, the Assiniboine, Blackfoot, Chippewa–Cree, 

Crow, and Sioux Tribes were interviewed about traditional use of the area. Many of the 16 traditional 

cultural properties are found on refuge land and 

include burial locations, plant-gathering areas, and 

ceremonial locations. Some areas were inundated by 

Fort Peck Lake. 

Modern tribes still collect and use plants or other 

resources for ceremonial and traditional purposes. 

Consultation with the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap 

tribal council in 2009 revealed that collecting sweat 

rocks, willows, and other materials are very important cultural traditions. Tribes that are interested in 

collecting small quantities of plants or other natural 

resources need to contact the refuge manager and 

obtain a special use permit before collecting materials for ceremonial purposes. Although bison are not 

managed as a species on the refuge, many tribes still 

consider them as central to their culture. Other wildlife species currently found on the refuge that are 

important include elk, deer, and other species; however, the State of Montana regulates the harvest of 

huntable populations of wildlife through State licensing. Many tribes also use eagle feathers and parts 

today for ceremonial purposes. The Service provides 

eagles to tribal members through the National Eagle 

Repository located in Colorado. Tribes reported having a deep spiritual connection to the refuge, and 

many of the scenic areas are considered focal spiritual areas, although information about any specific 

site on the refuge is not known. 

4.7 PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

The refuge offers various exposures of geologic 

and paleontological interest, and the refuge has 465 

known paleontological sites. Several of these sites 

have been designated as “national natural landmarks” for paleontological resources (refer to section “4.4, Special Management Areas”).

The western part of the refuge is shortgrass prairie 

with sparse pine forest in the uplands and cottonwoods 

in the dissected drainages and floodplain areas. On the 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 253

eastern side of the refuge, the vegetation is shortgrass 

prairie with juniper in deeply eroded drainages. Areas 

of the eastern part of the refuge have scant vegetation and are commonly known as badlands. In general, 

the central part of the refuge contains earlier fossils 

of Pleistocene mammals, while the downcutting of the 

river on the eastern part of the refuge has exposed the 

Hell Creek Formation (Cretaceous Era), which is tens 

of millions years earlier. The Hell Creek Formation is 

known for its dinosaur fossils. In certain areas, exposures of marine fossils are observable. 

Of the paleontological deposits on the refuge, the 

dinosaur fossils have become famous and have been 

displayed in museums around the world. Although 

the refuge has been visited by paleontologists since 

the late 19th century, the first scientifically documented Tyrannosaurus rex fossil was excavated near 

Jordan, Montana, in 1902 (Graetz and Graetz 2003). 

Among the most recognizable dinosaur fossil finds to 

come from the refuge are T. rex, Triceratops, Albertosaurus, Mosasaurus, and duck-billed dinosaurs. The 

quality of the fossils is such that recently one of the 

most complete (T. rex) fossils excavated was found 

at the refuge and a group of several associated T. rex 

fossils were identified on the refuge. Many of these 

fossils can be seen at the Museum of the Rockies in 

Bozeman. The interpretive center at Fort Peck Field 

Station has many complete dinosaurs on exhibit.

In 2009, the Paleontological Resources Protection 

Act became law and requires the protection of these 

resources using scientific principles and expertise. 

Agencies are to develop plans for inventory, monitoring, and scientific and educational use of these 

resources in accordance with agency policies. Casual 

collecting or recreational digging is not allowed on 

the refuge. Special use permits are issued to institutions such as the Museum of the Rockies. Many of the 

paleontological sites known to refuge staff have not 

been formally reported to the Montana State Historical Preservation Office because the refuge has 

a problem with paleontological looters and wants to 

keep this knowledge as safe as possible to prevent 

attracting more looters. The refuge’s law enforcement 

personnel regularly write citations for looting and 

try to monitor as many of these resources as possible.

In 2010, a bow hunter discovered the fossilized bones of a sea creature. This is a rare find for the refuge, because very few 

prehistoric marine reptiles have been found in this area.

© David Bradt

4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS 

Information on socioeconomic conditions was 

obtained with the help of USGS through the Policy and Science Assistance Branch of the Biological Resources Division, in Fort Collins, Colorado 

(Koontz et al. 2010).

For CCP planning, an economic analysis provides 

a means of estimating how current management (noaction alternative) and proposed management activities (alternatives) affect the local economy. This type 

of analysis provides two critical pieces of information: (1) a refuge’s contribution to the local community; and (2) an analysis that can help in determining 
254 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

whether economic effects are or are not a real concern in choosing among management alternatives. 

The report for the refuge provides a description 

of the local community and economy near the refuge. Next, the methods used to conduct a regional 

economic impact analysis are described. An analysis of the final CCP management strategies that 

could affect interested groups, residents, the public, 

and the local economy is then presented. The refuge 

management activities of economic concern in this 

analysis follow:

■ refuge purchases of goods and services within the 

local community

■ refuge personnel salary spending

■ grazing operations

■ spending in the local community by refuge visitors

■ revenues generated from refuge revenue sharing

REGIONAL ECONOMIC SETTING

For the purposes of an economic impact analysis, a 

region (and its economy) is typically defined as all 

counties within a 30- to 60-mile radius of the impact 

area. Only spending that takes place within this 

regional area is included as stimulating changes in 

economic activity. The size of the region influences 

both the amount of spending captured and the multiplier effects. The six-county area is large (15.3 million 

acres) and remote with much of the regional economic activity confined within the six-county area. 

The 1.1 million-acre refuge boundary accounts for 1 

percent of the land and water within the six-county 

area: 11.6 percent of Garfield County; 8.7 percent of 

Phillips County; 6.6 percent of Valley County; 5.3 

percent of Petroleum County; 5.1 percent of McCone 

County; and 2 percent of Fergus County. Based on 

the relative self-containment in terms of retail trade, 

the surrounding six counties make up the local economic region for this analysis. 

During the last century, ranching, farming, mining, natural gas development, and the railroad have all 

been important factors in the social and economic history of the area. More recently, outdoor recreation and 

tourism have been increasingly important contributors to the local economies. The next sections describe 

the socioeconomic characteristics and trends in the sixcounty area. 

POPULATION and DEMOGRAPHICS 

This section describes the characteristics of the population for Montana and the six counties surrounding the refuge. This includes population projections, 

employment, income, and refuge activities that 

affect the local economy. 

Table 19. Population estimates for the Nation and the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges.

 Area 2008 population1

Percent change 

from 20001

Persons 

per square mile1

Expected population 

percent growth (2000–30)2

United States 304,059,724 8.0 80.1 —

Montana 967,440 7.2 6.6 34.2

Fergus County 11,195 –5.9 2.6 –1.6

Garfield County 1,184 –7.4 0.2 –14.8

McCone County 1,676 –15.2 0.6 –23.6

Petroleum County 436 –11.6 0.3 –20.9

Phillips County 3,904 –15.1 0.7 –21.5

Valley County 6,892 –10.2 1.4 –23.0

Six-county Area 25,287 –9.4 1.1 –13.3 

1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008) Population Estimates, GCT–T1 and DP–1.

2Source: NPA Data Services, Inc. (2007); U.S. Census Bureau (2008).

Population and Density

Table 19 summarizes the population estimates and 

trends for Montana and the six counties surrounding 

the refuge. In 2008, there were 25,278 residents in 

the local six-county area, comprising approximately 

2.6 percent of the State’s population while covering 

16 percent of the State’s land area. In 2008, Fergus 

County had the largest population in the six-county 

area with 11,195 residents, while Petroleum County 

had the least populated county with 436 residents. 

While Montana’s population grew by more than 7 

percent from 2000 to 2008, all six counties experienced a declining population during that time ranging from a 5.9-percent decline in Fergus County to a 

15.2-percent decline in McCone County. 

As shown in table 19, all six counties have substantially lower densities (0.3–2.6 persons per square 

mile) compared to that of Montana (6.6 persons per 

square mile). Nearly half of the residents in Fer-
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 255

gus County live in the city of Lewistown, creating a 

local density of 3,055 persons per square mile. Similarly, more than 40 percent of Valley County’s residents live in the city of Glasgow, resulting in a local 

population density of 2,075 persons per square mile. 

The higher local densities in these major communities indicate that rural areas outside of these communities are more sparsely populated than the county 

densities shown in table 19. 

Communities near the Refuge. Lewistown, the county 

seat of Fergus County, is the largest city in the sixcounty area, with 5,954 residents in 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). Located in the geographic center 

of Montana, Lewistown has historically been an 

important regional trade center for the surrounding 

farms and ranches (Destination Lewistown 2009). 

Recently, there has been a great deal of growth and 

diversification in the local economy including recreation, tourism, and a wide variety of businesses in 

the small manufacturing and service sector (Destination Lewistown 2009). 

Established as a railroad town in the 1880s, Glasgow, 

the county seat of Valley County, is the second largest 

city (2,921 residents in 2008) near the refuge. The construction of Fort Peck Dam (approximately 18 miles 

southeast of Glasgow) and the establishment and subsequent closure of Glasgow Air Force Base have been 

important historical events for the Glasgow economy. 

Other communities near the refuge include the 

agricultural community of Malta (1,801 residents in 

2008 and the Phillips County seat), which is also a 

notable stop on the Montana Dinosaur Trail. The terrain between the towns of Jordan (336 residents and 

the Garfield County seat) and Circle (542 residents 

and the McCone County seat) offers numerous recreational opportunities and is well known among paleontologists for its fossil beds (Travel Montana 2009). 

The agricultural town of Winnett (163 residents in 

2008 and the Petroleum County seat) was formerly 

an oil-boom town with more than 2,000 residents in 

the 1920s (Travel Montana 2009). 

Population Projections. As shown in table 19, Montana’s 

population is projected to increase by 34 percent 

from 2000 to 2030. Based on recent trends, most of 

the increase in statewide population can be expected 

to come from the in-migration of new residents who 

are aged 30–49 and have children or who are older 

than 50 and retired, and those who are attracted 

to the wilderness and mountains (Kemmimck 2002, 

Young and Martin 2003). However, most of the increase in population is expected to occur in western 

Montana. In contrast, the six-county area surrounding the refuge is expected to continue to lose population in the next 20 years. Much of the loss in eastern 

Montana is expected to come from the emigration 

of people aged 20–29 leaving the region for better 

opportunities (Young and Martin 2003). By 2030, 

the counties of McCone, Petroleum, Phillips, and 

Valley are expected to lose more than 20 percent of 

their populations compared to 2000 (table 19). Garfield County is expected to lose 15 percent by 2030. 

Fergus County is expected to lose 4 percent by 2010 

but is expected to regain some of its population, for 

an overall loss of approximately 2 percent by 2030. 

Overall, the six-county area surrounding the refuge is expected to lose approximately 13 percent 

between 2000 and 2030, with most of the loss occurring by 2020 (NPA Data Services 2007). 

Age and Racial Composition. The six-county area surrounding the refuge has an aging population beyond 

that of the State of Montana as a whole. Whereas 

the median age of Montana in 2007 was 37.5 years, 

the six adjacent counties had a median age ranging 40.8–42.4 years (U.S. Census 2009). In addition, 

the six-county area had substantially higher proportions of residents between the ages of 65 and 84 

(14.9–17.7 percent) compared with the entire State 

(11.7 percent) and substantially lower proportions 

of residents between the ages of 25 and 40 (26.8–

28.0 percent) compared with the State (33.7 percent). The aging trend in the six-county area is likely 

driven by the trend of the young generation (particularly between the ages of 20 and 29) emigrating 

out of eastern Montana (Young and Martin 2003) in 

addition to the aging baby-boomer generation. The 

impact of retirement-age people on a community can 

be complex, but can include bringing in other sources 

of income and the desire for different types of recreation or amenities. For example, as the older recreation user groups increase, more hunters may 

request increased vehicle access to retrieve game 

and may rely on off-highway vehicles or motorboats 

as means to access otherwise remote hunting areas. 

In 2000, the proportion of white persons not of 

Hispanic or Latino origin in Phillips County (89.4 

percent) and Valley County (88.1 percent) was close 

to than the State average (90.6 percent) while the 

averages in Fergus County (97.1 percent), Garfield 

County (99.1 percent), McCone County (97 percent), and Petroleum County (99.2 percent) were 

greater than the State (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). 

The percentage of residents identifying themselves 

as American Indian or Native Alaskan was 6.2 percent for the State while the Phillips and Valley Counties were higher than the State average, 7.6 percent 

and 9.4 percent respectively, due to the presence 

of Indian reservations (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). 

The percentage of residents identifying themselves 

as American Indian or Native Alaskan was significantly lower than the State average for the remaining counties, ranging from 0.2 percent for Petroleum 

County to 1.2 percent for Fergus County.
256 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

EMPLOYMENT and INCOME

The following narrative contains information about 

employment trends, types of employment, current 

employment, and related income for Montana and 

the six-county area of the refuge.

Figure 40. Graph of the total employment index for Montana and the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell 

and UL Bend Refuges (1975–2006). Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (2008), CA25.

Note: Total employment includes all jobs filled within each area. Full-time and part-time jobs are counted at equal weight, and those 

holding two or more jobs are counted multiple times. The trend data for each of the counties and Montana are presented as an index, 

and are standardized with 1975 as the base year. 

Employment Trends

Employment trends in the six-county area from 1975 

to 2006 are shown in figure 40 (U.S. Department of 

Commerce 2008). During the 30-year period, the 

State as a whole experienced a substantial increase 

in total employment. Fergus County was the only 

county that followed the State trend with a steady 

increase in employment since the early 1980s. Petroleum, McCone, and Valley Counties experienced 

loss in total employment until around 1990 and have 

been experiencing a steady recovery since. Phillips County experienced an increase in employment 

between 1975 and 1990, but its current total employment has been declining since the 1990 peak level. 

Garfield County’s employment has remained relatively stable compared to the other counties in the 

region. 

Based on the long-term trend data for employment by industry (U.S. Department of Commerce 

2008), several trends explain the total employment 

fluctuations seen in figure 40. Decline in total employment observed in most counties before 1990 is largely 

attributed to the decline in farm employment as well 

as some rapid declines in the manufacturing industry 

(Valley County). Phillips County’s boom and bust in 

employment was largely attributed to the rise and fall 

of the mining industry, creating a sudden decline in 

employment in mining as well as associated services 

after the gold mine closures in the 1990s. Fergus 

County also experienced a short boom and bust in 

the mining industry around 1990, but the loss of 

employment from the mining industry did not negatively affect total employment in the county due to 

the presence of other stronger industries (such as 

retail trade, services, and construction) that experienced growth during the same period. The employment trend data suggest that counties with higher 

dependency on farming, (Garfield, McCone, and 

Petroleum Counties) may be more likely than others 

to be impacted by refuge management that influence 

surrounding counties’ farming practices. 

Overall, employment in all counties in the area 

except Phillips County has been steadily increasing since the mid-1990s. This increase is not easily 

explained by the area’s population trend (table 19) 

or the trend in employed labor force (number of persons 16 years and older who are employed) (Montana 

Department of Labor and Industry 2009), because 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 257

both population and labor force has mostly declined 

in the six-county area during the same period. It is 

likely that the recent increase in employment in the 

six-county area is explained by an increase in people 

with multiple jobs. The increase in people with more 

than one job is likely attributed to small farmers and 

ranchers who require supplemental income, as many 

are unable to make enough profit from their crops or 

livestock (Gruenert 1999).

Table 20 shows the percentage of total employment in Montana and the six-county area for 2005 

and the percent change from 1995 to 2005. Employment is broken into two categories: (1) by wage and 

salary employment (people who work for someone 

else); and (2) proprietors (self-employed including 

sole proprietorships, partnerships, and tax-exempt 

cooperatives). In 2005, all six counties surrounding the refuge had substantially higher proportions of proprietors (39.0–65.5 percent) compared 

to the State as a whole (27.1 percent; refer to table 

20). Approximately half of all proprietors in the sixcounty area are farm proprietors (those who are selfemployed and run a farm, producing or expected to 

produce at least $1,000 worth of crops and livestock 

in a typical year), whereas that of the entire State is 

substantially lower. 

As shown in figure 40, five out of six counties 

surrounding the refuge have been experiencing 

increases in total employment since the mid-1990s. 

During that time, Montana also had an increase in 

total employment, with most of the increase coming from wage and salary employment (refer to table 

20). However, in the six-county area, wage and salary employment has declined in many of the counties 

and much of the loss has been compensated by the 

increases in proprietor employment, particularly in 

the nonfarm sector. These data indicate that, unlike 

the State as a whole, the six-county area is becoming more dependent on self-employment as wage and 

salary employment decline. In addition, while farm 

proprietorships have not shown substantial growth 

and have decreased in some cases, they are still significant components of the economic structure in the 

six-county area. 

Table 20. Employment by type for Montana and the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges.

Location Total employment % Wage and salary % Proprietors % Nonfarm % Farm

2005

% Change 

1995–2005 2005

% Change 

1995–2005 2005

% Change 

1995–2005 2005

% Change 

1995–2005 2005

% Change 

1995–2005

Montana 615,864 22.0 73 19 27 29 23 34 4 8

Fergus 

County 7,654 11.0 61 6 39 19 27 27 12 6

Garfield 

County 872 9.0 48 –1 52 20 25 44 27 4

McCone 

County 1,283 7.0 51 –1 49 15 19 30 30 8

Petroleum 

County 345 24.0 35 –3 66 45 36 151 30 –4

Phillips 

County 2,645 –9.0 58 –16 42 4 23 4 19 5

Valley 

County 4,706 0.1 65 –2 35 4 20 2 15 6

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (2008), CA30.

Current Employment and Income

Table 21 summarizes industry output, employment, 

and labor income (employee compensation plus proprietor income) for the six-county area. Industry 

output, as used here, is the value of an industry’s 

total production expressed as a single dollar figure. 

The data presented in this section were compiled by 

the Minnesota IMPLAN (impact analysis for planning) Group from several sources including Census Bureau economic censuses, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis output, and employment projections developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Minnesota 

IMPLAN Group 2007). 

Consistent with the information presented in the 

previous section, the six-county area has substantially higher farm and ranch employment (proprietors and salary and wage employment combined) 

than the State as a whole, indicating that farming is 

an important sector in the area in terms of employment numbers. Aside from farming and governmental employment, retail trade and the service sectors 

also have high employment across all six counties.

During the past 30 years, Montana and the sixcounty area experienced a steady increase in total 

personal income (U.S. Department of Commerce 
258 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

2008). This increase was attributed to a steady increase in both labor and nonlabor-source incomes, 

but nonlabor-source incomes (transfer payments 

and dividends, interests, and rent) increased at a 

greater rate than that of labor source income despite 

decreasing populations in the area (U.S. Department of Commerce 2008). Such a trend suggests that 

there are greater proportions of individuals receiving transfer payments in the form of Social Security, 

Medicare, and Medicaid in these counties, further 

supporting the aging trend of the area.

Table 21. Employment by industry for the counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Industry

Industry output 

($millions)

Employment (number of 

full- and part-time jobs) 

Labor income 

($millions)

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 368.9 4,093 22.6

Mining 40.5 74 8.3

Construction 147.4 1,206 44.7

Manufacturing 184.2 618 22.8

Transportation and public utility 214.4 578 41.9

Wholesale trade 62.2 586 22.3

Retail trade 78.6 1,402 33.5

Finance, insurance, and real estate 237.3 1,129 32.1

Professional, scientific, and technical services 33.3 447 17.1

Health and social services 112.3 1,688 54.4

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 12.2 413 3.6

Accommodation and food services 45.6 1,026 12.6

Other services 119.0 1,887 29.2

Government (Federal, State, local, and military) 158.3 2,799 121.2

Total 1,814.2 17,945 466.4

Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (2007).

Note: County level data are available for employment but are not shown because the new North American Industrial Classification 

System introduced in 2001 prevents disclosure of employment numbers for many industries in small communities. 

Table 22. Income, earnings, and unemployment for the Nation, Montana, and counties surrounding the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

 Area Median household income ($)1 Average earnings per job ($) Unemployment rate 2

United States 50,740 48,900 5.8

Montana 43,000 34,433 4.5

Fergus County 37,259 28,417 4.2

Garfield County 32,694 21,053 3.3

McCone County 38,535 21,135 2.6

Petroleum County 28,254 17,851 5.3

Phillips County 33,798 22,685 4.5

Valley County 37,019 27,091 3.8

Six-county average 34,593 23,039 4.0

1Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007).

2Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008).

Median household income, earnings per job, and 

unemployment data for the region, State, and Nation 

are displayed in table 22. Median household income and 

earnings per job are below the national average. The

unemployment rate is the percentage of the labor force 

that is not working, but is actively seeking work. In general, the six counties’ unemployment rate is similar to or 

less than the State average (U.S. Department of Labor 

2008). Unemployment rates in all six counties along with

Montana have followed a declining trend since 2000. In 

2008, unemployment rates were lower for Montana and 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 259

the six-county area than the national average. McCone 

and Garfield Counties have the lowest unemployment 

rates in the region despite having lower average earnings per job than all but one of the other counties in the 

region. The lower median income, earnings, and unemployment in the six-county area compared to the State 

average aligns with the aging population (less people 

actively seeking work) and the growing number of people with more than one job to supplement their income.

KEY REFUGE ACTIVITIES that 

AFFECT the LOCAL ECONOMY

The ability of the refuge to influence local economic 

activity and desired economic conditions is related to 

the Service’s land use decisions and associated land 

uses. Livestock grazing, tourism, and recreation are the 

prominent resource-based industries with ties to the refuge, and are described in more detail in the next section.

Figure 41. Chart of agriculture employment in the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL 

Bend Refuges. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (2008).

Total = 3,373 jobs

Livestock Grazing

Farming and ranching are important cultural forces 

in eastern Montana including the areas surrounding 

the refuge. As was shown in table 21, farming is the 

largest employer in each of the six counties 

surrounding the refuge. From 2001 to 2007, agricultural employment in the six-county area has 

remained fairly stable, averaging 3,408 jobs, with a 

high of 3,487 in 2002 and a low of 3,373 in 2007 (U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2008). In 2007, Fergus 

County had the highest percentage of agricultural 

jobs of the six counties surrounding the refuge with 

1,075 jobs, or 32 percent of total farm employment. 

As shown in figure 41, Valley County had the second 

highest farm employment with 826 jobs, or 25 percent of the total for the area. Phillips County consisted of 613 jobs (18 percent), McCone County had 

444 jobs (13 percent), and Garfield County had 298 

jobs (9 percent). Petroleum County had the fewest 

farm jobs with only 117, or 3 percent of total agricultural employment of the six-county total.

More United States farmers now hold off-farm 

jobs in addition to their farm operation, and offfarm income now makes up a larger proportion of 

the total household income of United States’ farmers (Fernandez-Cornejo 2007, Gruenert 1999). This 

trend is clear in Montana and in the six-county area. 

Although the proportion of farm operators primarily 

employed in farming is higher in the region compared 

to the State, this proportion has decreased in recent 

years (refer to table 23). Garfield County has the high-
260 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

est proportion of farmers whose primary occupation 

is farming, while Valley County had the lowest. 

From 2001 to 2007, agricultural earnings in the six 

counties surrounding the refuge were stable, with 

an average of $17.1 million dollars per year (U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2008). The highest value 

(just over $18 million) occurred in 2002, and the lowest (just under $16 million) occurred in 2003. In 2007, 

agricultural earnings totaled just under $18 million, 

with the largest earnings in Fergus County of $4.5 

million, or 25 percent of total earnings in the sixcounty area. Phillips County had the second largest earnings in 2007 with $4.2 million, or 24 percent 

of the total. Valley County had $3.5 million (20 percent), McCone County had $2.6 million (14 percent), 

and Garfield County $2.3 million (13 percent). Petroleum County had the lowest agricultural earnings 

with only $812 thousand, or 4 percent of the total 

agricultural earnings in the six-county area in 2007.

Table 23. Farm operators whose primary employment is farming in Montana and the counties surrounding the 

Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Fergus Garfield McCone Petroleum Phillips Valley Year Montana County County County County County County

2007 51% 60% 77% 69% 72% 65% 58%

2002 64% 69% 84% 70% 73% 72% 73%

Source: USDA (2009), table 46.

Figure 42. Chart of trends in gross revenues from agriculture in the area surrounding the Charles M. Russell and 

UL Bend Refuges (1969–2007). Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (2008); other sources of revenue for agricultural 

operations include Government payments, value of home consumption, machine hire and custom work, rental income, and 

income from forest products.

Agricultural Revenues from Livestock. Gross revenues 

from livestock have averaged about 46 percent of 

total gross revenue from agricultural operations 

over the past 40 years (see figure 42). The lowest percentage (37 percent) of livestock revenue occurred in 

1996, while the highest (62 percent) occurred back in 

1971. Gross revenues from crops averaged 35 percent over this time span, with a low of 24 percent in 

1971, and a high of 60 percent in 1974. Other agricultural income averaged 19 percent, with a low of 

3 percent in 1974 and a high of 32 percent in 1986. 

Other sources of revenue for agricultural operations 

include Government payments, value of home consumption, machine hire and custom work, rental 

income, and income from forest products.

In 2007, gross revenue for agricultural operations 

in the six counties surrounding the refuge totaled 

$364.7 million (U.S. Department of Commerce 2008). 

This total consists of $164 million (45 percent) from 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 261

livestock, $133 million (36.5 percent) from crops, and 

$67.7 million (18.5 percent) from other sources. Fergus County had the largest gross revenues from agriculture ($107.5 million), followed by Valley County 

($81.2 million), Phillips County ($64.6 million), McCone 

County ($56.1 million), and Garfield County ($53.1 million). Petroleum County had the lowest total gross 

revenue from agricultural operations with $14.5 million, or 3.8 percent of the six-county total. 

As shown in figure 43, livestock ranged from a low 

of 23 percent of total gross revenue from agricultural 

operations in McCone County to a high of 67 percent 

in Petroleum County. Valley (35 percent) and Fergus 

(48 percent) were the only two other counties that 

had less than 50 percent of total gross revenue from 

agricultural operations from livestock. In Phillips 

County, livestock accounted for 53 percent of total 

gross revenue from agricultural operations, while in 

Garfield County it account for 61 percent. 

Figure 43. Chart of the breakdown of gross revenues from agriculture for the six counties surrounding the Charles 

M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges (2007). Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (2008). Other sources of revenue for 

agricultural operations include Government payments, value of home consumption, machine hire and custom work, rental income, 

and income from forest products.

Cattle Inventories. Between 1950 and 2009, cattle 

inventory for the six counties surrounding the refuge has averaged 378,988 head. During this time, the 

cattle inventory has ranged from a low of 244,100 in 

1950 to a high of 513,400 in 1975 (figure 44). As shown 

in figure 44, the name change to Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge was initiated in 1976 when 

there were 474,700 head of cattle in the six-county 

area. When the 1986 EIS for the refuge was completed in 1986, cattle numbers in this area were 

338,000 head. When the 1986 EIS was implemented 

in 1991, cattle numbers were 329,400 head. In 2008, 

there were 382,400 head of cattle in the six-county 

area, while the refuge supplied 18,872 AUMs. This 

number has steadily declined from 22,470 AUMs supplied in 2001 to 17,883 AUMs in 2007, with a slight 

increase to 18,872 AUMs in 2008 (+5.5 percent over 

2007 levels, yet –16 percent from 2001 levels). However, over this same period, the number of cattle 

in the six-county area has increased from 361,400 in 

2001 to 382,400 in 2008 (+2.8 percent over 2001 levels). 

AUM Inventory by County. In 2008, Fergus County had 

the highest inventory of cattle and calves, while Garfield County had the highest inventory of sheep and 

lambs (table 24).

As shown in table 25, of the Federal agencies 

supplying AUMs in the six-county region, BLM supplied the largest proportion (21 percent) in 2008, 

followed by DNRC with 7 percent and the Service 
262 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Figure 44. Chart of the cattle inventory for the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges (1950–2009). Source: USDA (2008).

Table 24. Animal inventory and animal unit months of feed needed for the counties surrounding the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

County Cattle and calves inventory* Sheep and lamb inventory Total AUMs of feed needed**

Fergus

 

116,094 6,062 711,113

Garfield 68,390 23,444 466,606

McCone 38,780 6,763 248,911

Petroleum 26,155 4,032 166,607

Phillips 80,791 10,511 509,972

Valley 71,167 2,184 432,244

Total 401,377 52,996 2,535,452

Source: USDA (2009), tables 12 and 17.

 *Cows and calves are each counted as one unit. The agricultural census figure is the physical number of animals at the end of 

 December, not the annual average, so is likely an underestimate. 

 **Calculated as [(cattle and calves inventory / 2) × 12 months] + [(sheep and lamb inventory / 5) × 12 months]

with just less than 1 percent. Non-Federal grazing 

permits or owned or leased land supplied the remaining 72 percent of AUMs in the region. 

As shown in table 25 and figure 45, nongovernment 

lands supplied the most AUMs (ranging from 55 percent for Valley County to 87 percent in Fergus County) 

while the Service supplied the least amount (ranging from 0.1 percent for Fergus County to 1.5 percent 

for Garfield County). Although Valley County had the 

largest number of AUMs supplied by a Government 

agency (143,975 BLM AUMs), Petroleum County 

had the largest percentage of AUMs supplied by a 

Government agency (39.2 percent of BLM AUMs). 

Valley County had the largest reliance (both in absolute and percentage terms) on DNRC lands, with 

44,208 AUMs (10.2 percent of total county AUMs). 

Tourism and Recreation

This section describes how tourism and recreation in 

Montana and around the refuge affect the local economy.

Tourism and Outdoor Recreation in Montana and Counties 

Surrounding the Refuge. Montana residents and visi-
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 263

Table 25. To

County

tal AUMs for t

TOTAL 

annual 

AUMs of feed 

needed 1

he counties surroundi

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2 

 % of total 

 AUMs AUMs

ng the Charles M. Rus

Bureau of Land 

Management 3

 % of total 

 AUMs AUMs

Montana Department 

of Natural Resource 

Conservation 4

 % of total 

 AUMs AUMs

sell and UL Bend Refuges (2008).

Other 

 % of total 

 AUMs AUMs

Fergus 711,113 857 0.1 58,943 8.3 31,160 4.4 620,153 87.2

Garfield 466,606 7,088 1.5 91,961 19.7 32,784 7.0 334,773 71.7

McCone 248,911 2,601 1.0 40,135 16.1 18,951 7.6 187,224 75.2

Petroleum 166,607 501 0.3 65,302 39.2 13,017 7.8 87,787 52.7

Phillips 509,972 6,020 1.2 120,801 23.7 37,475 7.3 345,676 67.8

Valley 432,244 4,514 1.0 143,975 33.3 44,208 10.2 239,547 55.4

Total 2,535,452 21,581 0.9 521,117 20.6 177,595 7.0 1,815,159 71.6

1 Calculated as [(cattle and calves inventory / 2) × 12 months] + [(sheep and lamb inventory / 5) × 12 months]

 Dependency = agency AUMs / total AUMs of feed needed.

2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service numbers are a 10-year annual average.

3 BLM source: Rhodes (personal communication, April 2009).

4 DNRC source: C. Rooney (personal communication, April 2009).

5 Other = private and other non-State or non-Federal lands. This is actually an underestimate; the agriculture census is the 

 physical number at the end of December, not the annual average. 

Figure 45. Chart of animal unit months by agency for the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL 

Bend Refuges (2007). Source: USDA (2009).

tors to the State take part in a variety of outdoor recreation activities. According to the 2006 “National 

Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 

Recreation,” approximately 950,000 residents and 

nonresidents took part in wildlife-associated activities in Montana (FWS 2008e). Of all participants, 31

percent fished for 2.9 million fishing days, 21 percent 

hunted for 2.1 million hunting days, and 79 percent 

participated in wildlife-watching for 3.1 million activity days. Montana residents had the highest per cap-
264 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

ita hunting participation in the country at 20 percent, 

and fishing participation was high at 23 percent. Most 

of the anglers (59 percent) and hunters (74 percent) 

in Montana were State residents, while most of the 

away-from-home, wildlife-watching participants in 

Montana were nonresidents (67 percent). These wildlife-associated activities in Montana generated $1.1 

billion in 2006, with $231 million generated from fishing activities, $311 million from hunting activities, and 

$376 million from wildlife-watching activities. 

Tourism and Recreation in Travel Regions Surrounding the 

Refuge. Montana is divided into six travel regions for 

similar historical, cultural, climatic, and geological 

features. The six-county area surrounding the refuge 

falls into two travel regions. Fergus and Petroleum 

Counties are included in the Russell Country travel 

region, which encompasses the north-central part of 

the State including Great Falls. Garfield, McCone, 

Valley, and Phillips Counties are included in the Missouri River Country, which encompasses most of the 

refuge and the northeastern part of the State. 

While travel, tourism, and recreation contribute 

significantly to Montana’s economy, most of these 

activities occur in the western parts of the State, 

bringing substantially less benefits to the Russell 

Country and Missouri River Country travel regions 

compared to the other regions. Among all of the nonresident overnight stays in Montana in 2005, only 8 

percent of nights were spent in the Russell Country 

and 3 percent in the Missouri River Country (Rademaker and Nickerson 2006). Similarly, nonresident 

expenditures in Russell Country accounted for 8 percent of the State total (Oschell and Nickerson 2006b), 

while Missouri River Country accounted for 1 percent 

(Oschell and Nickerson 2006a). Lodging tax revenue 

growth was also lower in Russell and Missouri River 

Country travel regions. Both regions experienced 

approximately 8 percent growth from 1995 to 2005 

(adjusted for inflation in 2005 dollars) while the 

other four travel regions experienced 19–39 percent 

growth during the same period (Montana Department of Commerce 2008). 

Nevertheless, Russell Country received 976,140 

visitors in 2005 who spent $216.8 million in the travel 

region for various travel-related expenses (Oschell 

and Nickerson 2006b). Travelers to Russell Country 

took part in activities similar to those visiting Missouri River Country, such as driving for pleasure 

(55 percent), wildlife watching (40 percent), visiting Lewis and Clark sites (31 percent), recreational 

shopping (29 percent), day hiking (29 percent), visiting historical sites (26 percent), picnicking (26 percent), and visiting museums (26 percent). The refuge 

was visited by 8 percent of the Russell County visitors, and was the sixth most visited site. 

Likewise, 283,013 nonresident visitors traveled 

to the Missouri River Country, spending $32.9 million 

in the area for expenses such as gas, food, shopping, 

and lodging (Oschell and Nickerson 2006a). Visitors 

to Missouri River Country took part in activities such 

as driving for pleasure (46 percent), wildlife watching (39 percent), visiting museums (31 percent), day 

hiking (29 percent), picnicking (28 percent), visiting 

Lewis and Clark sites (27 percent), visiting historical 

sites (20 percent), developed camping (20 percent), 

and fishing (16 percent). Fort Peck Lake, which lies 

within the refuge, was the second most visited site 

among all Missouri River Country nonresident visitors (21 percent), and the refuge was the fourth most 

visited site (14 percent). 

LAND USE and OWNERSHIP CHANGES 

SURROUNDING the REFUGE

Outdoor recreational amenities are an important factor in attracting and keeping residents and 

small businesses in the West (Rasker and Hansen 2000, Rasker 2006). Migrants to the West have 

been found to select work and residences based on 

scenic amenities, access to recreational opportunities, and a desire to escape urban problems (Egan 

and Luloff 2000, Rudzitis 1999, Rudzitis and Johansen 1989, Salant et al. 1997, Vias 1999). Rapidly rising land prices in western Montana are also spurring 

demand, especially among recreational buyers, for 

large tracts of land in eastern and central parts of 

the State (Norman C. Wheeler and Associates 2008). 

The aging landowner population has further contributed to the turnover of land from production to rural 

residential development (Johnson 2004).

Seasonal and Recreational Housing

The number and proportion of housing units designated for seasonal or recreational use can provide insight into the types of landowners in an area, 

which is important for several reasons. Absentee 

landowners may have different opinions of how the 

refuge should be managed. Seasonal or part-time 

residents typically do not generate as much local 

economic activity because they make fewer purchases within the region and generate less income 

tax revenue. However, they will continue to pay 

property taxes and, because they do not require services year-round, they will typically require fewer 

local government services over the course of a year 

compared to full-time residents. 

Much of the land surrounding the refuge is owned 

by BLM. The remaining is mostly in private ownership. As shown in table 26, the six-county area surrounding the refuge experienced an increase in 

seasonal housing units between 2000 and 2008, which 

may reflect the recent trend in private property purchases for hunting and other recreational uses in 

areas surrounding the refuge (Barron Crawford, 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 265

project leader, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge; personal communication, fall 2009). However, the proportion of seasonal-use housing units 

rose only very slightly. Valley and Garfield Counties 

have the highest number of seasonal units, which 

can be partially attributed to the presence of leased 

cabin sites within refuge recreation areas in those 

counties. Garfield County has the highest proportion, by far, of seasonal housing, which is in line with 

its designation as a retirement destination, assuming 

that a significant number of those retirees are only 

part-time residents of the county.

Historically property sales in eastern Montana 

were made primarily by agricultural operators from 

western Montana seeking to move or expand their 

operations to a more affordable area. This trend is 

shifting more toward individuals and investors interested in the recreational amenities such as hunting 

and fishing. As a result, the number of seasonal units 

is expected to continue increasing in eastern Montana including the areas surrounding the refuge.

Most of the access roads to the refuge lands cross 

private lands. These mostly dirt roads are not designated as public roads or do not have rights-ofway or easements owned by local, State, or Federal 

governments. As a result, some roads on private 

lands that the public have traditionally used to access 

the refuge are being closed by private landowners, 

and the closures are reducing the number of access 

roads available to the public (Barron Crawford, project leader, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge; personal communication, fall 2008). These closures 

are seen more on lands that have recently been sold to 

new owners, many of whom have bought land for private hunting access or paleontological resource use. 

Table 26. Seasonal housing in the counties 

surrounding the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges.

County

Seasonal housing units % of total 

housing units 

2000 2000 % Change 

from 1990

Fergus 187 3.0 3.4 

Garfield 293 12.0 30.5 

McCone 107 –14.0 9.8 

Petroleum 28 –30.0 9.6 

Phillips 264 4.0 10.6 

Valley 376 43.0 7.8 

Total 1,255 3.0 12.0 

Changing Land Use near the Refuge

Next to the northern border of the refuge near the 

eastern end of the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge 

in Phillips County lies the American Prairie Reserve 

managed by the American Prairie Reserve. As of 

2011, the foundation had more than 123,000 acres 

in deeded and leased land acquired since 2004 for 

a prairie-based wildlife reserve (American Prairie 

Foundation 2011). Within the reserve is a 2,600-acre 

enclosed bison range that supports a herd of nearly 

200 bison (as of spring 2010) initially translocated 

from Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota. The 

foundation plans to continue acquiring land for the 

preserve, as well as expand the bison herd and bison 

range, restore other native prairie wildlife, preserve 

human history, and manage the preserve for public 

use such as hiking, birdwatching, camping, and hunting. 

A socioeconomic impacts analysis conducted for 

American Prairie Reserve in 2002 concluded that, 

under most examined scenarios, the regional economic impacts of eliminating cattle grazing on the 

proposed prairie reserve would be more than offset 

by conservation management expenditures (Duffield 

and Neher 2002). However, as a result of the establishment of the American Prairie Reserve, Phillips 

County has experienced negative economic impact 

from the loss of grazing as well as associated retail 

sales (Dunbar and Robinson, Phillips County commissioners; personal communication, fall 2008). Other 

residents fear that the purchases of large acreage of 

land by nonprofit conservation groups as well as nonresident buyers are replacing family-oriented farms 

with absentee owners who contribute little to local 

schools and businesses (Thackeray 2006). 

The Nature Conservancy manages the 60,000-

acre Matador Ranch located north of the refuge 

along Highway 191 near Zortman, Montana. The 

ranch is leased out to area ranchers at discounted 

rates, and ranchers agree to take certain conservation actions on their own grazing lands in exchange 

(Red Lodge Clearinghouse 2008). As part of the partnership, ranchers protect prairie dog colonies and 

sage-grouse leks, control invasive plants and agree 

not to plow their grazing lands during their leases. 

As a result, many of the ranchers have received the 

Montana State University’s Undaunted Stewardship 

Certification. The partnership also resulted in the 

formation of the Ranchers Stewardship Alliance, a 

community-based conservation group that promotes 

“ecological, social and economic conditions that will 

sustain the biodiversity and integrity of America’s 

northern mixed-grass prairie for present and future 

generations” (Ranchers Stewardship Alliance 2008).

A recent report by the World Wildlife Fund 

(Freese et al. 2009), highlights the expanding role 

of nature-based economic activities in supporting 

and diversifying the economic structure in northern Great Plains communities. The report suggests 

that “landowners, businesses, and local communities may be able to increase and diversify economic 
266 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

activities through three major categories of naturebased economic development: (1) natural amenities, 

which include those natural features of the landscape 

that make a place attractive for visiting (for example, ecotourism and hunting) or living; (2) ecosystem 

products, which include commercial products harvested from native or seminative ecosystems, such 

as native plant seeds and native vegetation, whether 

harvest directly as hay or indirectly by livestock 

grazing; and (3) other ecosystem services, which 

include many services from healthy ecosystems for 

which no or only quasi-markets exist, such as provisions for clean water, prevention of soil erosion, and 

carbon sequestration, and nonuse services such as 

the value people derive from knowing wildlife exists 

and from conserving wildlife for future generations” 

(Freese et al. 2009).

ATTITUDES, VALUES, and BELIEFS 

As much of the data presented in this report show, 

eastern Montana is a changing landscape. Over the 

past several years, there have been changes in demographics, changes in prevailing economic sectors, 

and changes in land use and ownership patterns. 

Many of these changes are interrelated. When evaluating both historical and anticipated future change, 

it is important to understand public attitudes, values and beliefs toward the resources the refuge aims 

to protect and the effects of refuge management on 

the community. This information provides insight 

into closely held opinions about quality of life issues 

not as easily captured with demographic information 

provided in this report.

Public values toward wildlife are changing across 

the United States, in particular in the western 

United States. A study examining people’s views 

about wildlife in 19 western States (Teel et al. 2005) 

identified four types of values people hold toward 

wildlife, called wildlife value orientations. These 

wildlife value orientations are related to people’s 

support toward management actions and participation in wildlife-associated recreation. The “utilitarian” value orientation is associated with the belief 

that wildlife should be used and managed for human 

benefit, whether it is for recreational, personal, or 

economical purposes. On the other hand, the “mutualist” value orientation is associated with the belief 

that humans and wildlife are meant to coexist or live 

in harmony. Those who possess both utilitarian and 

mutualist values are called “pluralist.” The final category, “distanced,” is given to those who do not have 

either a utilitarian or a mutualism orientation, and 

generally have a lack of interest in wildlife-related 

issues and less participation in wildlife-related activities compared to the other value orientation types. 

Results from the study suggest that the western 

United States as a whole is gradually moving away 

from the more traditional utilitarian value orientation and moving more toward the less traditional 

mutualist value orientation (table 27). In Montana, 

however, nearly half of the State (47 percent) was 

found to hold the traditional utilitarian value orientation, while only 19 percent were categorized as 

mutualists. Considering that the area surrounding 

the refuge is considerably more rural compared to 

some of the western portions of Montana, it is likely 

that even higher proportions of residents around 

the refuge hold utilitarian value orientations toward 

wildlife, while those living in urban areas of the State 

hold more mutualist value orientations. This suggests that visitors to the refuge from nearby counties may be more interested in hunting and other 

consumptive activities on the refuge, while those 

coming from urban areas may be more interested in 

nonconsumptive activities such as wildlife watching. 

This may also affect the type of hunting experience 

visitors are seeking.

Table 27. Wildlife value orientations and proportions in the western States and Montana.

Wildlife value 

orientation type Description Percent in 

19 western States

Percent in 

Montana

Utilitarian Believe that wildlife should be used and managed 

for human benefit.

34 47

Mutualist Believe that humans and wildlife are meant to 

coexist or live in harmony.

33 19

Pluralist Hold both a mutualism and utilitarian value 

orientation toward wildlife. 

20 27

Distance Distanced from the issue of wildlife. Do not hold 

either a mutualism or a utilitarian orientation 

toward wildlife. 

13 7

Source: Teel et al. (2005).
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 267

In addition to people’s general perceptions 

about wildlife and natural resources, their attitudes 

toward the refuge and its management specifically 

form the basis of their level of support for management actions. The Service’s public scoping process 

revealed several important qualities of the refuge 

that residents of the six-county area value. Some 

people expressed appreciation for the intrinsic values of the refuge (such as its scenic beauty, remoteness, abundance of wildlife, and unique ecosystem), 

while others expressed appreciation for the recreational value that the land provides (such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching) (FWS 2008b). In 

addition to these intrinsic and recreational values, 

local residents emphasized two other values associated with the refuge: historical value and economic 

value. Many residents in the area have had family 

ties to the land for several generations, and strive to 

keep unique traditions and way of life for its historical value. Local communities derive economic value 

from the refuge through grazing leases, as well as 

the money that recreational visitors spend in the 

region. However, some local residents believe that 

past management approaches in the refuge have 

negatively affected the local economy, while others 

believe that increasing visitor numbers to the refuge 

will require more infrastructure maintenance in local 

communities. 

5—Environmental Consequences

This chapter summarizes and compares the potential effects of implementing the four management 

alternatives described in chapter 3 on the physical 

and biological environment, management of special 

area designations, public use opportunities, cultural 

and paleontological resources, and other social and 

economic factors. The environment that would be 

affected by the alternatives proposed by the Service 

is described in “Chapter 4—Affected Environment.”

5.1 ANALYSIS METHOD

Under each topic (resource) the actions or things 

that could affect that resource are discussed. Usually, 

these are the actions stemming from the objectives 

and strategies identified in “Chapter 3—Alternatives.” Often the effect of an action cuts across several resources. For example, the use of motorized 

equipment or vehicles, prescribed fire, livestock 

grazing, fencing, and hunting have different consequences that are specific to a resource.

The environmental effects are evaluated at several levels, including whether the effects are negative 

(or adverse in the case of threatened or endangered 

species) or beneficial and whether the effects are 

direct, indirect, or cumulative with other independent actions. The evaluation of environmental consequences also uses the duration of an effect, whether 

it is over the long term or short term. 

Direct effects are those where the effect on the 

resource is immediate and is a direct result of a specific action or activity. Examples of a direct effect might 

include the effect of ungulate grazing or prescribed 

fire on vegetation or the effect of hunting on wildlife. 

Indirect, or secondary, effects are those that are 

induced by implementation actions, but occur later 

in time or farther removed from the place of action 

through a series of interconnected effects. Examples 

of indirect effects include the downstream water 

quality effects from an upstream surface disturbance, 

or the effect that a use along a road could have on 

nearby plant communities because of the periodic 

introduction of invasive plants from outside sources.

A cumulative effect is defined as “the impact on 

the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) 

or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 

1508.7). Reasonably foreseeable future actions independent of the CCP for the refuge are described in 

chapter 3.

Large wildfires like the King Island fire in 2006 affect air quality, visual resources, soils, and habitat.

USFWS
270 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Effects are often described in terms of their context, intensity, and duration:

■■ Negligible—The effect would be at the lower levels 

of detection (less than 5-percent change, compared 

to existing conditions).

■■ Minor—The effect would be detectable (a change 

of 5–24 percent).

■■ Moderate—The effect would be readily apparent, 

and it would have the potential to become major 

(a change of 25–50 percent).

■■ Major—The effect would be severe, or if beneficial, it would have exceptional beneficial effects (a 

change of more than 50 percent).

The duration of effects are described as occurring 

over the short term or long term. Short-term effects 

would persist for a period of 1–5 years, and would 

consist primarily of temporary disturbance due to 

habitat restoration, prescribed fire, facility construction, and subsequent revegetation efforts. Longterm effects would last more than 5 years after 

project initiation, and may outlast the 15-year life of 

the CCP. For example, there could be a long-term 

benefit to wildlife habitat resulting from a shortterm management action.

Organizationally, under each resource the effects 

that are common to all alternatives are discussed 

first. This is followed by a discussion of specific subtopics that are related to the aspect of the environment being affected. If the topic is short, all the 

alternatives are discussed together, but where there 

are distinct differences between the alternatives 

they are broken out by alternative.

In compliance with the provisions of the Improvement Act, the Service has made a thorough assessment of the environmental effects using available 

science, which is consistent with National Environmental Policy Act and department and bureau policies. Wherever possible, the degree of effect was 

quantified using known numeric information or 

modeled estimates, or where extensive monitoring 

or research provided pertinent numeric information. 

The Service used GIS data that was provided from 

several sources including other agencies, organizations and researchers to evaluate and make measurements, and those sources are identified. Although 

GIS is useful tool for evaluating and answering questions, it is not the same as a formal land survey and 

discrepancies can exist. Where sufficient numeric 

information was not available, qualitative or relative 

assessments were made using scientific literature or 

professional field experience. 

The analysis of environmental consequences is 

documented in the seven major sections of this chapter:

■■ 5.4 Environmental Consequences for the Physical 

Environment

■■ 5.5 Environmental Consequences for Biological 

Resources

■■ 5.6 Environmental Consequences for Visitor 

Services

■■ 5.7 Environmental Consequences for Special 

Areas

■■ 5.8 Environmental Consequences for Cultural 

and Historical Resources

■■ 5.9 Environmental Consequences for Paleontological Resources

■■ 5.10 Environmental Consequences for the Socioeconomic Environment

In addition, the Service analyzed the following 

aspects of implementing the alternatives, as documented in these sections:

■■ 5.11 Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource 

Commitments

■■ 5.12 Short-Term Uses of the Environment and 

Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity

■■ 5.13 Adherence to Planning Goals

■■ 5.14 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

■■ 5.15 Conflicts with Federal, State, Tribal, and 

Local Agencies

5.2 ASSUMPTIONS

Assessments were based on a variety of information including meetings and other communications 

with natural resource and other professionals, published scientific information, site monitoring, agency 

reports, and computer modeling, among other 

sources. The following assumptions have been made 

in the analysis presented in this chapter:

■ Money and personnel would be sufficient to carry 

out any alternative selected. This does not constitute a commitment for funding, and future budgets could affect implementation.

■ Monitoring programs would be carried out and 

monitoring activities would be conducted a minimum of once every 5 years, and adjustments or 

revisions would be made to management as indicated by evaluations (but within the scope of the 

particular alternative).

■ Standard operating procedures would be followed.

■ The CCP would be reviewed at 15 years.

5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Following the discussion of direct and indirect 

effects, at the end of each topic (physical environment, biological environment public uses, special 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 271

areas designations, cultural and paleontological, and 

social and economic conditions), the anticipated 

cumulative impacts of each alternative and the reasonably foreseeable actions are disclosed. Reasonably foreseeable actions are described near the end 

of “Chapter 3—Alternatives.”

The cumulative effects discussion focuses on four 

broad categories of reasonably foreseeable actions:

■ Federal land management activities

■ State wildlife management

■ nongovernmental conservation activities

■ regional demographic and economic changes

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES for the

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The following sections discuss the effects of implementing the alternatives on the physical environment.

EFFECTS on CLIMATE CHANGE

The specific effects of the Service’s actions with respect 

to influencing climate change at a global level are 

addressed in this section. The likely effects of climate 

change on the refuge’s habitat and wildlife resources 

are addressed under the biological environment.

All Alternatives

Over 15 years, the refuge would implement departmental and bureau policies about climate change 

including biological planning, landscape conservation, monitoring and research, becoming more carbon 

neutral in day-to-day refuge operations, collaborating with others on climate change, and educating the 

public and others. This would be achieved by adopting 

specific objectives and strategies for habitat management or public use (refer to the climate change sections in chapters 1 and 3 for a complete discussion). 

To reduce the effects of climate change stressors, 

the refuge would protect the heterogeneity of species and structure, protect grassland types across 

environmental gradients, promote connectivity and 

corridors to facilitate migration, restore natural fire 

regimes, and promote sustainable herbivory. In the 

long term, habitat management actions would benefit 

the refuge’s vegetation and habitats, which are important for carbon sequestration and reducing the loss of 

carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Carbon dioxide from motorized vehicles, boats, 

and equipment from public and activities and refuge operations would continue to contribute 

directly or indirectly to climate change. It is estimated that about 10,000 vehicles use the auto tour 

route annually (refer to access in chapter 4) and 

many visitors stop at the contact stations while 

traveling through to other places. With an annual 

visitation of nearly 250,000, the number of motorized vehicles including boats would exceed 100,000 

annually (based on an estimated 2.5 persons 

per vehicle). However, when compared to other 

tourist attractions in western Montana such as Glacier National Park, which receives 2 million visitors 

annually (National Park Service 2008), the refuge’s 

direct contribution to carbon emissions from refuge 

operations and refuge visitation would be relatively 

low. The differences in visitation numbers between 

the alternatives would be negligible for climate change 

(see visitation projections under the next section on air 

quality). Nonetheless, under all alternatives the Service would be committed to driving cleaner vehicles, 

increasing fuel efficiency or reducing driving. A transportation plan would be developed including identifying options for alternative forms of transportation.

Fire 

The Great Plains, including the refuge area, evolved 

with fire on the landscape. Fire, whether a wildfire or prescribed fire, would release carbon dioxide 

(CO2) directly into the atmosphere from the biomass 

consumed during combustion. In the Missouri River 

Breaks where wildfire is inevitable due to lightning 

strikes or human causes, modeled wildfire scenarios 

show that landscapes managed by prescribed burning would store more carbon as compared to landscapes where constant fire suppression leads to 

higher intensity wildfires (Hurteau and North 2009). 

It is likely that prescribed fire has similar smoke 

effects as a wildfire because the aboveground grass 

fuel is all consumed. In other areas where there are 

more trees, prescribed fire is likely to produce less 

emissions than a wildfire, particularly ones that consume large stands of trees. Alternative A would 

provide the least carbon storage for reduction of carbon gases due to constant fire suppression followed 

by high-intensity fires across a broader area (refer 

to the below sections on air quality and habitat for 

more information), followed by alternatives B and 

C. Alternative D would store the greatest amount of 

carbon over the long term because the wider use of 

light prescribed fire is expected to lead to fewer and 

lower intensity wildfires. 

Conclusion

Implementation of the CCP under any alternative 

would negligibly affect global climate change. All 

alternatives would provide positive benefits for 

carbon sequestration due to the large amount of 

vegetated land the refuge provides. Carbon dioxide emissions from motorized vehicles would occur 

under all alternatives, although the effects on global 
272 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

climate change (given the differences between the 

alternatives) would be negligible. Alternative A 

would provide less benefit for carbon storage due to 

constant fire suppression and higher intensity fires 

over the long term, followed by alternatives B and C. 

Alternative D would store the greatest amount of 

carbon over the long term. Implementing carbon 

neutral refuge programs also would be positive steps 

for reducing the refuge’s carbon emissions.

Mitigation 

Reducing the carbon footprint of the refuge by driving fuel-efficient vehicles, considering more road closures, upgrading offices to make them more energy 

efficient, conducting more teleconferencing, recycling, 

and setting an example for the public and partners 

would all be positive ways to mitigate for the Service’s contributions to carbon emissions (refer to air 

quality below for more information).

EFFECTS on AIR QUALITY

Effects on air quality occur from several sources 

including motorized vehicles, boats, prescribed fire, 

and wildfires.

All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, the class 1 air shed within 

UL Bend Wilderness would continue to be protected 

and monitored. Short-term increases in particulates 

from a large wildfire would result in direct, negative 

effects to air quality that could vary from negligible 

to major depending on the acreage and fire conditions, but overall the long-term effects to the class 1 

air shed in UL Bend would be negligible as a result 

of the implementation of any alternative.

Implementation of all alternatives would result 

in varying levels of equipment usage. Construction 

of public use facilities, habitat restoration activities, 

and ongoing refuge management including operating 

motor vehicles or conducting wildlife surveys would 

require the use of motorized equipment including 

the use of aircraft, causing localized increased dust, 

carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. Equipment usage by the refuge would have an overall negligible effect on air quality in the region, and any 

negative effects could be mitigated by best management practices (refer to mitigation).

Emissions from Motorized Vehicles or Boats

Some effects are common to all and some are specific 

to the alternatives. 

All Alternatives. Emissions including dust, carbon 

monoxide, and hydrocarbon from motor vehicles 

would occur in varying degrees under all of the alternatives. Road use, especially of dirt, gravel, or other 

soft-surface roads, generates and disperses dust in 

levels that vary depending on soil moisture content, particle size, and traffic volume (Havlick 2002). 

Nearly all of the refuge’s roads are dirt, and emissions from dust particulates would be common during dry periods. Emissions from motorboats would 

be the same regardless of which alternative was 

selected. The Service would develop a transportation plan under all alternatives that would address 

parking, congestion, and other issues.

Alternative A. Under alternative A, motor vehicles 

would continue accessing the 1.1 million-acre refuge 

on 670 miles of road open to the public. Visitation 

would remain near current levels of 250,000 (refer to 

effects on the socioeconomic environment in section 

5.10). During the fall months, as many as 175 vehicles 

have been counted at one time in the elk-viewing 

area. These localized and concentrated emissions 

including dust and hydrocarbons would continue to 

occur during periods of high use, which is typically 

during the fall hunting season or in the spring when 

paddlefish fishing is popular.

Alternative B. Five hundred sixty-four miles of road 

would remain open for motor vehicle access. In some 

localized areas, there would be fewer particulates 

(dust) and hydrocarbon emissions from road closures 

because of a larger footprint where there were no 

vehicles. There would be a modest increase in visitation (253,000) over the long term, which would result 

in negligible to minor increases in emissions (less 

than 10 percent) from vehicles. Closing 106 miles of 

road would not reduce the concentrated number of 

motorized vehicles using popular viewing areas during the fall months or paddlefish fishing in the spring, 

and short-term increases in emissions during these 

periods would continue.

Alternative C. Similar to alternative A, motorized 

vehicles would access the refuge on 670 miles of 

road, and on some roads, there would be improvements (for example, gravel for all-weather access), 

which would likely increase the number of vehicles 

using the refuge. Long term, there would be a moderate increase in the number of visits to the refuge 

(275,500), which would increase emissions by a minor 

amount, particularly during high-use seasons. 

Alternative D. Under alternative D, there would be 

a modest number of miles of road closed (21), plus 

15 miles seasonally, as compared with alternative 

A, which is less than 5 percent. But as with alternative B in some localized areas, there could be fewer 

emissions, especially in areas that are next to wilderness, increasing the overall footprint of an area 

where motorized vehicles were not used. Long 

term, there would be modest additions in visitation 

to 258,000 visits, which would raise emissions by a 

minor amount, particularly during high-use seasons. 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 273

Fire 

Some fire effects are common to all alternatives and 

some are specific to each alternative. 

All Alternatives. Prescribed fire would be used in all 

alternatives, although the acreage burned annually 

in alternative A would be minimal. All prescribed 

fires would be subject to approved fire management 

plans, and factors such as weather conditions, fuel 

conditions, adequate firebreaks, and preparedness 

of fire management and emergency response crews 

would be assessed before using prescribed fire. 

In Montana, the open-burning season is March 1 

through November 30. The periodic use of fire could 

result in short-term, localized increases in particulates and decreased visibility. The refuge would be 

assessed a fee based on particulate matter produced 

by prescribed fires (refer to air quality in chapter 4). 

The amount of smoke and particulates generated by 

a prescribed fire would depend on variables such as 

wind, soil and vegetation moisture, and fire intensity. Although the objectives and strategies for prescribed fire vary for alternatives B, C, and D, the 

differences in increased particulates or decreased 

visibility would not be significantly different when 

compared to the entire land base on the refuge. 

Alternative C would have less prescribed fire than 

alternatives B and D. Alternative A would have the 

least amount of short-term increases in particulates 

stemming from the use of prescribed fire. The use of 

prescribed fire in any alternative would have negligible long-term effects on air quality. 

Wildfires on the refuge are usually concentrated 

in June, July, and August during the height of tourist season. Depending on the size and intensity, small 

wildfires would result in minor to moderate shortterm increases in particulates and decreased visibility in localized areas. Nevertheless, for a large 

wildfire, increases in particulates could have major, 

short-term, negative effects to a larger region (refer 

to the uplands section under vegetation in chapter 4). 

Alternative A. The large wildfires of 2003 and 2006 

directly affected the visual and air quality of the refuge’s class 1 air shed, UL Bend Wilderness, as well 

as the downwind communities of Jordan, Fort Peck, 

and Glasgow. These types of short-duration negative 

effects from wildfire would continue into the near 

future. Effects would vary from negligible increases 

in emissions to major, short-term, negative effects. 

Alternatives B and D. These alternatives would make 

greater use of prescribed fire or naturally caused 

fires to reduce hazardous fuel and fuel buildup. In 

the long term, this could result in fewer large wildfires that produce more smoke and particulates. 

Alternatives B and D would incorporate the most 

patch burning to reduce fuel buildup, with alternative D having the greatest emphasis. The increased 

emphasis of pyric herbivory would allow the refuge 

to spread impacts over an 8-month burning period. 

Wildfires would continue to have significant, shortterm, negative air quality effects, but these effects 

would be lessened as more acreage is treated with prescribed fire. The service would continue to follow protocols and guidelines established in the Montana/Idaho 

Airshed Operating Guide (MIAG 2010). Critical smoke 

concerns would be addressed in each individual burn 

plan. 

Alternative C. As compared to alternative A, alternative C would have slightly more prescribed fires. With 

a greater emphasis on public and economic uses, there 

would be fewer prescribed fires than under alternatives B and D. 

Fine fuel such as grass would decrease, which 

would initially result in fewer wildfires escaping initial attack efforts and, therefore, having less air quality 

effect. As grassland encroachment by woody fuel such 

as trees increased, tree stand density and biomass volume would increase significantly. Eventually wildfires 

would consume this fuel and, in the process, release significant amounts of particulate matter with significant, 

negative effects on air quality and visual resources.

Conclusion

The implementation of any alternative would have 

negligible long-term effects on the class 1 air shed in 

UL Bend Wilderness. The use of equipment for habitat restoration or construction of public use facilities 

would also result in negligible effects to air quality on 

the refuge. Overall, the emissions from motor vehicles or the use of aircraft by the public or the Service would stay relatively low for much of the year, 

although short-term concentrations of higher emissions during popular use seasons would continue. 

As compared to alternative A, road closures under 

alternatives B and D would increase the areas with 

no emissions, but those improvements may be offset by increases in visitation of some localized areas 

where there were no emissions, thus resulting in 

only minor beneficial effects. 

The use of prescribed fire, which results in localized, short-term increases of particulates, would be 

the least under alternative A. However, without prescribed fire to reduce fuel buildup and restore a more 

natural fire regime, the severity of wildfires would 

likely be greatest under alternative A. Alternatives 

B, C, and D would result in more frequent, shortterm, negligible effects from prescribed fire and less 

frequent severe wildfires with short-term moderate 

to major effects. Overall, the implementation of any 

alternative would have negligible long-term negative effects on air quality in the area.
274 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Mitigation

The Service could minimize emissions and particulates by following best management practices when 

using motorized equipment or conducting restoration activities. These practices include limiting tilling 

during windy periods, reducing the footprint of bare 

soil, and using vehicles that are more fuel-efficient 

and well-maintained. As identified under alternatives B, C, and D, a well-thought-out visitor services 

plan and transportation plan could identify ways to 

diversify and spread out visitors more during popular seasons or perhaps offer tours or find other methods of reducing short-term concentrations of higher 

emissions.

All prescribed fires would be started in accordance with an approved fire plan that includes a 

smoke-management plan. Effects of prescribed fire 

can be mitigated by ignition patterns, for example, 

only burning when convection is good to excellent 

so heat and smoke quickly rise or with winds that 

preclude smoke from critical areas. Using a management response as described in an approved fire management plan would enable the Service to respond 

quickly to changing conditions, thus reducing some 

of the risk of severe wildfires developing. Reducing 

a buildup in fuel and restoring a natural fire regime 

would also reduce the risk of larger wildfires. 

EFFECTS on VISUAL RESOURCES

As discussed in chapter 4, the refuge has outstanding scenic values and special management areas 

where scenic values are important to preserve. Scenic resources could include a large landscape view of 

the refuge, wildlife viewing in a natural setting, or 

close-in views of vegetation, topography, water, and 

wildlife. Effects on visual resources are often qualitative in nature depending on the individual, location, and time of year. Effects from facilities and 

structures, fire, grazing, and other habitat and wildlife management programs were assessed.

Facilities, Structures, and Camping Areas

The Service manages several primitive recreation 

areas (USACE recreation areas are not evaluated, 

refer to “Chapter 4—Affected Environment”). Additionally, a network of roads crisscrosses the refuge. 

The Service uses fencing and other equipment for 

managing habitat.

Most of the scenic values of the refuge, including 

the special management areas identified in chapter 4 

(section 4.4), along with wildlife viewing and the rugged and remote vistas, would be largely preserved 

and maintained but, in localized areas, the scenery 

could be interrupted or marred by facilities and 

structures, management activities, or other negative effects. 

The primitive recreation areas managed by the 

Service would continue at Slippery Ann, Rock Creek, 

Turkey Joe, Withrow Bottoms, Jones Island, and 

Rocky Point, in addition to a few outgranted areas 

that have no facilities (Bear Creek and Bob Cat) (see 

figure 15 in chapter 4). Although, tents, camping 

gear, and the minor losses of vegetation marking the 

campsite could be visible in foreground views and in 

some places from higher vantage points, these are 

low-key facilities, and any effect would be negligible. 

Under all alternatives, the small cluster of buildings located at Sand Creek Field Station, Jordan, UL 

Bend, and the Fort Peck Interpretive Center would 

exist with the Interpretive Center at Fort Peck 

Field Station being the most visible. Under alternatives B, C, and D, a small science or interpretive 

center would be built at Sand Creek Field Station. 

There could be some short-term negative effects 

from construction of new facilities or structures such 

as trails, viewing blinds, kiosks, and parking areas 

that would cease following construction. The installation of alternative energy structures such as solar 

panels or a small wind turbine at any of the stations 

would be negligible (see the photo in chapter 4, section 4.5, “Refuge Headquarters and Field Stations”). 

Any use of alternative energy structures would be 

carefully sited to limit any visual effects on trails or 

the river.

A three-strand wire fencing scheme would be 

used across the refuge for a variety of purposes 

(refer to “Chapter 4—Affected Environment”). 

Although there are some differences in how fencing would be used between the alternatives and the 

amount of fencing, generally the effects on visual 

resources would be negligible even in foreground 

views. Currently, fencing does not block wildlife 

viewing in the elk-viewing area where cross fences 

are used or fences are located away from the road. 

Havilick (2002) states that the effects of roads on 

public lands can be lumped broadly into two categories: use effects and presence effects. Among other 

effects such as edge effects, just the presence of a 

road can have a long-lasting visual effect on the landscape. From differing perspectives, the same road 

could be either a “boon or bane” (Havlick 2002). On 

the refuge, roads would likely be visible from higher 

vantage points or looking down ridgelines and from 

further away in many areas of the refuge. Areas 

where severe rutting and braiding occurs particularly during wet seasons would result in localized 

negative effects. The visibility of roads decreases up 

to 20 percent in proposed wilderness units as compared to refugewide (see figure 46).

The 670-mile network of roads would continue 

under both alternatives A and C. Alternative C 

would have about 16 miles of road improvements 

such as graveling the roads for better access along 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 275

Figure 46. Chart of the visibility of roads from proposed wilderness units and wilderness study areas in the Charles 

M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges by CCP alternatives. Source: The Wilderness Society (2009).

Figure 47. Chart of the visibility of roads refugewide by CCP alternative for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges. Source: The Wilderness Society (2009).

Knox Ridge (Route 209 and Route 108). Knox Ridge 

would also be considered for graveling under alternative D. In a few localized areas, the visibility of 

roads could increase because of road improvements 

from more vehicles and dust. Roads under alternatives A and C would have the greatest visibility (see 

figure 47). As shown in figure 47, percentage wise 

the differences in visibility between alternatives A 

and C and B and D are negligible to minor, but in 

some localized areas, the differences could be more 

pronounced particularly from vantage points that 

were further away. 

Closing 106 miles of road in alternative B, would 

result in about 16-percent fewer roads than under 
276 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

alternatives A and C. Under alternative D, the 

amount would amount to less than 5-percent fewer 

roads. However, in several areas, the footprint of 

areas without roads would increase, which would 

benefit scenic values by a negligible to minor degree, 

particularly in the eastern part of the refuge under 

alternative B and a lesser extent in alternative D. 

Seasonal closures in alternative D would have negligible effects on visual resources.

Overall, the differences in total road miles and 

road visibility between the alternatives would be 

negligible.

Habitat Management 

The effects for these activities are broken out below.

Invasive Species. In general, the Service’s ongoing 

weed management efforts in all alternatives would 

benefit scenic values. The proliferation of weeds 

moving up drainages, or blowing in from other areas 

or being transported from outside sources would 

continue regardless of the alternative selected, and 

controlling invasive species in cooperation with 

USACE and others would be a priority. Reducing 

saltcedar infestations would be an ongoing effort by 

the Service and USACE. 

Restoration of the river bottoms on the western part of the refuge would decrease weedy species, which would improve the quality and diversity 

of views in these areas under all alternatives. During 

the restoration process, there would continue to be 

bare, patchy, or weedy areas for several years, but 

in the long term, scenic values would improve. As 

compared with alternative A, alternative C would 

have the greatest potential for moderate to major 

localized benefits, while alternatives B and D could 

potentially result in moderate long-term benefits. 

Wildland Fire. During a prescribed fire, there would 

be short-term, localized negative effects to visual 

resources as a result of smoke (refer to air quality 

above). Blackened vegetation would be visible in 

localized areas immediately after a fire. Depending 

on the time of year and moisture levels, many areas 

would green up within several weeks, but some 

trees and shrubs that were affected would take longer to recover. Across the refuge, negative effects 

would be negligible in the short term from the use 

of prescribed fire. In the long term, implementing a 

patch-burning program under alternative B and, to 

a greater extent, under alternative D would create a 

greater mosaic effect as compared to alternative A, 

where little prescribed fire would be used. This 

would increase species diversity of both plants and 

wildlife, resulting in beneficial effects for scenic values and wildlife viewing. Alternative C would not 

use prescribed fire to this extent.

As with prescribed fire, blackened vegetation 

would be visible after a wildfire. During and immediately after a fire, there could be moderate to major 

negative effects on scenic values in localized areas. 

Generally, grasses and other vegetation quickly 

green up by the following year, reducing the visual 

contrast. Furthermore, some areas could have large 

crown fires that may cause significant visual scarring 

of the landscape for many years (refer to wildfire 

suppression under vegetation in section 5.6 below). 

The visual scarring would decrease in the long term.

Livestock Grazing. The use of grazing as a management tool may result in short-term and long-term 

effects on visual or scenic resources in some areas 

due to manure, trampling, livestock trails, and most 

significantly, degradation of riparian areas. Livestock grazing would continue under all alternatives, 

although there would be differences in the timing and 

application of prescriptive grazing or annual between 

the alternatives (refer to the soil discussion for specific percentages below). Not all areas of the refuge are currently grazed (see figure 16 in chapter 4), 

and areas that were rested or no livestock grazing occurred, there would be fewer visual effects as 

compared to areas that are grazed frequently (refer 

to the discussion on grazing and monitoring under 

riparian areas and wetlands in chapter 4). On the refuge, some of the proposed wilderness units are under 

a prescriptive grazing program, and negative visual 

effects would likely decrease in the long term, benefiting some users. There would be several proposed 

wilderness units where annual grazing would still 

occur in the short term and, in these areas, impacts 

would continue to be apparent and negatively affect 

some visitors. In areas where prescriptive grazing 

has been applied, or where riparian areas are fenced, 

signs of visual degradation of the resource would 

decrease over the long term. 

Conclusion

Most of the Service’s structures, fencing, and facilities would have negligible effects to visual resources 

including special management areas. In localized 

areas, the effects would be greater. Roads would 

have the greatest potential to affect visual resources 

because of number and extensive area they cover 

(670 miles). Overall, the differences in the total road 

miles between alternatives would result in negligible to minor differences in visibility (see figures 46 

and 47 above). 

The use of prescribed fire would result in shorttem negative effects to visual resources and longterm benefits due to an increase in species diversity. 

These impacts and benefits would be greatest under 

alternatives B and D and to a lesser extent under 

alternative C. There would be little impact or benefit 

under alternative A. Wildfire would result in short-
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 277

term and potentially long-term effects on visual 

resources in some areas from loss of vegetation or 

where severe scarring of the landscape occurred.

The degree to which refuge visitors are negatively affected by the visual effects of livestock grazing varies by type of user and location of use. The 

greatest potential impact would occur under alternative A and to a lesser degree under alternative C, 

where there may be minor to moderate effects on 

some users In alternatives B and D, where there 

would be a greater emphasis in moving toward a 

prescriptive grazing regime and riparian area restoration, there could be moderate benefits to scenic 

resources in areas that are currently being affected. 

Mitigation

Hardening and delineating campsites that are 

impacted would reduce the spread and overall visibility of the site. Restoring closed roads would benefit views by creating larger patches of undisturbed 

habitat. Successful revegetation efforts in the 

river bottoms would reduce visual effects from 

invasive species. An approved smoke management 

plan would be required for any prescribed fire and 

would help to minimize negative visual effects. 

EFFECTS on SOUNDSCAPES

Like visual resources, effects on the natural acoustical environment from external noises are often qualitative in nature. These would result of public use 

activities and other management activities.

Public Use 

Many restrictions would remain in effect, thus minimizing sound impacts. These would include seasonal 

and day-of-the-week restrictions on motorized boat 

access along the Upper Missouri Breaks Wild and 

Scenic River, prohibitions on motorized access in UL 

Bend Wilderness and the proposed wilderness units, 

prohibitions on aircraft landing in upland areas, and 

designated landing zones on Fort Peck Reservoir 

(refer to soundscapes in chapter 4). Similar to visual 

resources, effects from various mechanized noises 

would vary on the user, type of noise, and location. 

Wilderness users would likely have a greater expectation of solitude and from being away from external noises. Several roads border these areas, and 

it could be possible to hear sounds along the edges 

from motorized equipment or vehicles including 

four-wheel-drive vehicles, ATVs, and quadricycles. 

These would be short-term negative effects that 

would decrease with distance.

Because alternative C would look to improve road 

access and maximize public use, in localized areas, 

noise effects could increase as compared to alternative A. Under alternative C, there would be about 76 

miles of graveled roads, and under alternative D there 

would be about 65 miles of graveled roads compared 

to alternative A with 60 miles and those areas would 

see increased use. Proposed road closures under alternative B and to a lesser extent in alternative D would 

augment the buffer zone of several proposed wilderness units providing minor benefits for soundscapes. 

Construction of viewing facilities, the science, 

or the interpretive center in alternatives C and D, 

parking lots, and road maintenance would require 

the use of heavy equipment for site excavation, 

grading, and other activities. This equipment would 

produce higher, short-term noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the construction activities. Noise 

levels would return to existing levels after construction or maintenance ceases.

Public hunting would continue to be a popular 

activity under any alternative. Gunshots associated 

with the sound of a variety of weapons could be audible from on- and off-refuge, depending on hunter location, wind, and topography. Some nonconsumptive

users (those who only take part in such activities as 

wildlife viewing, photography, and interpretation) 

could be negatively affected by the sounds of gunshots, 

and nonconsumptive use is generally increasing on 

the refuge. Presumably, not all hunters fire their 

weapon during their visit, and given the immense 

size of the refuge, the overall effect on noise levels 

and nonconsumptive users would be negligible. 

Eastern Kingbird

© Diane Hargreaves

Habitat and Wildlife Management 

Restoration activities in all alternatives would require the use of motorized equipment, which would 

result in short-term minor increases in noise levels in 

the immediate vicinity of the restoration activities. 

Noise levels would return to existing levels after the 

activity ceases. Similarly, the use of aircraft to conduct wildlife counts would also result in distractions 
278 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

and disturbance for and could negatively affect wilderness users. Overall, the Service’s use of aircraft 

for wildlife monitoring or other purposes is low and is 

not likely to increase to any degree over the long term.

Conclusion

Although there are several potential external noises 

that could affect visitor experiences, many restrictions and policies in place would limit external noises 

and these would continue to benefit visitors, wildlife, and the special management areas (refer to section 4.4 in chapter 4). All alternatives would result 

in negligible to minor effects due to motorized boats, 

road use, and facility construction. Road closures 

could reduce the effects in alternatives B and D. 

The effect of gunshot noise from hunters would be 

negligible.

Mitigation

Over the next few years, the Service expects to 

assess the amount of motorized boat access to 

upland areas, which would provide baseline information about the extent of this type of use. Refuge 

staff would develop a transportation plan under all 

alternatives, and through this planning effort, ways 

to address potential negative sound effects would be 

addressed. 

EFFECTS on SOILS

Habitat management activities and public use activities have a variety of effects on soils.

Restoration Activities in River Bottoms 

Restoration generally involves disking and tilling of 

the soil, planting food crops to remove weeds, applying herbicides, limiting livestock in restoration areas, 

and burning areas for invasive plant removal. Under 

all alternatives except B, the Service would actively 

restore approximately 15 former agricultural fields 

plus two fields that are currently being restored. The 

number, timing, and intensity of restoration efforts 

would vary by alternative. Alternative A would have 

the least aggressive schedule, and restoration would 

occur when money and staff time permitted it. Alternative C would have the most aggressive restoration 

schedule with 50–60 percent of the restoration completed within 15 years. Under alternative B, the bottomlands would not be restored, but would become 

permanent food plots. Alternative D would restore 

20–30 percent of the fields within 15 years, and native 

plantings could follow after weeds have been removed. 

Restoration activities would result in short-term 

minor disturbances of soil resources during site 

preparation and planting. Disking and tilling of soil 

has the potential to result in localized, short-term 

erosion, soil loss, and the release of soil particles 

(dust) into the air. Once restoration activities were 

complete, soil protection and productivity would be 

maintained long term. 

Wildland Fire 

When used as a habitat restoration tool, prescribed 

fire would temporarily reduce vegetation in a treatment area. Generally, the use of prescribed fire 

would stimulate new plant growth and increase the 

vigor of existing plant communities. However, prescribed fire has the potential to cause short-term, 

soil erosion and loss resulting from the loss of vegetation. Alternative A would result in negligible soil 

erosion and loss, because little prescribed would be 

used, as compared to minor negative effects in alternatives B, C, and D.

At a minimum, large wildfires would temporarily 

reduce vegetation in an area. If severe enough—for 

example, a large crown fire in overgrown decadent 

vegetation—a wildfire could result in moderate to 

major, short-term and long-term severe sterilization 

of soil, subsequently leading to further loss of vegetation and soil erosion. Alternative A likely would 

result in the most soil erosion and loss due to continued fire suppression. In alternatives B, D, and to a 

lesser degree in C, there would be more use of prescribed fire to reduce heavy fuel buildup, as compared to alternative A. 

Livestock Grazing 

With defined habitat objectives, livestock grazing 

can stimulate new plant growth and increase the 

vigor of plant communities. However, livestock tend 

to use the same trails to access water or graze in 

riparian areas, which has resulted in localized major, 

soil compaction, long-term losses of vegetation, soil 

erosion and sedimentation. These effects are particularly evident in areas with higher stocking rates 

or where there is also heavy grazing by wild ungulates such as elk (refer to livestock grazing in riparian areas in chapter 4). 

Under all alternatives, livestock grazing would 

continue either prescriptively or through annual 

grazing. Alternatives A and C would continue the 

annual grazing regime across half (currently 55 percent) of the refuge with some movement toward 

prescriptive grazing when possible. Under existing 

conditions, several units are not meeting the objective of 70-percent residual cover (refer to vegetation 

monitoring in uplands in chapter 4), and the shortterm and long-term effects from soil erosion and loss 

would likely continue compared with lands where 

prescriptive grazing was used. In some habitat units 

such as the Big Dry Arm where there is more forage 

allocated to cattle (refer to vegetation, uplands, and 

livestock grazing later in this chapter), moderate to 

major negative effects from soil compaction, erosion 

and loss of soil would continue. In areas where a pre-
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 279

scriptive grazing regime was applied with defined 

habitat objectives and a comprehensive monitoring plan, soil compaction, erosion, and loss could be 

reduced in the long term. Thirty-four percent of the 

refuge is currently is prescriptively grazed. Although 

alternative B would convert to prescriptive grazing 

over 50–75 percent of the refuge within 4–7 years, 

because of the emphasis on maximizing wildlife populations including large ungulates, it could take longer for vegetation and subsequently soils to recover 

particularly in areas that continued to be heavily 

grazed by elk. Alternative D would implement prescriptive grazing over 50–75 percent of the refuge 

and a comprehensive monitoring program within 

about 9 years and, in the long term, this would benefit soil resources due to greater vegetation cover.

Fishing

Under all alternatives, negatives effects on soils 

would continue to occur during the spring paddlefish season when refuge roads and riverbanks are 

frequently wet and muddy. In localized areas, compacted soils and erosion would be moderate to major. 

Roads

In all alternatives, maintenance of nearly 137 miles 

of road by the refuge and 90 miles by the counties 

would reduce soil erosion and loss. During wet periods, unmaintained roads often become rutted and 

braided resulting in short-term and long-term effects 

from soil disturbance and erosion. Refuge-wide 

effects on soils from roads are minor, but in localized areas, moderate to major negative effects from 

soil erosion would occur. Under alternative C, several roads would be considered for all-weather access 

(graveled), and one road (Knox Ridge) would be considered under alternative D. Properly maintained, 

all-weather access roads could reduce rutting and 

braiding and soil disturbance over the length of the 

road. Activities related to upgrading a road would 

likely increase the overall width of the road resulting 

in direct, short-term negative effects on soils. 

Camping

Under all alternatives, camping would be allowed 

along the river, in the primitive campgrounds the 

Service manages and most areas on the refuge. 

Motorized vehicles must stay within 100 yards of 

a road to camp. In a few popular camping sites or 

areas, there are varying levels of effect from minor 

vegetation loss to denuded vegetation, soil compaction, and soil erosion and loss. 

Public Use Facilities (excluding roads and 

camping areas)

Currently, under alternative A, there are only a handful of facilities such as kiosks, hunting blinds, pullouts, and few new facilities that would be built. Under 

alternative B, there would be a 5–10 percent increase 

in new facilities as compared to alternative A. In 

alternative C, there would be a 5–15 percent increase 

in new facilities, and under alternative D, a 10 percent 

increase. In alternatives C and D, a science or interpretive center with parking facilities would be built at 

the Sand Creek Field Station. This would require soil 

excavation, grading, and other surface disturbances. 

Temporary increases in soil erosion would occur during construction of new facilities, resulting in direct, 

short-term effects on soils. The anticipated footprint 

of soil disturbance for the science or interpretive center would be about 1–3 acres within the Sand Creek 

complex. Long-term losses in soil productivity could 

occur from construction of visitor-related structure. 

The effects from these activities on soils would be 

negligible considering the small area that would be 

affected compared to the size of the refuge. 

Management of Cultural and 

Paleontological Resources

Effects on soils from excavation of cultural resources 

during surveys would be temporary and negligible as 

most areas are already disturbed or eroded. As with 

public use facilities, under all alternatives, the excavation of paleontological resources (refer to paleontological resources in chapters 3 and 4 and later in this 

chapter) would result in direct, short-term increases 

in soil disturbances during any digging of fossils. 

Large equipment would be used. The footprint of 

soil disturbance would vary by the size of the dig but 

would be limited to the area needed for the dig and 

estimated to be less than a few acres. Effects from 

these activities on soils would negligible considering 

the small area that would be affected. In the foreseeable future, most excavations would occur in the central part of the refuge in the Hell Creek formation 

where fossils are often exposed. In localized areas, 

there would be temporary increases in soil erosion, 

but permittees would be required to reclaim areas. 

As compared with alternative A, under alternative C, 

an increase in opportunities for research would 

increase the area of soil disturbance. 

Conclusion

In all alternatives, the Service’s restoration of 15 former agricultural fields would cause short-term minor 

disturbances of soil resources, followed by long-term 

minor benefits. The use of prescribed fire in all alternatives would result in short-term, localized soil 

erosion and loss due to the temporary loss of vegetation. These short-term effects would be negligible 

for alternative A, and minor under alternatives B, C, 

and D. Large wildfires would likely lead to greater 

soil erosion and loss due to greater fire severity and 

vegetation loss compared to prescribed fires. The 

potential for severe major effects would be greatest 
280 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

under alternative A, while alternatives B, C, and D 

would use prescribed fire more lightly across the landscape to produce a patchwork effect for vegetation. 

Negative effects from livestock grazing on soils 

would continue in areas where annual grazing was used, 

and would be reduced in areas under prescriptive grazing. Alternatives A and C would continue to have moderate to major negative effects on soils in some areas, 

with long-term improvement in areas under prescriptive grazing. Under alternatives B and D, improvements from prescriptive grazing would be greater. 

The Service would continue to provide for several public use activities including road access, camping, and fishing that would negatively affect soil 

resources. Under all alternatives, these general refugewide effects would be minor, but in some localized 

areas, moderate to major negative effects would continue to occur from roads, camping areas, and heavily 

used fishing areas. Construction of a science center 

or interpretive center at Sand Creek Field Station 

would result in temporary increases in soil erosion 

during any construction, with negligible long-term 

effects. Cultural resources and paleontological excavations under all alternatives would result in localized soil disturbances. The overall effects on soils 

would be negligible.

Mitigation

The Service could minimize losses in vegetation and 

subsequent soil disturbance and loss by ensuring that 

the best management practices were followed during 

construction activities, restoration of the river bottoms, or excavation of paleontological resources. Better definition of popular campsites or fishing areas or 

hardening sites would limit negative soil effects from 

these public use activities. Planning for these actions 

should be incorporated into the visitor service’s stepdown plan and the transportation plan. 

Similarly, by managing grazing areas with prescriptive grazing or reducing annual grazing to 

lighter grazing levels, limiting livestock grazing during the hot season and fencing cattle out of riparian 

areas, the Service would minimize soil erosion and 

loss over the long term. 

Permittees for paleontological excavations would 

be required to reclaim areas.

EFFECTS on WATER RESOURCES

Effects on water resources were evaluated based on 

existing information on the distribution and quality 

of water at the refuge and potential for refuge activities to negatively affect water resources. 

Water Development, Water Rights, and 

Water Quality 

Under all alternatives, select stock ponds would be 

maintained and rehabilitated, although the number and schedule would vary by alternative. Riparian habitat would be restored where possible and 

standard watershed management practices would 

be enforced. Water rights would be adjudicated and 

defined. Under alternative B, the Service would work 

to restore water quality for fish and wildlife habitats 

by addressing soil erosion from livestock and wildlife 

grazing and public use activities. Under alternative 

C, future water developments would be allowed on 

site-specific basis and consideration of effects. Alternative D would encourage more natural water development within streams such as increased flow, pools, 

and beaver ponds. The Service would assess the uses 

and needs of current reservoirs and restore the hydrologic condition of those reservoirs when they were 

no longer needed for wildlife or livestock. Additionally, the Service would work with others to restore 

dynamic hydrological processes where possible.

River Bottom Restoration 

All alternatives except B would restore the 15–17 

river bottoms (former agricultural fields) although 

the timing would vary. In localized areas during restoration activities, particularly under alternatives B 

and C, planting crops for reduction of invasive plants 

could result in short-term, direct negative effects on 

water quality in the Missouri River particularly if 

herbicides were applied to large areas. The Service 

judiciously applies all herbicides; therefore, any negative effects would likely be short term and negligible overall. Using best management practices during 

restoration activities would limit any potential negative effects on water quality.

Riparian Area Restoration 

Healthy riparian systems enhance water quality by filtering out organic and chemical pollutants 

(Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). Water quality is closely 

related to soil erosion and sedimentation. These can 

be associated with vegetation cover, concentration 

of livestock grazing, and geologic erosion. High concentrations of sediment loads, and fecal coliforms can 

have a major effect on altering an existing stream 

ecosystem or even creating an entirely new ecosystem (Kauffman and Krueger 1984). 

Many streams on the refuge are intermittent, lasting only a short time. Under all alternatives, any restoration activities would be conducted when streams 

are dry or minimal flow to minimize the direct introduction of sediments. Planned revegetation and stabilization of the stream channels would reduce the 

potential for stream sedimentation during precipitation events. More benefits from improved streamside 

habitat conditions would include bank stabilization 

and the retention and removal of sediments and pollutants from the water.
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 281

Invasive Species

Herbicides and prescriptive grazing would be used 

under all alternatives for invasive species management. The Service carries out its invasive species 

program in a variety of habitats including areas 

where there are water impoundments or riparian areas. Under all alternatives, the invasive species program would be carried out through an 

approved stepdown plan. All personnel who use 

chemicals would be trained in the proper application of where, when, and how to apply them. All 

chemicals would be required to be safely stored 

and identified. Under alternatives B, C, and D, the 

Service would step up efforts to stop encroachment 

of saltcedar, Russian olive, and other invasive species. 

Short-term, negligible effects could occur to water 

quality due to soil erosion or sedimentation, but following required protocols would greatly limit the 

potential of influencing water quality downstream.

Livestock Grazing

Because this issue is closely connected with riparian 

area health, it is addressed under riparian areas and 

wetlands in section 5.6 below and is not discussed further here.

Wildland Fire

Fire (wildfire or prescribed fire) could have either positive or negative effects on the physical, chemical, and 

biological structure of aquatic systems. The effects of 

fire on water quality depend on the fire size, intensity, 

and severity (Neary et al. 2005). It also depends on the 

nearness of fires to streams and other water sources 

as well as the timing of fires in relation to precipitation 

events. Direct effects could include increases in temperature, ash, nutrients, and charcoal. The indirect effects 

of fire could include increases in sediment deposition 

and turbidity, and alterations channel morphology. 

There can be increased sedimentation and turbidity, 

increased stream temperatures, and increased concentrations of nutrients resulting from surface runoff. 

Wildfires and prescribed fires, on forestlands, shrublands, and grasslands have the potential to decrease 

on and offsite water quality, and should be mitigated 

(National Wildlife Coordinating Group 2001).

The magnitude of the effects of fire on water quality is primarily driven by fire severity and not necessarily by fire intensity (Neary et al. 2005). The 

more severe the fire, the greater the amount of fuel 

consumed and nutrients released and the more susceptible the site is to erosion of soil and nutrients 

into the stream, where they could potentially affect 

water quality (Neary 2005 et al.). Wildfire is usually 

more severe than prescribed fire (refer to chapter 4, 

“Fire Ecology in the Uplands”). As a result, wildfire 

is more likely to produce significant negative effects 

on water quality.

Under alternative A, prescribed fire would not be 

used to any significant degree. Alternatives B and D 

would use the most prescribed fire. Once prescribed 

fire was fully implemented, it would be expected to 

reduce the intensity and severity of future fires; subsequently, negative effects to water resources would 

be reduced over the long term. Under alternative C, 

the limited use of prescribed fire would continue the 

buildup of woody fuel. Refer to further discussion of 

fire effects on the uplands in section 5.5.

Public Use

Construction activities involved in developing facilities, structures, parking areas, viewing blinds, or 

other facilities, in addition to existing public use 

activities could result in indirect, short-term effects 

to water resources due to erosion, sedimentation, 

and contamination. The extent of facility development and corresponding effects would vary among 

the alternatives with alternative A having the least 

potential for negative effects with few if any new 

facilities built or developed. Alternative B would 

have a few new facilities (5 percent greater than 

alternative A), alternative C would have about 15 

percent more, and alternative D would have about 

10 percent more. Considering the relatively small 

amount of facility development and likely distance 

from water, the any subsequent effects would be 

negligible.

Conclusion

Activities related to river bottom restoration, riparian area restoration, public use activities, and invasive species could result in negligible short-term 

effects on water quality. 

Mitigation

By limiting the amount of bare soil, using soil erosion barriers, limiting the use of herbicides, hardening popular public use areas, and following other 

best management practices, the Service would 

reduce potential negative effects on water quality as 

a result of areas any of its activities related to restoration, invasive species management or public uses. 

To reduce potential water quality and fisheries effects during herbicide spraying, best management practices would be incorporated as follows: (1) 

apply herbicides according to the label; (2) flag on the 

ground any streams or wetlands in any area to be 

sprayed; (3) consider factors such as weather reports 

to ensure minimal rainfall within 24 hours of spraying; (4) use treatment methods that target individual 

plants in riparian and wetland areas where possible; 

(5) consider other methods such as manual control or 

hand pulling; (6) certify and fully train all personnel; 

and (7) apply the lowest rate effective for meeting 

weed control objectives.
282 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Mitigation measures would limit the use of prescribed fire during drought conditions and use ignition techniques that lessen the intensity of the burn 

(small, numerous spot fires that burn together and 

then out, instead of a continuous head fire that burns 

with a greater intensity). A detailed description of 

burning conditions and techniques would be included 

in the fire management plan and in each prescribed 

burn plan.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS on the 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

None of the proposed alternatives would result in 

cumulative effects on climate change, air quality, visual 

resources, soils, soundscapes, or water resources 

when combined with the activities described under 

chapter 3, section 3.9, foreseeable activities.

The long-term benefits of various management 

actions on global climate change may result in cumulative benefits when combined with current and 

future programs and initiatives, such as the Department of Interior Climate Change Initiative, to reduce 

carbon emissions and mitigate the effects of climate 

change on refuges. The overall cumulative benefit, 

however, would be negligible. 

5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES for

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section analyzes the effects of the actions on 

vegetation communities or habitats and the wildlife resources of the refuge. In general, it follows 

the organization of “Chapter 4—Affected Environment.”

EFFECTS on UPLANDS

Implementation of varying approaches to upland 

habitat management under the alternatives would 

result in a range of effects on the condition, structure, and function of upland vegetation.

All Alternatives

Both prescribed fire and wildfire have positive and 

negative effects, because different species of plants 

and wildlife respond differently to the effects of fire. 

The short-term negative effects of fire on a specific 

species are usually compensated by the long-term 

benefits to the overall plant and wildlife community.

Prescribed fires can be very labor intensive. Implementation of the alternatives would result in varying levels of equipment use and associated effects. 

Prescribed burning in wilderness or proposed wilderness units would require using the minimum tool 

necessary to accomplish management objectives, per 

Federal wilderness policy. Negative effects from prescribed fire would vary by project and by location, 

but would generally result in short-term, localized 

effects that would be offset by long-term benefits. 

Wildfire is a natural occurrence that will continue 

to significantly alter the landscape of the refuge. Not 

all wildfire is unwanted or destructive. Naturally 

occurring wildfires would be managed for multiple 

objectives, and human-caused wildfires would be suppressed using tactics and strategies that result in the 

least damage to values at risk and costs while providing for firefighter and public safety. Fewer opportunities would be available in alternatives A and C, 

because most wildfires result in short-term negative economic effects to livestock grazing interests. 

All suppression efforts would be evaluated to ensure 

the least human impact on the natural resource as 

possible, while allowing for the timely control of the 

incident. 

Under all alternatives, the Service would seek to 

renew the 20-year mineral withdrawal that is currently in place for all locatable minerals on Charles 

M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. The permanent 

withdrawal would be maintained for locatable minerals on UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge (Chapter 

4, Affected Environment). The mineral withdrawals 

would continue to provide long-term benefits for the 

uplands (and other areas) from future mining claims. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D, the Service would 

seek permanent withdrawal for leasable and locatable minerals.

Management Approaches

The general effects of the management approach for 

uplands under each alternative are evaluated.

Alternative A. This alternative would maintain the 

current management emphasis of fire suppression, 

annual livestock grazing, invasive species control, 

and water development. The Great Plains evolved 

through a complex interaction of fire and grazing 

(refer to uplands in chapter 4), and the continued 

emphasis on constant grazing and fire suppression 

across the uplands would greatly limit the composition, structure, and functioning of vegetation, resulting in continued loss of plant diversity and habitat 

function (FWS 2001). 

The past and present effects of current management are represented by existing conditions and are 

described in chapter 4. For example, fire-intolerant species such as big sagebrush and junipers have 

benefited at the expense of sentinel plants such as 

chokecherry, green ash, and golden currant. Likewise, grazing and fire suppression have reduced or 

locally eliminated palatable forbs. Upland habitats 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 283

would be increasingly vulnerable to continued loss 

of palatable plant species, loss of ancient trees due 

to fuel buildup when fires occur, and increased insect 

and invasive plant infestations. These conditions are 

the result of more than 120 years of fire suppression and livestock grazing. While the management 

approach under alternative A would continue these 

conditions and their negative effects over the long 

term, the incremental effect of alternative A would 

be minor.

Alternative B. The Service would actively manage and 

manipulate wildlife habitat using both natural ecological processes and active management practices 

to promote target and focal wildlife species (refer to 

section 3.8 in chapter 3 for descriptions of focal, target, and sentinel species). The target and focal species would be primarily animals that are important 

game species such as elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, 

pronghorn, sharp-tailed grouse, and sage-grouse. 

Different parts of the refuge would be managed 

for different species. This approach would improve 

the overall composition, structure, and functioning 

of habitat refugewide. However, the emphasis on 

managing for individual species may not result in 

improvements in biological integrity within individual habitat units and could be harmful to the habitat 

in some areas if overbrowsing continued. 

The overall effects on habitat quality, integrity, 

and resilience would vary geographically based on 

the target and focal species that are chosen and the 

management tools that are used (primarily fire and 

grazing). As an example, management strategies for 

sharp-tailed grouse (a plains species) would be different than those for greater sage-grouse, which were 

originally more abundant in the Great Basin region. 

The refuge is located in the Great Plains where fire 

and large ungulates are major drivers of the ecosystem as compared to the Great Basin region. By using 

fire and grazing to manage habitat for sharp-tailed 

grouse, which use a broad range of habitat gradients including relatively dense herbaceous cover and 

shrubs, riparian areas, and open conifer (Connelly et 

al. 1998), it would likely result in a diverse and resilient landscape that would provide for a wider range 

of other species including other special status bird 

species. In contrast, management of the landscape 

primarily for big sagebrush and greater sage-grouse 

habitat or a monoculture of big and silver sagebrush (Zwickel and Schroeder 2003) would result in 

less resilience and would benefit few other species 

(Schroeder et al. 1999).

Some areas would require management practices 

that favor vegetative diversity, ecological processes, 

and sentinel species and would result in localized benefits. Other areas would continue management practices that emphasize grazing, fire suppression, and 

uniform grass production and would result in localized negative effects and overbrowsing. Overall, this 

management approach would improve habitat conditions and habitat function and diversity, resulting 

in moderate long-term benefits to upland vegetation.

A sharp-tailed grouse presents his courtship display.

USFWS

Alternative C. Under alternative C, the Service would 

manage uplands to emphasize wildlife-dependent 

recreation (primarily hunting opportunities or wildlife viewing) and livestock forage needs. The Service 

would conduct a program of prescriptive grazing 

and pyric herbivory on appropriate habitat units. In 

most areas, the current management conditions and 

disturbance cycles (constant grazing and limited fire) 

would prevail.

This management approach would be similar to 

existing conditions, with more emphasis on improving the uplands for wildlife and livestock grazing and 

balancing use by wild and domestic ungulates. This 

approach would more closely follow NRCS guidelines for improving grass cover and vigor, which promotes tall, productive grasses and provides the most 

forage for ungulates. The added use of prescribed 

grazing, fire, and range condition monitoring would 

provide more tools to reach desired rangeland conditions. These changes in rangeland conditions, however, would not necessarily translate to improvement 

in overall habitat resilience and diversity. Early successional species, including sentinel forbs and shrubs, 

would not be a management priority. Implementation 

of alternative C would result in minor long-term benefits for upland vegetation.

Alternative D. Under alternative D, the Service would 

mimic and restore natural processes on the refuge, 

managing for a diversity of upland plant species. 

This approach would restore the historical disturbance cycles of sporadic fire and grazing (pyric herbivory) and recreate the habitat conditions in which 
284 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

native species of plants and wildlife evolved and are 

most adapted. 

Alternative D would incorporate a broad range 

of disturbance factors on the landscape, facilitating 

the development of a diverse and changing mosaic 

of habitat conditions with high heterogeneity. This 

approach is based on the resiliency concept, which is 

described in “Chapter 3—Alternatives.” For example, the combination of prescribed fire, prescribed 

grazing, and other active management techniques 

would likely result in an improvement in highly palatable shrubs (such as saltbush, winterfat, silver 

sagebrush, and chokecherry) and forbs (such as purple prairieclover, dotted gayfeather, and Maximilian 

sunflower), as well as vigorous and diverse grasses. 

Specific management would be based on sentinel 

species monitoring. 

This approach would not optimize vegetation conditions for livestock or any single wildlife species and 

would result in less area focused on uniform grass 

production. However, the Service would monitor the 

diversity and health of focal bird species that are 

important to the uplands. Instead, it would promote 

a dynamic and shifting mosaic of vegetation that 

provides a variety of vegetation at different successional stages, which ultimately supports habitat for 

a variety of wildlife species including focal bird species. Implementation of this approach would result in 

major long-term benefits for upland vegetation.

Livestock Grazing, Prescribed Fire, and 

Other Practices

The effects of achieving each alternative’s objectives 

for grazing, prescribed fire, and other practices are 

evaluated below. 

Alternative A. Some of the vegetation management 

objectives outlined in alternative A would benefit 

habitat conditions. Successful implementation of 

efforts to increase deciduous shrub quality and quantity through prescribed fire and plantings would provide minor, localized benefits. However, successful 

reestablishment of shrubs would be difficult due to 

grazing by ungulates (both wild and domestic), and 

the overall acreage goals are relatively small. The 

benefits on vegetation and habitat conditions would 

be negligible.

The gradual transition to prescriptive grazing 

under alternative A would result in long-term, minor 

benefits. While recent reductions in grazing numbers (AUMs) have already benefited vegetation in 

some locations, these benefits have not resulted in 

a recovery of sentinel plants and may be offset by 

increases in native ungulates. More fencing of one 

habitat unit and parts of the refuge boundary may 

result in minor to moderate benefits to vegetation in 

localized areas, but the overall effect on the refuge 

would be negligible.

The refuge would continue to burn about 525 acres

of upland habitat per year. There would be shortterm benefits to deciduous shrub quality and quantity, because fire creates new, succulent growth, but 

overall benefits to habitat would be negligible due 

to the small acreage being treated. Livestock grazing would be restricted on prescribed burn units, but 

negative effects from native ungulates on these isolated, small, patches would intensify as ungulates 

are attracted to new growth from burn areas. Prescribed burns would include areas of isolated and 

dense stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. 

Small portions of these areas would also be hand 

thinned. Benefits to forested areas would continue 

to be minimal as the acreages treated would be relatively small. 

Alternative B. The implementation of a prescriptive grazing plan under alternative B for over half of 

the refuge lands would generally benefit vegetation 

conditions and the viability of sentinel species. This 

would be complemented by the removal of 25–50 percent of the interior fences, which would allow wild 

and domestic ungulates to access burned areas. This 

would benefit the burned area as well as the unburned 

areas that are allowed to rest. However, management 

of some localized areas may result in negligible to 

minor effects if the targeted wildlife species favors a 

single plant species or specific vegetative condition. 

For example, Baird’s sparrow prefers tall vegetation, whereas mountain plover prefers short prairie 

grasses (refer to birds in chapter 4).

Once the patch-burning program was fully implemented, about 2,500 acres of upland habitat would 

be treated each year with prescribed fire. These 

burned patches would be purposefully located across 

the entire refuge and would have a significant positive effect on fire-adapted plants, fire-dependent 

plants, and highly palatable plant species. Formerly 

diverse upland communities would respond with 

an increased abundance of fire-adapted shrub species such as saltbush, winterfat, silver sagebrush, 

and gray rubber rabbitbrush. The current monoculture of relatively unpalatable and fire-intolerant big 

sagebrush would gradually diversify into a natural 

mosaic of heterogeneous plant communities, resulting in moderate, long-term benefits.

There are numerous old-growth stands of forest on 

the refuge. When feasible, the Service would thin the 

forest’s volatile, fire-prone understory with mechanical treatment or prescribed fire, or both. Once 

treated, these stands would be less prone to be consumed by wildfire, which would preserve old-growth 

trees that in some instances exceed 750 years of age. 

Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine have gradually 

encroached into what was formerly treeless needlegrass–wheatgrass prairie. Prescribed fire is the most 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 285

cost-effective tool to set back this encroachment. 

Sites with the greatest encroachment would be targeted for prescribed fire and lower priority units 

would be treated by wildfire managed for multiple 

objectives. The use of prescribed fire would result in 

long-term benefits supporting efforts to reestablish 

natural prairie; reducing highly volatile hazardous 

fuel; revitalizing decadent, fire-dependent vegetation; and restoring natural ecological processes.

Alternative C. The prescriptive grazing program under 

alternative C, while less aggressive than alternatives 

B and D, would generally result in minor to moderate 

benefits to vegetation conditions, although the scale 

of the benefits would be more limited than the other 

action alternatives. Prescribed fire on habitat units 

with prescriptive grazing, as well as on those identified 

to have fair to poor range condition, would benefit the 

range conditions and some sentinel plants. This would 

be complemented by the removal of interior fences in 

areas where prescriptive grazing is applied. The combination of these factors would better establish ecological gradients and heterogeneity between the habitat 

units, benefiting the overall conditions and improving 

forage for both wild and domestic ungulates. 

Habitat units with an excessive fuel load of grass, 

shrub, or forest would be evaluated for wildfire risk 

and, if compatible with management objectives, 

increased use by grazing ungulates would be allowed 

to reduce the fire danger. There may be some areas, 

such as heavily forested slopes, where prescribed fire 

or mechanical treatment may be the only option to 

reduce the risk. It would be important to strike a balance between the needs of wildlife and improved forage for livestock and lower fire danger. Effects would 

be positive for reducing fire danger and economic 

benefits to the permittee. There may be decreased 

plant vigor due to increased use but, under a prescriptive grazing program, this could be minimized. 

Prescriptively grazed habitat units that are in 

fair to poor range condition would be rested to allow 

the vegetation to recover to the point that the units 

could be treated with prescribed fire. Once treated, 

grazing may be allowed but at a level that would 

promote species diversity and increased plant palatability, vigor, and heterogeneity. Because a permittee could be required to use other grazing units until 

rested units recover, this may have an initial negative effect on the permittee. However, the increased 

biomass production resulting from prescribed fire 

could be better used by grazing ungulates and should 

ultimately be a positive effect. Effects on native vegetation would be positive. 

Alternative D. The effects of vegetation management 

objectives under alternative D would be similar to 

alternatives B and C, but would more aggressively 

promote biological diversity. The extent of prescriptive grazing (50–75 percent of the refuge) would be the 

same as alternative B and more than alternative C. 

However, a pyric herbivory dynamic would be applied 

to the entire area where prescriptive grazing is used. 

The construction of boundary fencing and removal of 

interior fencing on 10–25 percent of the refuge would 

improve wild and domestic ungulate access to burned 

areas. If successfully carried out, the combination of 

these and other management approaches are anticipated to benefit upland vegetation over the long term. 

Wildfire 

As the northern Great Plains climate continues to 

change, it is expected wildfire frequency and intensity will increase. The past decade has produced the 

most intense and largest wildfires the area has seen 

since establishment of the refuge. Even though the 

northern Great Plains is an ecosystem that evolved 

with fire, historically, fires did not burn with near the 

intensity. This is mostly due to past grazing practices 

that reduced fine fuel (grass) and fire suppression, 

which resulted in a massive buildup of woody fuel 

from Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine.

The effects of achieving each alternative’s objectives for wildfire are evaluated below. 

Alternative A. Under alternative A, wildfires would increase in size and intensity as the natural fire regime 

continues to be altered. Large blocks of forest would 

most likely be eliminated. These conditions could 

result in moderate to major detrimental effects on 

vegetation.

Alternatives B and D. Wildfires would continue to increase in intensity and severity until the Service 

established a seminatural burn mosaic across most 

of the landscape, which may not occur during the life 

of this CCP. Eventually, a seminatural fire-return 

interval would be established across the landscape, 

which would have a positive effect on fire intensity 

and severity. Wildfires would continue to occur, but 

with the gradual reduction of hazardous fuel using 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, a natural 

mosaic of burned and unburned fuel would begin to 

appear across the landscape. This mosaic would limit 

the potential of wildfires to consume vast parts of the 

refuge during any one event. The refuge would use 

wildfire to benefit natural resources and to reestablish natural fire regimes. The short-term negative 

effects of wildfire would gradually change into a positive effect on species diversity, plant palatability, 

plant vigor, and heterogeneity. 

Alternative C. With an increased emphasis on economic uses in alternative C, much of the forested 

habitat would see greater use by grazing ungulates. 

This would reduce the fine fuel that carries a fire but 

would also continue to alter the natural fire regime. 

Wildfire size and intensity should decrease as the 
286 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

fine fuel that carries a fire was significantly reduced 

by grazing. However, this would also continue to 

dramatically alter the natural fire regime of the area 

and result in significant buildup of woody fuel. In the 

short term, the number of fires would decrease in 

intensity and severity. Eventually a wildfire would 

burn through these areas with considerably greater 

intensity than is normal, inflicting far more damage 

to the habitat. This was experienced on the refuge 

in 2003 and 2006 when more than 100,000 acres of 

refuge habitat (mostly dense stands of trees) were 

consumed by fire. These type of fires usually engulf 

entire landscapes and leave very little unburned 

mosaic. In addition, these fires consume practically 

all but the most isolated pockets of old-growth forest. 

Water Impoundments

Artificial water impoundments, stock ponds and reservoirs, contribute to the degradation of nearby vegetation by facilitating the congregation of large animals 

and the development of radiating stock trails to and 

from these water sources. Alternative A would not 

change management of water impoundments, resulting in minor, long-term, negative effects by allowing the current conditions to persist. The aggressive 

removal of almost all water impoundments under 

alternatives B and D would result in major localized benefits to vegetation near the impoundments. 

Under alternative C, long-term efforts to evaluate 

water impoundments for rehabilitation, removal, or 

new pond development would have a negligible to 

minor benefit on nearby upland vegetation. 

Wildlife Management 

The effects of achieving each alternative’s objectives 

for wildlife management are evaluated below. 

Alternative A. Continued management of big game 

populations under alternative A to achieve target levels outlined in the 1986 EIS record of decision could contribute to long-term negative effects 

on some sentinel forbs and shrubs. Monitoring at 

some sites has shown that wild ungulate populations 

have exacerbated the effects of livestock grazing 

on highly palatable forbs and shrubs or have offset the gains made by reduced livestock numbers. 

If ungulate population targets are based on habitat 

condition (such as the “good to excellent condition” 

expressed in the objective) these effects could be 

reduced. Overall, continued big game management 

under alternative A would result in minor, incremental negative effects on upland vegetation.

Alternative B. Under alternative B, the effects of 

wildlife management objectives on vegetation would 

vary based on the habitat and needs of target and 

focal species. Wild ungulate objectives could result 

in minor benefits to habitat conditions if they were 

successfully carried out in concert with prescriptive grazing plans and meeting habitat needs of target and focal species. Unsuccessful implementation 

of those objectives could result in minor to moderate negative effects to vegetation in localized areas 

due to overgrazing by all ungulates. The elimination of predator control in alternative B potentially 

could benefit vegetation if the uncontrolled predators reduced ungulate numbers, thereby reducing 

wild and domestic grazing pressure.

Alternative C. The wildlife management objectives 

in alternative C, which seek to maintain a balance 

between big game and livestock numbers, would result 

in minor benefits to upland vegetation conditions if 

they were successful. However, it would be difficult 

to achieve this balance because of the competing and 

additive demands of wild and domestic ungulates for 

the same forage, and the differences in scale at which 

MFWP’s big game objectives and the refuge’s grazing targets are set. Therefore, the implementation of 

wildlife management objectives would likely result in 

upland vegetation conditions that are similar to existing conditions (negligible long-term effects).

Alternative D. Wildlife management in alternative D 

would complement the vegetation management 

approach. Big game population targets would be 

managed to promote ecological resilience while minimizing negative effects on sentinel plants. This 

would provide a comprehensive approach to total 

ungulate (wild and domestic) use. This management 

approach to wild ungulates would contribute to the 

overall benefits to upland vegetation. However, it 

could be difficult to effectively limit big game populations through hunting if major reductions were 

necessary. The elimination of predator control would 

help limit big game populations.

Expansion of prairie dog populations would 

improve the overall diversity of upland habitats and 

would provide another disturbance factor that would 

increase diversity and heterogeneity. Under alternative A, prairie dog populations would be able to 

expand up to 10,000 acres, resulting in minor benefits. Under alternatives B, C, and D, the Service 

would more actively seek to expand prairie dog colonies to at least 10,000 acres, resulting in moderate 

benefits to upland vegetation diversity.

Invasive Species

Much of the upland areas have not been mapped for 

invasive species as much of the treatment efforts 

have been focused along the river corridor. The Service would continue mapping for invasive species 

along roads, running the weed wash station in the 

fall, and requiring horse users to use weed-seed-free 

hay. Many of these existing preventive actions would 

continue to benefit upland areas by preventing and 

detecting large infestations from occurring. Under 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 287

alternatives B, C, and D, the Service would increase 

its detection and treatment efforts of invasive species in the upland areas. 

Roads and Access

While the existing 670 miles of road are important for 

administrative, recreational, and emergency access, 

excessive roads can fragment vegetation and provide 

conduits for invasive plants. The effects of fragmentation are more important for wildlife, but should nonetheless be considered for vegetation. The effects of 

achieving each alternative’s objectives for access are 

evaluated below. 

Alternative A. Alternative A would maintain the current number of roads, resulting in negligible effects 

over the long term. 

Alternative B. The closure of about 106 miles of road 

under alternative B would result in moderate benefits to vegetation in areas next to the closures. 

Once closed, most roads recover without restoration. While the actual proportion of total roads to 

be closed would remain small, the selected closures 

would restore large blocks of unfragmented vegetation and habitat. Closing roads could have negative 

effects in localized areas from overbrowsing if harvest objectives are not met. Working with MFWP 

before implementation of road closures or allowing 

for game retrieval could limit those effects.

Alternative C. Efforts to expand recreational access 

and upgrade roads and facilities would result in 

localized negative effects on vegetation next to the 

improvements. Alternative C would improve about 

16 more miles to all-weather access (gravel), which 

is about six feet wider than a bladed dirt road. This 

would result in a loss of about 11.6 acres of vegetation in addition to any disturbance that would occur 

from road work such as putting in culverts or the 

temporary storage of gravel. Invasive weed infestations would likely occur unless weeds were controlled after disturbance. The overall effects on 

upland vegetation, however, would be negligible.

Alternative D. The beneficial effects of 21 miles of road 

closures and an increase in the number of seasonal closures (road 315 and game retrieval roads along road 

440, 331, 332, and 333) would be similar to alternative 

B, but less extensive. Benefits from road closures could 

be slightly diminished by invasive plant infestations if 

roads were unsuccessfully restored. As with alternative C, improving the Knox Ridge Road would result in 

some localized negative effects on vegetation, but overall the effects on the area would be negligible. Alternative D would improve about 5 more miles to all-weather 

access (gravel), which would be about six feet wider 

than a bladed dirt road. This would result in a loss of 

about 3.6 acres of habitat in addition to any disturbance 

that would occur from the road work. Allowing access 

on closed roads outside of proposed wilderness areas 

for game retrieval would allow for harvest objectives 

to be met, benefitting upland habitats.

Conclusion

Implementation of alternative A would continue the 

current management approach and vegetation conditions, resulting in minor, short-term, incremental 

effects. However, the long-term implications would 

be moderate to major negative effects on upland 

habitat composition, structure, and function. 

Alternative B effects would vary depending on the 

target and focal species that are chosen for each habitat unit. Some areas would have moderate to major 

benefits, while benefits to other areas would be negligible. Overall, the implementation of alternative B 

would result in long-term moderate benefits to 

upland habitat composition, structure, and function. 

Alternative C would result in minor benefits to 

upland habitat composition, structure, and function 

over the long term. There would be about 11.6 acres 

of vegetation lost from improving about 16 miles of 

road to all-weather access, and overall this would 

have a negligible effect on upland vegetation.

Alternative D would benefit habitat conditions and 

the viability of sentinel species and promote biological diversity and integrity. Implementation of alternative D is anticipated to result in long-term, major 

benefits to the composition, structure, diversity, and 

function of upland habitats. There would be about 3.6 

acres of vegetation lost from improving about 5 miles 

of road to all-weather access, and overall this would 

have negligible effect on upland vegetation.

Mitigation

Several measures have been built into the alternatives to mitigate for negative effects on upland areas 

from excessive livestock or wild ungulate grazing. The 

Service would carry out a more comprehensive monitoring program to fully assess effects on plants by all 

ungulates. Moving toward a greater reliance on prescriptive grazing, particularly in alternatives B and 

D, and to a lesser extent in alternative C would help 

to limit negative effects. Controlling the numbers of 

ungulates (domestic and wild), using fire to move 

ungulates to other areas, reductions in livestock grazing, expanding boundary fencing, removing fencing, 

and management of water structures are all examples 

of measures that would be incorporated into the plan. 

Disturbance along any road corridor from road 

improvements under alternatives C and D would 

increase invasive weeds, which could negatively 

affect native plant communities and wildlife habitat. These effects could be reduced by designing 

road improvements to minimize ground disturbance, 

developing and implementing a weed management 
288 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

plan before and during any disturbance while improving the road, and monitoring and controlling 

weeds during and after disturbance. Several measures could be put into place to mitigate negative 

effects from these improvements.

EFFECTS on RIVER BOTTOMS

Figure 23 in chapter 4 identifies the river bottoms 

that would be restored.

All Alternatives

The establishment of healthy, native plant communities is the best long-term defense against invasive 

weeds (Riley and Wilkinson 2007). While it is nearly 

impossible to remove all invasive plants, the planting of native forbs, shrubs, and grasses combined 

with ongoing monitoring and spot treatments would 

remove many of the large monotypic weed patches 

that currently exist in many river bottom areas. By 

planting and cultivating native plants, more seed 

sources will also be available for the spreading of 

seeds to other locations. Reestablishment of healthy 

native plant communities would benefit the ecosystem and a suite of native bird and wildlife species. 

River bottoms tend to be fire-exclusive environments by their very nature. Subsurface moisture 

allows for greener, lush vegetation, which restricts 

fire development and growth. Great Plains cottonwoods are easily killed by low intensity fire and these 

areas would not be targeted for prescribed burning 

and would not be negatively affected. The river bottoms that were farmed in the past are now infested 

with invasive plants. Prescribed fire would be used 

in these units to prepare the seedbed for planting of 

native vegetation. 

Alternative A

The initiation of five to seven restoration efforts in 

the river bottom would benefit these habitat areas by 

improving native species composition, habitat resiliency, and the historical character of these plant communities. However, these benefits would be limited to 

the areas that are successfully restored. The minimal 

commitment of resources and personnel to river bottom restoration in alternative A could lengthen the 

timeframe and ultimately reduce the success of restoration efforts. Untreated areas would likely continue 

to be overtaken by expanding invasive weed patches, 

which would ultimately increase the rate of spread and 

the cost of restoration. Livestock grazing could be used 

to reduce weeds under certain conditions (FWS 2011b). 

Overall, alternative A would result in minor to moderate benefits to river bottom habitats.

Alternative B

Seed removal and planting of wildlife food crops or 

agricultural crops such as alfalfa would benefit affected areas by reducing or removing weeds 

by competing with weeds for resources and space. 

These plantings would also provide wildlife value, 

particularly for large ungulates.

The planting of nonnative monoculture crops could 

reduce the plant diversity in some areas, reducing 

available habitat for some bird and wildlife species. The 

attraction of wild ungulates to these areas could also 

exacerbate negative effects on nearby riparian areas. 

The reapplication of herbicide, and the need to replant 

cover crops over time could provide opportunities for 

invasive plants to reinvade the bottomlands over time, 

reducing the long-term effectiveness of these efforts.

Overall, weed reduction efforts outlined in alternative B would result in minor to moderate benefits 

to river bottom habitats. 

Alternative C

The effects and benefit of river bottom restoration 

through partnerships with cooperative farmers in 

alternative C would be similar to alternative B, with 

some exceptions. Cooperators would plant river bottoms to nonnative crops for multiple years to make 

it profitable (and to reduce or eliminate invasive 

plants), and would then plant to native forbs and 

grasses. One of the main benefits of this approach is 

that the first step of the process (planting economic 

cover crops) would occur more quickly because the 

cooperators would do most of the onsite work using 

their own equipment. It is not clear how long it would 

take to successfully carry out the second step of the 

process (planting native forbs and grasses).

In addition to the negative effects described 

under alternative B, the restoration approach proposed under alternative C would result in the need 

to apply herbicide over the entire area at least twice, 

once to remove invasive plants before planting crops, 

and again to remove the crops before planting native 

seeds. Another drawback would be the increased 

number of wild ungulates that would be conditioned 

to frequent planted areas. Besides the subsequent 

negative effects on nearby riparian areas, the continued browsing and grazing of wild ungulates could 

also decrease the chances of survival of newly emerging native plants.

Overall, the alternative restoration approach outlined in alternative C would result in minor to moderate benefits to river bottom habitats over the long term.

Alternative D

The bottomland restoration efforts in alternative D 

would be similar to alternative C, but with a less aggressive approach. These efforts would result in minor benefits to river bottom habitats over the long term. 

Conclusion

Each of the alternatives would use a different approach 

to treating river bottoms, and all would result in minor 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 289

to moderate benefits to river bottom habitats over the 

long term. The minimal commitment in alternative A 

would lengthen the timeframe for restoration. Alternative B would have a more comprehensive and aggressive approach, although the application of herbicides 

and the planting of cover crops could provide opportunities for invasive plants to reinvade the bottomlands, 

reducing long-term effectiveness. The effects of implementing alternative C would result in the need to apply 

herbicides several times. Alternative D would be similar to C but would involve a less aggressive approach. 

While each alternative differs in its approach to restoration, all alternatives would result in minor to moderate long-term benefits to river bottom habitat.

Mitigation

Mitigation measures are primarily discussed under 

soils. Adhering to best management practices in disking, tilling, and applying herbicides would limit 

negative effects from restoration of river bottoms. 

EFFECTS on RIPARIAN AREAS 

and WETLANDS

The effects on riparian areas were assessed as part 

of the Service’s work with the Riparian and Wetland 

Research Program.

Method Used to Analyze Effects

Sources of information used to assess the level of 

effect on riparian areas included (1) scientific literature on the effects of management activities of 

riparian areas, (2) site-specific assessment of the refuge’s riparian areas, and (3) professional judgment 

of refuge biologists and other professional biologists and ecologists familiar with the refuge’s riparian areas. The Service also consulted with members 

of the National Riparian Service Team, an interagency effort to accelerate riparian area restoration 

primarily in the Western United States. Ultimately, 

the Service contracted with Paul Hansen, a riparian 

area ecologist who worked with the National Riparian Service Team in developing a functional stream 

analysis, to conduct a followup riparian area assessment. Earlier, Hansen had evaluated riparian communities on the refuge in the mid-1990s. Information 

from Hansen’s assessment in 2009, in addition his 

work in the mid-1990s was used in the effects analysis. Past and current riparian area assessment and 

monitoring efforts are described in chapter 4. 

Management Approaches

The action alternatives (B, C, and D) identified several 

strategies to improve the health of those streams identified in poor condition based on the survey done in 2009 

by Paul Hansen (Ecological Solutions Group 2009).

Alternative A. Under alternative A, there would be

few specific strategies undertaken to restore riparian 

and wetland areas outside of what is currently done 

(i.e., keeping livestock away from most riparian areas 

and invasive species control). Nonetheless, based on 

improvements seen with the 2009 survey, the continued transition toward implementing prescriptive 

grazing and other activities such as harvest management and invasive species control would result in 

negligible to minor incremental benefits in the overall health of riparian areas on the refuge. However, 

localized sizes could continue to experience a negative trend (refer to livestock grazing below).

Alternative B. Under alternative B, within the first 

few years, the Service would carry out actions to 

restore the health of the streams identified as nonfunctional (unhealthy) or functional at risk (healthy 

but with problems). These actions may include more 

research and contract work to determine effective strategies that should result in significant 

improvement in riparian area and wetland health 

and function over 15 years (strategies would include 

reestablishing vegetation along willow banks using 

willow cuttings, applying stream stabilization techniques, restoring beaver colonization, limiting livestock access to wetlands, improving stock ponds for 

amphibians, and other ideas). When reassessed by 

year 10–15, using the Ecological Solutions Groups’ 

Lotic Wetland Assessment Survey, it is estimated 

that 85 percent of the 82 miles (about 70 miles) would 

improve to the next level (nonfunctional to functional at risk or functional at risk to healthy), and 

95 percent of the reaches on the refuge assessed in 

2009 as healthy would be maintained. Alternative B 

has the most aggressive overall approach for transitioning to a prescriptive grazing component, which 

should result in significant improvements during the 

next survey period. However, potential increases in 

elk populations or invasive species could offset the 

benefits in some areas (refer to the discussion under 

livestock grazing). 

Alternative C. Similar to alternative B, many of the 

same strategies for improving riparian area health 

would be used under alternative C. However, with 

the emphasis on maximizing wildlife-dependent recreation and economic uses, it is estimated that 60 

percent of the 82 miles of stream (49 miles) would 

improve to the next category. There would be fewer 

resources available to put toward restoring streams 

on the refuges, and the transition toward implementing prescriptive grazing would be more similar to 

alternative A, resulting in localized areas with negligible improvements. 

Alternative D. As with alternatives B and C, all of the 

strategies for improving riparian area health would 

be used in alternative D. There would be an aggressive approach for streambank stabilization that 

would be similar to alternative B, but there could be 
290 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

slight decrease in the miles of streams that would 

be estimated to improve over 15 years (75 percent 

of the 82 miles of stream (61 miles)). The transition 

toward implementing prescriptive grazing would 

be quicker than under alternatives A and C but less 

aggressive than under B. Additionally, there would 

be more resources dedicated to improving wildlifedependent recreational opportunities than under 

alternative B. Unlike alternative B, the focus would 

not be on maximizing elk populations, so the difference in miles of stream improvement compared to B 

could be negligible.

Invasive Species

The localized short-term effect of invasive plant management may be a moderate negative trend in riparian area health with the initial removal of “cover” to 

trap sediment. If restoration occurs, the long-term 

effect with restoration may be a minor to moderate positive effect on riparian area health. Much of 

the gain in health rating on riparian areas refugewide 

due to increased vegetation cover is offset by the further invasion of invasive plants (Ecological Solutions 

Group 2009). 

Water Impoundments

Artificial water impoundments (stock ponds and reservoirs) provide for alternative watering sites away 

from riparian areas releasing these areas from negative effects of large animals. However, impoundments also contribute to the degradation of riparian 

area health downstream by preventing and reducing the flow regime. Precipitation and runoff levels 

would determine the amount of sedimentation deposition below the impoundment, building a floodplain 

on which riparian vegetation may establish and capture more sediment. Improvements to the water 

impoundment, including more woody species along 

part of the edge, could have a moderate positive 

effect on riparian area wildlife species that use lentic wetlands (Pilliod and Wind 2008, Taylor and Tuttle 2007). 

Alternative A. Alternative A would not change management of water impoundments, resulting in minor 

long-term effects by allowing the current conditions 

to persist. 

Alternatives B and D. The removal of water impoundments on the refuge in alternatives B and D would 

result in major to moderate localized benefits for 

riparian habitat surrounding the existing impoundments. Immediate effects include increased instream 

waterflow, sedimentation, and floodplain building. 

Restoring hydrologic function of streams and drainages would have a moderate to major benefit for 

riparian areas that are affected by altered hydrology. These benefits would also result in moderate 

positive benefits on riparian area wildlife species 

that use lotic wetlands such as beaver.

Alternative C. Under alternative C, long-term efforts 

to evaluate existing water impoundments for rehabilitation, removal, or new pond development would 

have a negligible to minor benefit on riparian area 

health, compared to existing conditions. 

Livestock Grazing 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D all include livestock grazing at varying levels. Livestock grazing in riparian areas affects water quality, stream morphology, 

hydrology, soils, streambank vegetation, and aquatic 

and riparian area wildlife (Belsky et al. 1999, Hansen 1992, Kaufman and Krueger 1984). A livestock 

grazing management strategy designed for an area 

should be tailored to the conditions, problems, site 

potential, objectives, and livestock management consideration on a site-specific basis that will best meet 

the resource needs. Hansen (1992), Meehan and Platts 

(1978), and Platts and Wagstaff (1984) found no grazing system that was compatible with healthy aquatic 

ecosystems.

Riparian health assessment surveys in 1995 and 

1997 indicated the riparian areas across the refuge 

on average were not functioning (Cook et al. 1996, 

Parker and Hansen 1996, Thompson and Hansen 

1999). Hansen (1992) stated that livestock grazing is 

a compatible use in riparian-wetland areas only when 

the functions of the riparian system guide the development of the grazing strategy. This includes sediment filtering, bank building, water storage, aquifer 

recharge, energy dissipation, potential of the site, and 

the needs of the riparian vegetation. Riparian areas 

grazed without above considerations have a major 

negative effect (Belsky et al. 1999, Kaufman and 

Krueger 1984, Hansen 1992). Management changes 

since the 1985 EIS include a significant reduction 

in AUMs refugewide and the construction of fences 

along the Missouri River and other streams across 

the refuge. Excluding livestock from riparian areas 

using fencing has allowed riparian areas to improve, 

thereby increasing riparian function (Ames 1977, 

Duff 1983, Hollow et al. 2001). However, if cattle 

were not excluded from other riparian areas, then 

any benefits of the exclosures to riparian areas 

would be negligible due to increased use by native 

ungulates (Miles 1996). 

Alternative A. Alternative A would largely maintain 

the current management approach of annual livestock grazing and a prescriptive component that 

includes rest and light grazing. Over 15 years, there 

would be a gradual implementation of prescriptive 

grazing. The past and present effects of the current 

management regime are represented by existing 

conditions and are described in chapter 4. 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 291

Based on 2009 surveys completed on most of the 

same locations as in 1995–97, riparian area health on 

the refuge has improved over the past 14 years with 

most of the improvement seen in the soil and hydrology. Implementation of alternative A would improve 

riparian habitat in general, but localized sites could 

continue to experience a negative trend. The 2009 

survey shows the current trends to be improving 

in some areas with no livestock. An example of this 

is in the UL Bend Refuge where 100 percent of the 

area was rested and the riparian area health assessment increased 58 percent from nonfunctional to 

healthy (Ecological Solutions Group 2009). However, 

if AUMs are reduced but cattle are not fenced out of 

riparian areas then no change in riparian area health 

would be expected and a negative trend would occur. 

This is evident in the area between Rock Creek 

(east) to Fort Peck Dam where total AUMs in the 

habitat units decreased slightly but the riparian 

area health assessment decreased 24 percent from 

healthy to functioning at risk. 

Overall, the continuation of current grazing management practices under alternative A would result 

in negligible to minor incremental benefits to riparian habitat over the long term. However, some localized areas would continue to decline, resulting in 

moderate, long-term, negative effects on some riparian areas. 

Alternative B. Under alternative B, the Service would 

actively manage and manipulate wildlife habitat 

using both natural ecological processes and active 

management practices to promote specific target 

and focal wildlife species. 

The potential benefits of implementing prescriptive grazing across 50–75 percent of the refuge and 

fencing riparian areas are moderate refugewide, 

but potentially could vary from major to negligible 

benefits at local sites. Fencing cattle away from the 

river and shorelines would have a moderate to major 

benefit on riparian habitat. The woody draws from 

Rock Creek (east) to Fort Peck would experience 

major long-term benefits due to fencing along riparian areas. However, excluding livestock from riparian areas could potentially have a long-term negative 

effect on upland sites as wild and native ungulates 

are displaced (refer to uplands above).

Elk are an example of the target wildlife species 

under alternative B. The Service would actively 

manage and manipulate elk populations at the highest levels possible. These potential increases in elk 

populations could offset the benefits of livestock 

management on riparian habitat due to increased elk 

browsing. An example of this is the Slippary Ann 

Elk Viewing Area, where, during the fall, hundreds 

of elk gather for a few months. The short-term effect 

is moderate and may be major over the long term. 

The effects from aggressive restoration along 

50 percent of streams would depend on precipitation, site potential, fencing, and prescriptive grazing 

(Ecological Solutions Group 2009). The short-term 

benefits to the refuge as a whole would be moderate with possible long-term benefits being major 

for previously degraded, currently nonfunctioning 

areas. However, the benefits for an area that was 

functioning at risk could be minor or negligible. The 

long-term benefits could be major with an increase in 

vegetation capturing sediment for floodplain building. 

The benefits of increased monitoring would be 

major if prescriptive grazing occurs in the monitored 

area. If negative effects are found, rapid adaptive 

management can occur, lessening the effect. A few 

weeks of unauthorized use or overgrazing could set 

back years of progress in improvements of riparianwetland systems (Duff 1983). A few head of unauthorized livestock throughout most of the hot season 

would negate any positive riparian-wetland habitat 

response (Myers 1981).

Overall, the implementation of livestock grazing 

management objectives in alternative B would result

in moderate, long-term benefits to riparian habitats 

refugewide. However, some localized areas could continue to be degraded and increased browsing by wild 

ungulates could offset some of the benefits.

Alternative C. Under alternative C, the Service 

would manage riparian habitats to emphasize wildlife-dependent recreation (primarily hunting and 

fishing opportunities) and livestock forage needs. 

Prescriptive grazing would be gradually applied on 

up to 50 percent of the refuge. The overall management approach for alternative C would be similar 

to existing conditions (alternative A) in areas with 

annual grazing and similar to alternative B where 

prescriptive grazing is applied. The effects of these 

approaches on riparian habitat would be similar to 

alternatives A and B, depending on where prescriptive or annual grazing approaches are used. 

Alternative D. Under alternative D, the Service would 

mimic and restore natural processes on the refuge, 

managing for a healthy riparian area. Prescriptive 

grazing would be applied on 50–75 percent of the refuge. Actions are the same as alternative B only the 

magnitude of the effects may be different. Overall, 

alternative D includes a more aggressive approach 

to riparian habitat protection and management, and 

therefore the long-term benefits would be greater, 

ranging between moderate to major. 

Wildlife Management

Under all alternatives, continued management of 

furbearer, threatened and endangered species, fish, 

reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, and most birds 

would have no effect on riparian areas.
292 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Alternative A. Continued management of big game 

populations under alternative A to achieve target 

levels outlined in the 1986 EIS record of decision 

may result in minor, incremental, negative effects 

on riparian area health, due to increased grazing and 

browsing pressure on riparian habitat areas. 

Continued management for bald eagle migration 

habitat and to improve or maintain riparian habitat 

are moderate refugewide, but potentially could have 

varied benefits to local sites depending on site potential, restoration techniques, and precipitation.

Alternative B. Under alternative B, the effects of 

big game management objectives on riparian area 

health would vary depending livestock management 

and spatial interactions between wild and domestic ungulates and riparian habitat. This could result 

in minor benefits to riparian habitat conditions refugewide with varied localized effects. If wolves were 

to naturally recolonize the refuge, the presence and 

management of wolves on the refuge would provide 

predation pressure on wild ungulates, which would 

benefit riparian area health by potentially reducing wild ungulate grazing pressure in some areas. 

If wild bison were reintroduced to the refuge, their 

presence as another large ungulate could result in 

negligible to minor effects on riparian area health. 

Restoring riparian habitat in the tributaries in an 

effort to promote furbearers could result in moderate to major benefits to riparian area health.

The effects of fish management objectives would 

be the same as those described above under “Water 

Impoundments”—short-term negative effects followed by long-term benefits. Removal of fish passage impediments could result in minor to major 

benefits to habitat conditions.

Alternative C. The overall big game management 

objectives in alternative C would depend on livestock

management and may result in minor, incremental, 

negative effects on riparian area health refugewide 

with varied localized effects. The effects of wild bison 

or wolf management, should these animals occur on the 

refuge, would be negligible. The effects of fish management would be the same as those described above under 

“Water Impoundments”—negligible to minor benefits.

Alternative D. Big game objectives in alternative D 

would result in an incremental positive trend, with 

minor to moderate benefits to riparian area health. 

The elimination of active predator removal and 

incorporation of wolf management objectives on the 

refuge would provide predation pressure on wild 

ungulates, which would benefit riparian area health 

by potentially reducing wild ungulate grazing pressure in some areas. 

The effects of management objectives for wild 

bison, furbearers, and fish would be the same as 

described under alternative B.

Roads and Access 

While roads are important for administrative, recreational, and emergency access, excessive roads 

can disrupt natural drainage patterns when water is 

diverted and prevented from infiltrating into soils. 

Soil compaction increases runoff, soil displacement, 

and funneling of water leading to increased erosion. 

Negative effects from roads result in introduced sediment into streams, snowmelt redirection and concentration, and surface flow production. Roads can 

affect both the volume of water available as surface runoff and the efficiency by which waterflows 

through a watershed. More water and sediment in 

channels alter their physical structure, usually with 

negative effects on aquatic habitat. When culverts 

fail, large amounts of sediment can be delivered 

directly to the channel and from there down into 

lower streams potentially affecting sensitive fish 

habitat (Douglass et al. 1999). Indirect effects from 

roads on riparian areas include negative effects on 

wildlife that use riparian areas, particularly reptiles, 

amphibians, small mammals and birds (refer to wildlife sections below). 

Alternative A. Alternative A would maintain the current number of roads, resulting in negligible effects 

over the long term. 

Alternatives B and D. The closure of about 106 miles 

of road on the refuge in alternative B could result in 

moderate refugewide benefits, though the effects to 

local sites would vary. Benefits from road closures 

could be slightly diminished by invasive plant infestations if roads are unsuccessfully restored. In alternative D, the beneficial effects of road closures (21 

miles) would be similar to alternative B, but less 

extensive (minor benefit). Graveling Knox Ridge 

road in alternative D would have minimal negative 

effects on riparian areas.

Alternative C. Under alternative C, efforts to expand 

recreational access and upgrade roads and facilities on the refuge could result in localized negative effects on riparian area health in the immediate 

vicinity of the improvements. The overall effect on 

riparian area health, however, would be negligible.

Conclusion 

Under alternative A, the continuation of current grazing management practices would result in minor to 

moderate incremental benefits in some riparian areas 

over the long term. However, some localized areas 

would continue to decline, resulting moderate longterm negative effects. The implementation of livestock grazing management objectives in alternative B 

would result in moderate, long-term benefits to riparian habitats refugewide. Some localized areas could 

continue to be degraded, and increased browsing by 

wild ungulates could offset some benefits. Alterna-
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 293

tive C would be similar to alternative A, but where 

prescriptive grazing occurred, long-term benefits 

would be similar to alternative B. Under alternative D, the actions would be similar to alternative B, 

but the magnitude of effects would be different. 

Alternative D would include an aggressive approach 

to riparian habitat protection and management, and 

the long-term benefits would be greater, ranging 

between moderate to major.

The continued use of water impoundments under 

existing conditions would result in minor, long-term, 

negative effects on riparian areas under alternative A. Alternatives B and D, which would remove 

nearly all water impoundments would result in moderate to major localized benefits for areas surrounding the impoundments. Some rehabilitation of water 

impoundments would occur in alternative C having a 

negligible to minor benefit.

The continued management of big game populations in alternative A could result in minor, incremental, negative effects on riparian area health due 

to increased grazing and browsing. The effects under 

alternative B would vary depending on spatial interactions between wild and domestic ungulates and 

riparian habitat. Under alternative C, effects would 

be similar to alternative A and would depend on livestock management. Big game objectives in alternative D would result in an incremental positive trend 

in riparian area health. Reducing active predator 

removal would provide predation pressure on wild 

ungulates, potentially reducing grazing pressure in 

some areas.

Alternative A would maintain the current road 

configuration, resulting in negligible effects to riparian area health. The closure of roads in alternatives B 

and D would have varied (minor to moderate) benefits 

to riparian areas. Alternative C would have negligible effects.

Overall, the long-term benefits to riparian habitat 

would be minor under alternative A, moderate under 

alternative B, minor to moderate under alternative C, 

and moderate to major under alternative D. In all 

alternatives, localized, moderate, negative effects 

would still occur from grazing.

Mitigation

In addition to the mitigation measures discussed under 

soils, the alternatives incorporate several measures 

for mitigating negative effects on riparian areas and 

wetlands from excessive grazing by livestock or wild 

ungulates. These include using prescriptive grazing 

and fire for improved ungulate management, using 

exclosures to fence off riparian areas, rehabilitating 

stock reservoirs that are no longer needed, planting 

riparian species, strategic placement of salt or mineral blocks, establishing or improving off-stream 

watering sites, installing stable access points to limit 

streambank trampling, requiring permittees to keep 

livestock out of riparian areas, restoring beaver colonization, and monitoring effects. 

EFFECTS on SHORELINES

USACE controls reservoir levels and has primary 

jurisdiction for management of the lakeshore areas. 

Most of the issues related to any action the Service would take that would affect shorelines are 

addressed under threatened and endangered species, invasive species management, uplands, river 

bottoms, and riparian and wetland areas. There 

would be some delineation of routes down to the 

river for public access when water levels were low 

(refer to fishing objectives, rationale, and strategies) 

but the effect on shoreline vegetation would be negligible.

Mitigation

No mitigation would be required.

EFFECTS on BIRDS

This section addresses the effects on grassland birds, 

waterfowl, colonial-nesting birds, shorebirds, raptors, owls, and neotropical migrants stemming from 

the actions in the CCP and EIS. This includes a discussion of riparian areas, invasive species, fire, grazing, public use and access, special management areas,

and monitoring. Sage-grouse and Sprague’s pipit are 

addressed under threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern.

Riparian Areas

Riparian areas are extremely important for birds 

because they not only provide cover and food but also 

serve as a seasonal water source particularly during 

migration and the brood-rearing stages. High plant 

species diversity, insect abundance and berries make 

both riparian areas and hardwood draws extremely 

attractive to grassland and migratory neotropical 

birds. Grazing by domestic livestock or heavy browsing by elk has direct negative effects on birds that 

use riparian areas and hardwood draws by (1) reduction and elimination of vegetation layers, (2) reduction and elimination of new replacement shrubs and 

trees in riparian areas and hardwood draws, and (3) 

reduction and elimination of seed and fruit production as well as the insects that depend on the green 

parts of highly palatable plants. 

Although the refuge has fenced livestock out of 

many riparian areas, it has not been possible to fence 

livestock out of all areas, and in localized areas under 

all alternatives, there would be a continued loss of 

shrub layers and overstory recruitment, which is 

important for birds. The specific effects of the alternatives would correspond with the effects of grazing on 

riparian habitat: minor to moderate incremental bene-
294 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

fits for alternative A, moderate long-term benefits for 

alternative B, variable for alternative C, and moderate to major long-term benefits for alternative D. In all 

alternatives, riparian habitats in some localized areas 

would continue to degrade due to grazing effects.

The long-billed curlew nests in wet and dry uplands.

© Diane Hargreaves

Invasive Species

Birds require habitat containing a variety of plant 

species, variation in horizontal canopy cover, and 

complexity in vertical structure. In contrast, invasive 

exotic infestations are often comprised of one species, 

mostly uniform in height and structure, and form a 

canopy coverage that is too dense (American Bird 

Conservancy 2009). As compared to alternative A, 

alternatives, B, C, and D would result in minor benefits due to increased efforts and partnerships to control invasive species and benefit bird habitat. The use 

of herbicides and pesticides to control invasive species could have some negative effects on bird populations, but judicious application would limit those 

effects (Montana Partners in Flight 2000). 

Fire

As with grazing, historically wildfire played a significant role in shaping the grassland ecosystem. Suppression of wildfires along with the changes in native 

ungulate and prairie dog grazing has changed this 

delicate balance to the detriment of most birds of 

the Great Plains (Vickery et al. 2008). As described 

under uplands in chapter 4, constant fire suppression 

would likely result in negative long-term effects for 

many grassland birds that use the refuge. 

Under alternatives B and D, the use of a patch-burning and prescriptive grazing scheme would benefit the 

greatest number of grassland birds by providing a 

mosaic of diverse habitats. The result would be an increase in diversity in both food and structure (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006) as compared to alternative A, which 

would benefit fewer species than alternatives B and D 

due to constant fire suppression. Managing for different levels of fire severity would also influence bird abundance and species. There would be fewer benefits for 

birds under alternative C, because there would be an 

emphasis on fire suppression to limit economic losses and 

would be a slower transition to prescriptive grazing. 

The season of burn is often an important variable for 

bird mortality during prescribed fires. Burns during nesting season appears to be most detrimental 

to birds and other small mammals, but this depends 

on the uniformity and severity of a burn. In forested 

areas, fire effects depend largely on fire severity 

(Smith 2000). Mortality of adult songbirds is usually considered a minor effect, but mortality of nestlings and fledglings does occur. Nest destruction 

and mortality of young have been reported for several ground-nesting species including sharp-tailed 

grouse, but long-term effects depend partly on their 

tendency to renest. In using prescribed fire on the 

refuge, careful consideration in the timing of fires 

and the type of habitat would minimize negative 

effects to bird species.

Grazing

Annual and prescriptive grazing by domestic livestock would occur under all alternatives and could 

result in short-term and long-term effects for grassland and other Great Plains birds, depending on timing and location (refer to chapter 3, upland objectives). 

Although understanding these effects is extremely 

complex, there are several direct and indirect negative effects associated with grazing (Bock 1993, 

Shackford 1996). Livestock grazing can result in the 

trampling of ground nesting bird nests, the removal 

of necessary cover for birds that require dense midto tallgrass heights for nesting and winter habitat, 

and it contributes to a uniform landscape that supports fewer species of birds. Grazing can negatively 

affect seed and fruit production as well as insect production, which are important food sources for migratory and resident prairie birds. Interior fencing used 

in conjunction with livestock grazing contributes to 

edge effects, negatively affecting some birds. Annual 

grazing often exacerbates negative effects on birds 

by eliminating much of the nesting cover available in 

an area in one grazing season. 

The increased emphasis toward prescriptive 

grazing instead of annual grazing could benefit grassland birds over the long term, provided it was done 

in concert with an objective of improving habitat for 

grassland birds. Domestic livestock can be used to 

mimic native grazers (ungulates and prairie dogs) to 

provide the variety of habitats and foods needed for 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 295

all native grassland bird species. A primary advantage of prescriptive grazing is that when combined 

with fire, a mosaic of habitats would be created (different heights of grasses and more shrubs and forbs) 

benefitting more bird species. 

Areas that remain under an annual grazing 

regime would likely negatively affect some bird 

species to a greater degree in the long term. There 

would continue to be more uniformity of the grasslands and less diversity in structure and plants. Prescriptive grazing targets in alternatives B and D 

would achieve the desired mosaic effects quicker 

than under alternative A, benefitting a diversity of 

bird species. Heavy grazing by elk in some areas 

could offset positive benefits for birds under alternative B. Prescriptive grazing targets in alternative 

C would result in minor benefits to grassland birds.

Public Use and Access

Individual bird species react differently to the 

presence of people. Recreational activities such as 

hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, birdwatching, photography, and the use of and creation of roads and 

camping sites could directly and indirectly affect 

birds. Some bird species such as the nonnative house 

sparrow or the native brown-headed cowbird have 

increased in numbers due to human influences, 

whereas others such as the piping plover have drastically declined due to their specific needs for undisturbed shoreline habitat. Reactions vary according 

to breeding status, species size, group size, location 

within a habitat or current activity (foraging for 

food, roosting, and nesting) (Hamann et al. 1999). 

Under all alternatives, the Service would continue to provide for a variety of wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities. Much of the refuge’s visitation occurs in the fall during hunting season, which 

is past the breeding season for birds. The refuge 

is open for hunting of upland birds, waterfowl and 

migratory gamebirds, and subsequently, some individuals would be negatively affected, but monitoring 

has shown sage-grouse and sharp-tailed populations 

to be stable. There would likely be some modest increases in upland birds hunters under alternatives B, 

C, and D, but overall any incremental negative 

effects on these species would be negligible over the 

long term. 

The Service would improve visitor programs and 

facilities in alternatives B, C, and D largely through 

the development of more opportunities for wildlife 

viewing and other nonconsumptive uses. Although 

more facilities and programs could lead to increased 

disturbances for birds, facilities such as viewing 

blinds can direct and concentrate visitor use and 

lessen negative effects and serve management goals. 

With careful planning and placement, a blind can 

prevent birdwatchers from wandering into sensitive 

habitats while at the same time providing an opportunity to experience birds in an ideal setting (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2007). Refugewide, the minor 

to moderate increases in visitors and facilities (refer 

to section 5.6, effects on visitor services) would have 

negligible effects on birds. There would be more 

temporary disturbances such as increased noise, 

dust, and activity during the construction of new 

trails, viewing blinds, or the science and or interpretive center at Sand Creek Field Station. Scheduling 

construction activities to occur outside of the breeding seasons or migrations would minimize negative 

effects.

Studies have shown that recreational roads and 

trails interrupt the continuity of grasslands and forests, often creating an edge effect, which influences 

breeding communities. Not only can trails affect the 

abundance and distribution of bird species, nest predation is often greater near them (Miller et al. 1998). 

Graveling an added 16 miles of road under alternative 

C (Routes 209 and 838) and 5 miles under alternative D (Route 209) would likely increase traffic along 

those roads resulting in localized incremental disturbances to birds along those corridors. Closing 106 

miles of road in alternative B and 23 miles in alternative D would create larger blocks of relatively undisturbed land, which would benefit birds. 

Very little information is known about numbers of 

boaters on Fort Peck or the Missouri River and or the 

effect they have on waterfowl or other birds on the 

refuge. Under any of the alternatives, there would 

be only incremental increases in boating over 15 

years. Similarly, significant numbers of anglers line 

the shores of Missouri River often during the spring 

breeding season. Much of this occurs during the paddlefish season in select areas from Rock Creek Boat 

Ramp west to the Fred Robinson Bridge, attracting 

large crowds and campers when fish numbers and 

weather conditions are favorable. In recent years, 

MFWP has limited the number of paddlefish fishing 

permits. Although fishing would not change substantially under alternatives B, C, and D, birds would 

continue to be negatively affected to some degree 

from these disturbances during the spring (refer to 

chapter 4 and to fishing in section 5.7 below). 

Special Management Areas 

Protected areas on the refuge such as the research 

natural areas and wilderness generally benefit birds 

by allowing more natural processes to take place with 

fewer disturbances and edge effects. Alternative B 

would result in the greatest benefits from wilderness 

protections, followed by alternatives D, A, and C.

Monitoring

Although more than 250 species of birds have been 

documented on the refuge, there is little data available on most of the species recorded. Under all alter-
296 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

natives, short-term surveys and long-term monitoring 

of all grassland birds would indirectly benefit birds 

as establishing the taxonomy is the foundational first 

step in species conservation. Bird monitoring, if done 

correctly, can quantify the status of bird populations, 

measure trends or changes in status, reveal effects 

of natural or human-induced changes, and aid in the 

development and evaluation of management decisions. The monitoring program for bird populations 

would vary by alternative and would be tied to the 

habitat objectives and focal bird species described in 

chapter 3. 

Survey and monitoring efforts would be limited 

under alternative A largely because of the lack of 

staff and resources and other management priorities. 

It would continue to limit the ability of the Service to 

understand trends in bird numbers or species while 

factors such as climate change are changing bird 

population dynamics. Without this information, the 

Service could negatively affect birds inadvertently 

over the long term through its management actions. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D, a baseline inventory would be completed within about 6 years, and a 

comprehensive monitoring program would be established as part of the overall habitat management program. Alternative D would have the most aggressive 

schedule for implementing a monitoring program to 

tie bird monitoring into the objectives for sentinel 

plant monitoring and focal bird species monitoring. 

Alternative C would have a less aggressive schedule 

and B would be the intermediate alternative.

Conclusion

The Service would increase its monitoring efforts 

under alternatives B, C, and D, which would be tied to 

habitat objectives and focal bird species described in 

chapter 3, benefiting birds over the long term. Annual 

and prescriptive grazing by domestic livestock would 

be used in all alternatives and could result in shortterm and long-term negative effects. Alternative A 

would result in minor to moderate, long-term, negative effects, while alternatives B and D would result 

in minor to moderate long-term benefits from faster 

transition in implementing prescriptive grazing refugewide (4–7 years under alternative B, 6–9 years 

under alternative D), and alternative C would have 

minor benefits. Effects on riparian habitat would be 

minor to moderate incremental benefits for alternative A, moderate long-term benefits for alternative B, 

variable for alternative C, and moderate to major 

long-term benefits for alternative D. Areas with annual 

grazing (under any alternative) would likely continue to negatively affect birds in localized areas, 

resulting in moderate to major negative effects in 

localized areas. 

Under alternative A, constant fire suppression 

would have negative long-term effects for many grassland birds largely due to the lack of diversity in species. Alternatives B and D would apply a patch-burning 

and prescriptive grazing regime that would benefit the 

greatest number of birds, although the timing of fires 

in conjunction with breeding seasons would need to be 

considered. Alternative C would be similar to alternative A. Birds would also benefit from increased invasive 

species management under alternatives B, C, and D. 

Wildlife-dependent recreation activities could 

negatively affect birds in localized areas under all 

alternatives, but overall, incremental, negative 

effects would be minimal with careful planning.

Overall, alternative A would result in negligible 

effects (as negative habitat effects would offset benefits), while alternatives B and D would have moderate to major long-term benefits. Alternative C would 

have minor long-term benefits. In all alternatives, 

areas with annual grazing would continue to have 

moderate to major, localized, negative effects.

Mitigation

The application and timing of prescribed fire would 

need to be considered in reducing mortality particularly during breeding seasons.

Careful planning in locating and building visitor 

facilities or road improvements would minimize disturbances particularly during critical breeding periods. In addition, undertaking a study to fully assess 

the effects of boating and fishing along the Missouri 

River would enable the Service to find ways to work 

with partners and reduce disturbances to birds.

EFFECTS on THREATENED and

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

and SPECIES of CONCERN

Threatened or endangered species at the refuge 

are black-footed ferret, piping plover, least tern, 

and pallid sturgeon. Species of concern are greater 

sage-grouse (candidate), Sprague’s pipit (candidate), 

sicklefin chub, sturgeon chub, black-tailed prairie 

dog, swift fox, and mountain plover. The grizzly bear 

(threatened), although not currently found on the 

refuge, is included in the discussion. The endangered 

whooping crane is a migrant in McCone, Phillips, and 

Valley Counties.

All Alternatives

The Service manages threatened and endangered 

species as trust species and is responsible for helping 

with the recovery of these species that occur within 

the Refuge System. Therefore, everything proposed 

as objectives in chapter 3 for all of the alternatives 

would attempt to have beneficial effects for threatened and endangered species or at worst, be neutral. 

Similar consideration and expected effects apply to 

species of concern.
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 297

Hunting is currently permitted under all of the 

alternatives for greater sage-grouse on the refuge in accordance with State regulations. The Service found in March 2010 that greater sage-grouse 

was “warranted but precluded” for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. That determination places 

it on the candidate list. That status does not offer any 

protection from take, but does raise the level of concern and public scrutiny, places them in the queue for 

eventual listing and requires an annual status review. 

The refuge is not planning to conduct any specific actions related to pallid sturgeon, sicklefin chubs 

or sturgeon chubs so no effects on those species are 

expected to result from the proposed actions under any 

of the alternatives. Least terns and piping plovers are 

relatively rare on the refuge. Negligible to minor positive benefits are expected under all of the alternatives 

while working with USACE on invasive plant control 

and shoreline habitat management to promote attractiveness and nesting success of these shorebirds.

Should the grizzly bear recolonize on the refuge, 

the Service would follow the recovery plans for this 

species. In addition, the Service would develop management plans in cooperation with MFWP, which 

would be a proactive approach for dealing with the 

conflicts that would occur.

Alternative A

Black-footed ferrets were “rediscovered” in Wyoming in 1981, and the 1986 the refuge EIS called 

for maintaining viable black-tailed prairie dog colonies suitable for ferret reintroduction when animals 

became available. Ferret reintroductions began in 

1994 (refer to chapter 4) and about a dozen animals 

remained at the UL Bend Refuge by the end of 2009. 

In response to sylvatic plague–caused prairie dog 

die-offs, the Service and partners have taken measures, including translocation and pulicide (agent to 

kill fleas) applications, to repopulate colonies and to 

prevent plague outbreaks in prairie dog populations.

Overall, efforts contributing to the conservation 

of black-tailed prairie dogs and associated species 

would continue to benefit these species. The maintenance and expansion of prairie dog colonies have 

contributed to habitat and wildlife diversity, natural processes and ecological health. Continuation of 

these efforts under alternative A would result in 

minor, incremental benefits to prairie dogs, blackfooted ferrets, and other associated species over the 

long term.

Alternative A does not include specific management objectives for other threatened and endangered species and species of concern. While the lack 

of specific management guidance could be detrimental to these other species, any such effects would be 

negligible due to the Service’s requirement to manage for special status species on the refuge.

Black-footed ferrets were “rediscovered” in Wyoming in 1981.

USFWS

Alternative B

Consistent with the theme of alternative B, 

resources would be directed toward maintaining and 

enhancing, where appropriate, population levels of 

all threatened and endangered species and species 

of concern to the maximum extent possible and practicable. Such actions would all contribute to achieving biological integrity and managing for biological 
298 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

diversity. Working collaboratively with the many 

involved partners is a theme within the specific 

objectives for each of the special status species listed 

in chapter 3. If successful, an environmental consequence of that approach would be improvement of 

habitats and wildlife populations at a scale larger 

than the refuge.

Several of the objectives in alternative B include 

various monitoring efforts to assess population status and trends of special status species. None of those 

activities is anticipated to have any significant environmental consequences or effects on special status 

species. Several upland birds are identified as focal 

species including Sprague’s pipit and sage-grouse.

Transitioning to prescriptive grazing would occur 

most rapidly under this alternative and would benefit 

many species of wildlife. Reductions in livestock grazing could benefit species like sage-grouse, Sprague’s 

pipit, and other focal bird species that are sensitive to 

heavy livestock grazing applications (MFWP 2005b, 

FWS 2010e) and provide optimum residual cover for 

nesting. Similarly, more intensive grazing could be 

directed to some areas to promote prairie dog expansion and increase habitat for mountain plovers and 

other prairie-related species of concern. 

Managing fire by protecting or preventing sagebrush areas from burning would be a moderate-tomajor benefit for sage-grouse. Similarly, fire could 

be used to remove sagebrush in some areas and promote prairie dog expansion that could also result in 

benefits for associated species. In general, all of the 

management actions that promote native vegetation 

and healthy, functioning riparian systems would benefit native fauna. Actions aimed at reducing invasive 

species would also benefit native flora, fauna, and 

naturally functioning systems.

Overall, alternative B is anticipated to result in 

moderate to major long-term benefits for threatened 

and endangered species and species of concern on 

the refuge.

Alternative C

Most of the threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern management objectives for alternative C are the same as alternative B. Therefore, 

the effects are anticipated to be the same as those 

described under alternative B (moderate to major 

long-term benefits), with the following exceptions.

Efforts to work with USACE to maintain suitable shoreline nesting habitats, if successful, would 

moderately benefit least tern and piping plover populations over the long term. Likewise, efforts to 

maintain at least 50 percent of sage-grouse habitat 

would contribute some habitat to help support sagegrouse population on and surrounding the refuge, 

but would be less effective than maintaining 100 percent of the habitat as proposed under alternative B.

The emphasis under alternative C to provide 

more opportunities for public viewing would likely 

result in more disturbance effects on wildlife from 

people. As those opportunities are developed, care 

would be taken to minimize such disturbance. Over 

the long term, the extent of those effects would likely 

be negligible to minor.

Transitioning to prescriptive grazing would occur 

most slowly under this alternative and fewer benefits for species like sage-grouse, Sprague’s pipit, and 

other focal bird species that are negatively affected 

by heavy livestock grazing would be expected. Similarly, management actions designed to improve habitat conditions are least aggressive and occur over 

longer timeframes so effects on threatened and 

endangered species and species of special concern 

would be least pronounced under this alternative. 

Fires would be aggressively suppressed under this 

alternative and that approach would probably benefit sage-grouse in most situations. However, opportunities to use the proper management response to 

benefit threatened and endangered species and species of concern such as Sprague’s pipit, which benefits in the long term from prescribed fire that reduces 

woody encroachment and invasive species, and other 

wildlife may be missed.

Alternative D

The threatened and endangered species and species 

of concern management objectives, as well as their 

benefits, would be the same as alternative B. Maintenance, restoration and enhancement of special status 

species is essential to restoration of natural ecological processes, the theme of this alternative.

Habitat management actions such as patch burning in sagebrush habitats could help promote prairie dog expansion that would in turn benefit species 

associated with prairie dog colonies. In contrast, fires 

in sagebrush habitats, either prescribed or wildfire, 

could have major negative effects on sage-grouse. 

The sagebrush flats in UL Bend National Wildlife 

Refuge provide critical nesting and wintering habitat for sage-grouse. Wildfire in these areas could 

dramatically alter habitat, resulting in severe negative effects during brooding seasons (Connelly et al. 

2000). Sage-grouse need different habitat throughout the seasons and the actions under alternative D 

should benefit sage-grouse in the long term. Potential threats to sage-grouse habitat would be mapped 

and identified, and sage-grouse habitat would be 

protected, particularly in the sagebrush flats in UL 

Bend. Sage-grouse habitat would be protected in 

prescribed fire and wildfire plans, which would minimize negative effects on important sage-grouse 

areas. 

For areas where Sprague’s pipit is found, fire 

can result in short-term adverse effects but, in the 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 299

long term, habitat quality should be improved (FWS 

2010e). Although short-term grazing could benefit 

Sprague’s pipit, any grazing should take into account 

vegetation potential in the form of structure (i.e., 

vertical and horizontal density) as well as plant species composition, which varies within and across geographic locales. Cattle presence could also result in 

increased abundance of cowbirds (Duffy 2000). With 

monitoring, the actions under alternative D should 

benefit Sprague’s pipit habitat in the long term. 

In general, all of the management actions that 

promote native vegetation and healthy, functioning 

riparian systems would benefit native fauna. Actions 

aimed at reducing invasive species would also benefit native flora, fauna, and naturally functioning systems.

Conclusion

Alternative A does not include specific management 

objectives for other threatened and endangered species and species of concern. While the lack of specific 

management guidance could be detrimental to these 

other species, any such effects would be negligible. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D, resources would be 

directed toward maintaining and enhancing, where 

appropriate, population levels of all threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern to the 

maximum extent possible and practicable, resulting 

in moderate to major benefits over the long term.

Mitigation

Any new visitor facilities would need to be carefully 

planned out to minimize any potential disturbance 

to threatened, endangered, or species of concern. 

Lek viewing blinds would be constructed outside of 

breeding seasons with careful monitoring of use by 

visitors during the breeding seasons. 

EFFECTS on FURBEARERS 

and SMALL PREDATORS

Furbearers include swift fox (discussed under species 

of concern), coyotes, beaver, muskrat river otter and 

mink, raccoons, badgers, and other small mammals.

Alternative A

There would be no changes from the current status or management practices for furbearer species 

under this alternative. Effects would be negligible. All furbearing species, excluding coyote, would 

remain protected from hunting or trapping. Protection from harvest should result in maximum abundance, if not already obtained. 

Overall, current management practices would 

continue to benefit furbearing species by maintaining the amount of current upland habitat, restoring 

riparian habitat, continuing an active fire management program, and moving toward a prescriptive 

livestock-grazing program on some parts of the refuge. Riparian area restoration and protection would 

result in moderate to major benefits for all furbearer 

species, especially the beaver and muskrat (refer 

to riparian habitat above). More benefits would be 

expected for furbearer species that are currently 

below acceptable population levels (for example, 

river otter, beaver, and swift fox) by continuing to 

protect from harvest and by promoting range expansion. However, furbearer species currently at viable, self-sustaining levels (for example, badger and 

coyote) may remain relatively unaffected under this 

alternative. 

It is unknown how predatory furbearer species 

would be affected by changes in grazing or changes 

in prescribed fire frequency. Certain prey species 

may benefit from these management objectives, but 

how they affect the predators is unknown. 

Alternative B

In addition to alternative A, other benefits would 

result from active reintroduction of species not currently found on the refuge or are considered rare (for 

example, swift fox and river otter). These benefits 

would be major and long-term for the affected species.

Alternative C

This alternative could promote sustainable harvest of furbearing species, which have been identified as self-sustaining, through hunting or trapping 

for the sole purpose of maximizing public use opportunities. Harvesting of furbearer species currently 

protected would vary between minor and major, 

negative effects on the furbearer populations. Current regulations do not allow any take of furbearer 

species, except coyote, and thus are currently below 

or at maximum abundance. Any allowable harvest 

would lower current abundance and maintain the 

populations at the minimum, self-sustaining numbers. A comprehensive monitoring program would 

be in affect to detect moderate, negative effects on 

any furbearing species to maintain a minimum, selfsustaining population.

It is unknown how predatory furbearer species 

would be affected by changes in grazing or changes 

in prescribed fire frequency. Certain prey species 

could be affected from these management objectives, 

but how they affect the predators is unknown. 

Alternative D

Under this alternative, harvesting of furbearing species would be possible if populations were considered 

above acceptable levels (based on native habitat and 

food resources) or able to maintain a self-sustaining population with regulated harvest. This should 

result in a negligible effect on the selected furbearing species. A comprehensive monitoring program 

would be in affect to detect minor, negative effects on 
300 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

any furbearing species to maintain maximum abundance. Current management practices on the refuge 

allow only the coyote to be harvested and the other 

species remain protected. Eliminating the taking of 

coyotes on the refuge by agents within Wildlife Services who are in pursuit of coyotes from off the refuge would have negligible effects on coyotes, other 

wildlife species, or livestock.

Conclusion

Under alternative A, few changes would occur in the 

management of furbearers, and effects would be negligible. More benefits for furbearers would occur with 

the implementation of alternatives B and D, such as 

the active reintroduction of species not currently 

found on the refuge or are considered rare (for example, swift fox and river otter). These benefits would 

be major and long-term for the affected species. 

Alternative C could promote sustainable harvest 

of furbearing species that are currently protected, 

resulting in minor to major, negative effects to the 

furbearer populations. Harvest of furbearing species under alternative D would be based on acceptable population levels, resulting in negligible effects.

Mitigation

No mitigation would be necessary.

EFFECTS on AMERICAN BISON 

RESTORATION p

Any proposal to move forward with a restoration 

endeavor for wild bison would be conducted through 

another public process led by MFWP in which all of 

the associated issues about such a proposal would 

be thoroughly examined. Therefore, it is beyond the 

scope of analysis here to exhaustively address or 

evaluate all of the issues associated with a restoration proposal for wild bison. The important aspect 

for the purposes of this CCP is to evaluate the environmental consequences pertinent to the refuge, 

realizing any restoration effort would be part of a 

separate and larger planning effort involving multiple partners.

Alternative A

Wild bison restoration was not addressed in the 

1986 EIS. Given there are no objectives or strategies for restoration and management of wild bison 

under this alternative, it is difficult to anticipate 

what environmental consequences may ensue. If 

wild bison remain absent, progress in restoring 

ecological processes would remain incomplete. If 

restoration of wild bison materialized, ecological systems would move closer to full restoration and their 

presence would likely result in a host of subsequent 

effects that are difficult to predict. The range of environmental consequences with and without the presence of wild bison is more fully explored in the action 

alternatives.

Alternatives B and D

By itself, development of a collaborative restoration and management plan for wild bison would 

not have any environmental consequences. However, the contents and direction of that management 

plan would set the stage for subsequent environmental and social effects should a restoration effort be 

launched that involved the refuge. 

Alternative B emphasizes the abundance of target and focal species, while alternative D emphasizes the diversity of all wildlife species. Wild bison 

restoration would bring back what was once a dominant herbivore in the refuge landscape. Such a project would be consistent with the wildlife population 

emphasis of this alternative (a positive move toward 

restoration of natural ecological processes) and 

would present the opportunity for enhanced wildlife-dependent public uses.

It is anticipated there would be changes in bovid 

herbivory patterns, and subsequent changes in 

plant and community responses, with wild bison 

allowed to range over relatively large areas compared to current management practices for domestic cattle. It is hard to predict what those changes 

would be, because they would be influenced by 

many as of yet undetermined factors, for examle, population targets for wild bison, size and location of areas managed for wild bison, fire frequency

and distribution, topography, and earlier land use 

and management practices. However, it is reasonable to assume that the interaction of wild bison 

with the other factors that affect natural ecological processes would be improved by the presence of 

the dominant herbivore with which these systems 

evolved.

Alternative C

The environmental consequences on the refuge from 

an MFWP effort to restore wild bison would be determined by MFWP management guidelines. Because 

there is currently no proposal being advanced and 

those management guidelines have not been drafted, 

it is difficult to anticipate what the environmental consequences may be, as they would depend on 

many factors yet to be determined.

Given the public and economic use emphasis of 

this alternative, there would be an emphasis on promoting compatible public uses of wild bison (such as 

viewing and hunting) and minimizing influences of 

wild bison on other economic uses of the refuge (such 

as livestock grazing).

Although the presence of wild bison would move 

management toward more naturally functioning ecological processes compared to the absence of wild 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 301

bison, such influences would be minimal. Management efforts would focus on promoting public and 

economic uses with less emphasis on promoting restoration of natural ecological processes.

Conclusion

It would be unlikely that wild bison would be restored 

under alternative A. Under alternatives B, C, and D, 

the development of a collaborative restoration and 

management plan for wild bison would not have any 

environmental consequences. However, the contents 

and direction of that management plan would set 

the stage for subsequent environmental and social 

effects should a restoration effort be launched. Wild 

bison restoration would bring back what was once 

a dominant herbivore in the refuge landscape. Such 

a project would be consistent with the wildlife population emphasis of alternative B and a positive move 

toward restoration of natural ecological processes 

under alternative D. It would present the opportunity 

for enhanced wildlife-dependent public uses.

Mitigation

Mitigation would not be necessary.

EFFECTS on NORTHERN GRAY WOLF

Should the gray wolf recolonize on the refuge, the 

Service would develop management plans in cooperation with MFWP, which would be a proactive 

approach for dealing with the conflicts that would 

occur.

Alternative A

Gray wolf management was not addressed in the 

1986 EIS. Given there are no objectives or strategies for wolf management under this alternative, it 

is difficult to anticipate what environmental consequences may ensue. Should wolves continue to be 

absent, progress in restoring ecological processes 

would remain incomplete. Should wolves become 

established, ecological systems would move closer 

to full restoration and their presence would likely 

result in a host of subsequent effects. Some of these 

potential effects may include altered big game population dynamics, behaviors and habitat use, changes 

in habitats, changes in public hunting programs, and 

livestock depredations. The range of environmental consequences with, and without wolf presence, is 

more fully explored in the action alternatives.

Alternative B

The Service would follow the Northern Rockies 

Recovery Plan for the gray wolf. By itself, development of a refuge-specific gray wolf management plan 

would not have any environmental consequences, 

but the contents and direction of that management 

plan would set the stage for subsequent effects 

should wolves recolonize the Missouri River Breaks. 

An important aspect of developing a refuge-specific 

wolf management plan is that it is scheduled to be 

completed before anticipated wolf recolonization and 

would afford the opportunity for ordered and coordinated development with the public and other agencies before a crisis-management situation should a 

plan not be in place before wolf population establishment. It is likely there would be a high degree of 

conflict and controversy for how wolves would be managed during the interim while the plan was developed.

Alternative B emphasizes the abundance of target species. The philosophy of the plan under this 

alternative would be toward promoting wolf abundance (within ecological constraints) and providing 

for recreational viewing opportunities. Wolf presence would add one more native wildlife species that 

would add diversity and move ecological processes 

toward more naturally functioning systems. Wolves 

would provide predation pressure on ungulates that 

would likely influence their population dynamics, 

behavior, and habitat use. Changes in how native 

ungulates use the landscape would likely result in 

effects on vegetation and habitat dynamics. Those 

changes are expected to be complex interrelationships among many factors and cannot be predicted at 

this time, other than to expect an ecological system 

that includes wolves is closer to restoration of natural processes than a system where wolves are absent.

There would likely be livestock depredation issues 

should wolves recolonize the Missouri River Breaks. 

Management responses to livestock depredations 

under this alternative would be most protective of 

wolves and public hunting of wolves on the refuge 

would not be permitted. As a result, wolf populations 

would likely be greater than under management that 

uses approaches that are more aggressive and would 

probably result in greater influences on native ungulates and related population and habitat responses.

Alternative C

Under alternative C, an ecological system with at 

least some gray wolves present would be closer to 

restoring natural processes than a system where 

they were absent, but the ecological effects and 

resulting changes in aspects of native ungulate ecology and habitat effects would be less than under 

alternatives B or D.

Alternative D

Alternative D would have added emphasis on 

research to document and better understand how 

wolves influence natural ecological processes.

Conclusion

With no objectives and strategies established for 

gray wolf management under alternative A, it would 

be difficult to predict any consequences should they 
302 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

colonize the refuge. Under alternatives B, C, and D, 

the development of a refuge-specific wolf management plan would not have any environmental consequences, but the contents and direction of that 

management plan would set the stage for subsequent effects should wolves recolonize the Missouri 

River Breaks. Completion of a management plan 

under alternatives B and D would likely be more 

effective, because it would be completed before wolf 

population establishment. The completion of a plan 

in alternative C after wolves were established would 

be more contentious and potentially less effective. 

Mitigation

Mitigation of negative livestock effects would need 

to be addressed in any wolf management plan. 

EFFECTS on BIG GAME

Pronghorn, mule deer, white-tailed deer, Rocky Mountain elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, and mountain lion are addressed.

A mountain lion on the refuge.

USFWS

All Alternatives

The effects of management objectives for furbearers, threatened and endangered species, species of 

concern, birds or other wildlife would have minimal, 

if any, effects on big game populations under any of 

the alternatives.

The effects the alternatives would have on hunting opportunities and experience do not directly 

affect big game populations and are addressed under 

public use. However, under all of the alternatives, 

hunting and harvest levels would be a major factor 

affecting populations. Harvest levels can be adjusted 

more easily than weather or other factors that would 

also influence population levels. The aim would be to 

adjust harvest to achieve specified objectives under 

each of the alternatives.

Invasive Species. Management objectives for shorelines and working with USACE to address habitat needs for threatened and endangered species 

and management actions to reduce invasive species 

will have negligible effects on big game populations. 

Overall, efforts to reduce invasive species and maintain and restore native plant communities will benefit big game species and other wildlife.

Fire. Overall, wildfire and prescribed fire would 

have negligible effects on big game animals. Animals 

do not flee wildfire as is commonly believed. When 

mortality of large animals does occur, it is usually from 

smoke inhalation in very large, very fast-moving fires. 

The refuge has experienced some fast-moving wildfires in the past, which have likely resulted in some 

animal mortality. However, documentation of mortality is very rare, indicating minimal overall effects. 

The biggest effect fire has on wildlife is the change 

in their habitats. Wildlife habitats, like forests, are 

not static; they adapt and respond to disturbances 

as do other natural systems. Fire changes the proportion, arrangement, and characteristic of habitats 

across the landscape. Immediately after a fire, there 

can be temporary loss of food and shelter; animal 

populations may shift from species that prefer cool, 

moist conditions to ones that prefer warm, dry conditions. Unburned areas and adjacent burned areas 

result in a mosaic of habitats with a range of vegetative conditions in which wildlife can find food and 

cover (Lyon and Telfer 2009). 

Roads and Access. Existing road access would 

remain under alternative A and would result in few 

new effects on big game populations. However, if 

more hunters continue to access the refuge from the 

river, which has been a trend in recent years, there 

could be more wildlife disturbance affecting use and 

movements by elk in some local areas. It is also well 

documented that roads and traffic during the hunting season affect big game movements and distribution (especially for elk) with animals avoiding roads. 

Less easily accessed areas may provide a degree of 

refugia for big game from hunters and allow more 

animals, especially males, to survive the hunting season. In addition, decreased road access almost certainly reduces poaching. 

Road access objectives in alternatives B, C, and D 

intend to reduce or improve road access to some 

degree. Effects on big game would be expected to 

be commensurate with the degree of road access 

change. The implementation of game retrieval roads 

on the north side in alternative D would benefit 

big game population by reducing disturbance and 

increasing wildlife security particularly along the 

ridge tops. The amount of open roads under all of 

the alternatives provides sufficient vehicular access 

to the hunting public and essentially the entire refuge is open to hunting. Hunting season structure and 

length, combined with permit levels for some species, will have the dominant effect on big game populations regardless of road management changes that 

may occur under each of the alternatives.
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 303

Wilderness. Because the biggest difference in proposed wilderness units on the refuge and other areas 

is roads, any effects the adjustments to proposed 

wilderness units suggested in each alternative might 

have on big game populations would parallel effects 

outlined above for vehicle access via roads.

Grizzly Bear Management. In itself, the drafting of a 

grizzly bear management plan would have no effect 

on big game populations, but implementation of management strategies developed in the plan could have 

major effects on big game populations should grizzly 

bears colonize the refuge. Grizzly bears would likely 

replace part of the big game mortality now attributed to hunter harvest, but the degree to which this 

would occur is unknown and speculative.

Alternative A

There would be no changes from current objectives 

and management practices for big game under this 

no-action alternative. The big game density objectives that were established for native ungulates 

are thought to be well within habitat capacities for 

long-term population viability and allow for maintenance of or improvement in habitat quality. Continued management for habitat conditions and 

diversity that support healthy big game populations 

would also result in habitat conditions favorable for 

a wide range of other wildlife, especially migratory 

birds, many Special Status Species, and sharp-tailed 

grouse. Opportunities remain for expanding bighorn 

sheep populations into previously occupied habitat. 

Such expansion would restore a missing wildlife component to those areas and could provide more recreational opportunities. Overall, wildlife management 

objectives under alternative A would result in minor 

benefits to big game populations.

Mountain lion presence or management was not 

considered in the 1986 EIS. With no changes proposed for management under alternative A, there 

would be negligible effects on mountain lion populations. Their abundance, distribution, population composition, and trends would remain unknown.

Habitat Management. The objectives for uplands, river 

bottoms, riparian areas and wetlands, shorelines and 

invasive species under alternative A would result in 

negligible effects compared to status or trends in big 

game populations that have always been variable and 

dependent on local conditions and management circumstances. Although a positive approach, the proposed objectives to increase the quantity and quality 

of shrubs on about 1 percent of the refuge over 15 

years would have negligible effects on wildlife populations. The speed at which transition to prescriptive grazing progressed would determine its utility 

to achieve specified wildlife and habitat objectives.

Fire. Both prescribed fire and wildfire objectives 

under alternative A would continue current management strategies and resource protection policies. It 

is difficult to predict the effect fire alone may have on 

big game populations without specifics. The effects 

could be positive or negative depending on the situation, species, locale, previous management, disturbances, or other factors. Fire in some pine–juniper 

areas could dramatically reduce thermal cover that 

is essential to mule deer survival during severe winter weather. However, reduction of conifer cover in 

other areas may improve habitat suitability for bighorn sheep. There would certainly be immediate 

short-term effects depending on fire intensity and 

spatial extent in addition to intermediate and more 

long-term effects that would be complex and variable across the refuge. These same short- to longterm effects would apply to all alternatives.

Alternative B

With this alternative emphasizing big game abundance, management actions would strive to increase 

big game populations and distribution wherever 

possible within habitat limits. Such increases would 

necessitate reductions in livestock grazing to reduce 

competition and to provide adequate forage and 

space for native ungulates without adversely affecting habitat quality and conditions for other wildlife 

species.

Habitat objectives and monitoring on the refuge would be the primary guide for determining 

allowable big game population levels. As one tool to 

increase and sustain big game populations at higher 

levels, harvest rates would be reduced from current 

levels for some species. To achieve population composition ratios similar to a lightly hunted population, 

harvest intensity of males would be reduced from 

current levels, affording the opportunity for ecological processes to occur in a more natural fashion compared to the current heavy emphasis on harvest of 

the largest antlered males, especially for mule deer 

and elk. As shown by habitat monitoring, population 

levels would be largely controlled through harvest of 

antlerless animals.

Alternative B objectives for bighorn sheep are 

consistent with current management. Ram harvest 

is comparatively conservative and ewe harvest or 

removal has been limited, as there remains suitable but unoccupied habitat where populations may 

expand. All elk hunting is currently by permit only 

and compared to bighorn sheep, harvest intensity 

is greater for elk. Comparatively, big game harvest 

pressure is greatest on mule deer as there are no 

limits on how many people can hunt in all but one 

small hunting district in McCone County. Portions 

of the refuge have a shortened season compared to 

adjacent lands, but there are no limits on mule deer 
304 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

harvest like there is with permits for elk, pronghorn, 

and bighorn sheep hunting.

Compared to current conditions, the consequences of adjusting harvest rates under this alternative would be minor for bighorn sheep, moderate 

for elk, and major for mule deer. These changes 

would generally result in populations and ecosystem processes more closely approximating naturally 

functioning systems as the current intense pressures to harvest the largest antlered males would 

be reduced. Although harvest opportunities for male 

elk and mule deer would be reduced from current 

levels, many would welcome such management for 

quality public land hunting. However, some members of the public and MFWP would find such a management approach unacceptable and would consider 

the limitations an unnecessary restriction on hunting opportunity. 

When big game populations are managed for 

higher densities and near the carrying capacities of 

habitats, disease risks generally increase. Although 

chronic wasting disease has not yet been detected in 

wild cervids in Montana, the potential exists. Should 

chronic wasting disease present, high cervid populations would likely increase risk, incidence, prevalence and spread of the disease. Continued efforts to 

monitor for chronic wasting disease would benefit 

cervids by providing an opportunity for early detection and necessary mitigation (specified in the refuge’s chronic wasting disease management plan), 

should it occur.

Other diseases such as bovine brucellosis, bovine 

tuberculosis, and paratuberculosis are not currently 

known to be present, but should they become an 

issue, management for high native ungulate densities would be counter to management needs to minimize such diseases. Because of the susceptibility 

of bighorn sheep to nearly complete die-offs from 

pneumonia and other diseases, there would be little 

change from current management practices that aim 

to keep sheep populations below carrying capacity in 

an effort to reduce risks to disease and maintain stable populations over the long term.

Success in coordinating big game surveys and 

research projects with MFWP would result in a better understanding of big game population dynamics, effects of harvest and native ungulate ecology in 

relation to other biotic and abiotic factors at a scale 

larger than the refuge. An improved understanding 

of natural ecological processes involving big game 

at a landscape scale would provide a better basis for 

management decisions and adaptive adjustments, and 

would result in major long-term benefits to big game.

There are no changes proposed for mountain lion 

management under alternative B, but there could be 

effects on mountain lion populations resulting from 

how native ungulates are managed. Management for 

abundant native ungulate populations would likely 

result in greater mountain lion abundance with more 

abundant prey compared to management under the 

other alternatives. In contrast, if the stated objectives for sentinel plants are not met, native ungulate 

populations may be reduced to low levels for a long 

time resulting in corresponding effects on mountain 

lion populations with limited prey availability. A consequence could be increased lion depredation.

In contrast to alternative A, there would be 

efforts to document mountain lion abundance, distribution, population composition and trends in an 

attempt to better understand their ecology and function in a larger landscape.

Overall, successful implementation of wildlife 

management objectives in alternative B would result 

in moderate benefits to big game species.

Pronghorn

© Diane Hargreaves

Habitat Management. The objectives for uplands 

listed under alternative B call for writing plans and 

developing monitoring approaches and would have 

no immediate effects on big game. Success in fencing 

boundaries and reducing “common” pastures would 

facilitate management actions that could promote 

habitat quality in support of big game populations. 

Compared to the other alternatives, the objectives 

for uplands under alternative B move most quickly 

to prescriptive grazing and that should reduce conflicts between livestock and native ungulates and be 

a benefit to big game. However, if the stated objectives for sentinel plants are not met, big game populations may be reduced to low levels for a long 

time resulting in moderate short-term effects on 

big game. Monitoring results would provide a feedback loop for evaluation of management actions and 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 305

adopting adaptive management changes for the next 

iteration of attempts to improve habitat conditions 

and maintain abundant big game populations.

The objectives for planting food plots attractive 

to big game in previously cultivated river bottoms 

would likely benefit big game populations and could 

reduce conflicts with adjacent landowners by luring 

animals away from private land. With reduced landowner conflict, managing for greater big game populations levels may be possible.

Efforts to improve the health and function of 

riparian and wetland areas would benefit big game 

populations by providing more quality habitat, forage 

and flowing streams. Removal of reservoirs and restoration of natural hydrological systems would likely 

have multiple and complex effects on big game and 

would be variable, depending on the proportion of a 

watershed involved. Big game species did not evolve 

with the numerous constructed impoundments present today and their removal would move systems 

toward more naturally functioning processes. Both 

native ungulate and livestock distribution and use 

patterns would change with reservoir removal and 

it would take time for riparian systems to respond 

to changes in waterflow patterns. With changes in 

ungulate foraging patterns over time (for example, more intensive grazing near remaining water 

sources and reduced grazing where reservoirs had 

been removed), vegetative communities would shift 

over time. In the long term, the result would probably be favorable for big game populations, but the 

extent and magnitude are hard to predict.

Overall, habitat management objectives in alternative B would result in minor to moderate benefits 

to big game.

Fire. Several objectives for prescribed fire in alternative B set priorities for areas to burn, areas not 

to burn, and development of plans. Until such plans 

are carried out, the effects of fire on big game populations would be the continued selection of resources 

and use of habitat by animals in response to ongoing vegetation succession. Those selection patterns 

would be the result and expression of a multitude of 

complex and changing influences that include human 

disturbance, previous fires, and livestock management practices on and next to the refuge.

Alternative B includes an objective to develop 

a patch-burning system to treat at last 2,500 acres 

annually, which would be up to 40,000 acres over 15 

years. It would be difficult to demonstrate the effects 

of such a system on big game populations, because 

there are numerous other variables involved. Several burns that were spatially distributed annually 

would be relatively insignificant, given the movements and home range sizes of most big game species. There could be some local effects—positive, 

neutral, or negative—on individuals, depending on 

the location and local situation. Considering that the 

density of mule deer on the refuge averaged about 

6 per square mile from 2000–05, if the refuge reached 

the stated burn targets each year, annually those 

fires would affect at most 8 square miles on the refuge, and overall the effect on the refuge’s mule deer 

population would be negligible.

Given the different life histories and ecology of the 

various big game species, burning would have both 

positive and negative effects depending on the species involved and specifics of the situation, locale, and 

site history. For example, applying prescribed fire 

to sagebrush and juniper could reduce habitat quality for wintering pronghorn and mule deer but could 

increase forage production for elk and bighorn sheep, 

depending on local conditions and surrounding land 

use and management practices. The fire objectives 

for hazardous fuel reduction would have no effect on 

big game populations; the areas targeted for treatment are small and have an insignificant influence 

on big game populations compared to factors such as

weather, harvest intensity, and tolerance for depredation of crops or grasslands on neighboring ranchlands.

White-tailed Deer

USFWS

Wolf and Wild Bison Management. Under alternative 

B, wolf colonization would represent a step forward 

in ecosystem restoration and stewardship (Licht 

et al. 2010). Among the alternatives, wolves would 

likely have the most effect on big game, especially elk, 

mule deer and white-tailed deer under alternative B. 

Depending on established population level objectives, wolf predation would likely replace part of the 

big game mortality now attributed to hunter harvest.

Should efforts to reintroduce wild bison materialize, adjustments in management and population 
306 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

objectives for other big game species may or may not 

be necessary. A detailed evaluation of how wild bison 

restoration may affect other resources is beyond the 

scope of this planning effort, but would be completed 

during a MFWP planning effort and framework 

development for the refuge.

Alternative C

In contrast to alternative B, management of big game 

populations would be geared toward maximizing 

sustainable harvest levels. As a result, populations 

would have younger age structures and sex ratios 

skewed toward females compared to management 

under alternatives B or D. A high priority would 

be given to adjacent landowner concerns about big 

game abundance, game damage outside the refuge 

and would likely result in management for big game 

densities below ecological carrying capacity. Adjustments of livestock grazing may be considered if the 

result could be greater opportunity for increasing 

the number of big game animals that could be harvested annually. As with all the alternatives, habitat 

monitoring would help guide appropriate population 

target levels. Wildlife management objectives under 

alternative C would result in moderate to major negative effects on big game species and natural ecological processes as management would intentionally 

skew populations toward younger and female-dominated populations to maximize harvests. 

The effects of management under alternative C 

on mountain lion populations would likely be minimal 

as prey base management would not be much different from management under alternative A. Evaluation of establishing a hunting season for mountain 

lions is called for under this alternative. A prerequisite for creating a new hunting season would be 

collection of sufficient data to understand mountain 

lion abundance, distribution, population composition 

and trends that also provided a basis for responsible harvest management that assured the long-term 

sustainability of mountain lion populations. That 

monitoring data would provide a better understanding of mountain lion ecology than with no monitoring 

under alternative A. Should a mountain lion season 

become established, mountain lions would likely be 

managed for lower population levels than under any 

of the other alternatives in an attempt to minimize 

any livestock depredation issues.

Habitat Management. Similar to alternative B, the 

upland and river bottom objectives of writing plans 

and developing monitoring strategies would have no 

immediate effects on big game. The speed at which 

boundary fence is constructed to facilitate management treatments and transitioning to prescriptive 

grazing is slowest under alternative C; therefore, any 

positive results for big game populations would also 

be expected to be delayed. It is doubtful any meaningful relationships could be established between big 

game population responses to achievement of the 

specified upland forb and shrub objectives. Restoration of native vegetation to river bottoms would be 

beneficial to big game.

Riparian area and wetland management objectives 

under alternative C, which generally seek to restore 

degraded riparian areas and systems, would be generally favorable to big game populations. However, with 

the emphasis of managing riparian resources toward 

maximizing livestock grazing and meeting NRCS 

range conditions, more uniform distribution of grazing 

would be expected. With changes in water distribution 

and availability, livestock and big game distribution 

and foraging patterns would also be expected to interact and to change. With such changes (for example, 

more uniform forage utilization), vegetative communities would likely shift, but the extent and magnitude 

are hard to predict without specifics. 

Development of more water impoundments would 

hinder restoration of riparian areas and expand the 

distribution of livestock, resulting in negative effects 

on big game populations, depending on livestock 

stocking rates. The maintenance or creation of new 

reservoirs by itself would likely result in a negligible 

effect on big game populations in the absence of livestock grazing.

Habitat management objectives in alternative C 

would have negligible overall effects on big game 

populations.

Fire. With the prescribed fire objectives in alternative C being much less aggressive and taking place 

over a longer timeframe than fire objectives in alternative B, there would be minimal effects on big game 

populations for the same reasons discussed under 

alternative B above.

Wolf and Wild Bison Management. The effects of wolf 

colonization and management under MFWP’s wolf 

management plan on big game populations would 

be similar under alternative C. Wolves would be 

managed to minimize conflicts with livestock and for 

recreational viewing.

The concept of wild bison restoration in Montana 

is in its infancy, and MFWP has only recently begun 

preliminary scoping discussions and has not started 

a planning process. For these reasons, it is difficult to 

predict how wild bison restoration, if pursued, would 

affect big game populations on the refuge under a 

MFWP management plan as called for under alternative C. 

Alternative D

Many of the environmental consequences of big game 

management under alternative D would be similar to 

those described under alternative C, but to a lesser 

degree. It would seek a more balanced approach 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 307

that still achieves natural ecological function, natural density, and sex and age composition makeup of 

big game populations. This approach provides for 

reasonable recreation and harvest opportunities and 

fulfills the quality wildlife-dependent recreational 

use emphasis directives of the Improvement Act.

The main big game objective under alternative D 

calls for cooperatively developing population and 

habitat monitoring strategies with MFWP and establishing desired population and abundance levels. Successful accomplishment of the big game objectives 

under alternative D could result in big game populations meeting the Service’s goal of increasing biological diversity and integrity, but numbers of ungulates 

would likely need to be reduced in some areas. Ideally, distribution and density targets would be tailored to ecological units and their ability to support 

native ungulates.

Additionally, alternative D would provide quality 

wildlife-dependent public uses and experiences. Management under alternative D would provide more 

recreational opportunity than under alternatives A 

and B, but less than alternative C.

The effects of limited mountain lion hunting would 

be similar to alternative C. If wildlife and sentinel 

plant monitoring shows stable and robust populations, a limited mountain lion hunt would have negligible effects on the population.

Habitat Management. The upland, river bottom, and 

riparian area and wetland objectives for alternative D 

would strive to manage toward functional vegetative 

communities with the full complement of native plant 

species and processes. Once achieved, such habitat 

conditions could be expected to support abundant 

big game populations, perhaps not unlike those 

described by early explorers, and a complex system 

of co-evolved flora and fauna. Such habitat conditions would result in moderate to major long-term 

benefits for big game populations, but could result 

in moderate, short-term, negative effects for several 

years with reduced livestock and big game populations to reduce total ungulate herbivory until stated 

objectives for sentinel plants are achieved.

Fire. Although Frost (2008) used fire scar chronologies, 

vegetation, soil, and topography among other methods to reconstruct the approximate fire frequency on 

the refuge, the response of plants and ungulates in the 

diverse habitat types of the refuge is not fully understood. Furthermore, there are multiple and competing 

perspectives on what the historical fire regimes were. 

Only well-executed monitoring of plant and animal 

responses to fires would lead to an assessment and better understanding of the effects of management actions 

such as patch burns and restoration of pyric herbivory 

systems, which could alter forage selectivity and abandonment by animals or change the ecological resilience. 

The effects of fire management objectives on big game 

and other wildlife would vary by location, timing, fire 

behavior, and other factors and result in a negligible, 

short-term, negative effect in some areas and potential 

minor to moderate long-term benefits.

The objectives for prescribed fire and wildfire in 

alternative D are similar to alternative B, although 

there would be a greater emphasis on patch burning 

in alternative D. As discussed under alternative B 

above, there would be few if any effects on big game 

populations directly attributable to fire.

Wolf and Wild Bison Management. The objectives for 

wolf management and wild bison restoration potential under alternative D is the same as alternative B; 

therefore, the effects on big game populations would 

be the same as described under alternative B.

Conclusion

Alternative A would continue current management 

with minor benefits. Alternative B would result in 

populations and ecosystem processes more closely 

approximating natural functioning systems, with 

moderate overall benefits for big game. Alternative C 

would result in moderate to major negative effects on 

big game populations as natural ecological processes 

are intentionally skewed to maximize harvests. Alternative D would result in moderate to major benefits to 

big game, using a balanced approach to management. 

With few changes in habitat management under 

alternative A, there would be negligible effects on 

existing big game populations that have always 

been variable and dependent on local conditions. 

Over the long term, habitat management objectives 

would result in minor to moderate benefits to big 

game under alternative B because of reducing livestock conflicts. Alternative C would have negligible 

effects. Similar to alternative B, alternative D would 

result in minor to moderate benefits to big game 

populations with a greater emphasis on prescriptive 

grazing. However, alternatives B and D could also 

result in moderate negative effects if big game populations are reduced to achieve sentinel plant objectives.

Drafting of a wolf management plan or evaluating the potential would have negligible effects on big 

game populations. Should wolves colonize the refuge 

or wild bison be reintroduced, in the long term, there 

could be negative effects on big game, and adjustment in management and populations could be necessary. Effects on mountain lion populations would 

vary by alternative, depending on big game and prey 

population levels and hunting opportunities; the 

overall effects would be negligible. 

Overall, in the long term, alternative A would have 

minor benefits on big game populations, while alternative B would have minor to moderate benefits, and 

alternative D would have moderate benefits (health), 
308 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

although numbers could be reduced to improve diversity across the refuge. Alternative C would result in 

moderate negative effects on big game populations.

Mitigation

Generally, mitigation would not be required under 

this alternative. However, under alternative B, 

because big game populations would be managed 

for higher densities, the potential for diseases being 

introduced into the herds’ increase. If this occurred, 

depending on the disease and its prevalence, mitigation measures could be necessary.

EFFECTS on OTHER 

WILDLIFE

Other wildlife includes 

amphibians, reptiles, fish, 

and small mammals such 

as bats and other small 

rodents.

Red Bat

© Cindie Brunner

Habitat Management

Species that depend on 

uplands for parts of their 

life cycle would generally 

benefit from efforts under all alternatives to maintain 

and improve upland habitats including prescriptive 

livestock grazing, prescribed fire, and invasive species management. While prescribed fire, prescriptive 

livestock grazing, or other management techniques 

may result in short-term, negative effects on individual animals or localized areas (due to trampling or the 

elimination of vegetative cover), the long-term benefits of these measures to amphibian and reptile populations would outweigh the negative effects. Overall, 

these benefits would be moderate to major under alternative D, followed by alternatives B (moderate) and C 

(minor). Alternative A would result in minor, incremental, negative effects on upland habitats and their value 

for amphibians and reptiles. 

In a similar fashion, efforts to protect and restore 

riparian habitat areas (including exclosure fence construction and other livestock management efforts) 

would greatly benefit amphibian, reptile, and fish 

species, most of which depend on riparian habitats 

for survival (Pilliod and Wind 2008). Under alternative A, these benefits would be minor though some 

localized areas would continue to decline, resulting 

in moderate, long-term, negative effects on riparian 

area-dependent species. Benefits to these species and 

their habitat would be moderate under alternatives B 

and D, and would vary under alternative C depending on the management emphasis in certain locations. 

Invasive Species 

Pesticides used to control invasive plants cause negative effects to amphibians and reptiles (Maxell 

and Hokit 1999). Under all alternatives, the invasive species program would be carried out through 

an approved stepdown plan. All personnel who use 

chemicals would be trained in the proper application 

of where, when, and how to apply them, which would 

minimize negative effects to amphibians and reptiles.

Water Impoundments

While water impoundments have contributed to the 

degradation of native riparian habitats, existing 

impoundments provide open-water habitat for many 

reptiles and amphibians and some fish species that 

is otherwise scarce on the refuge. Indirect effects 

of new development of water impoundments may 

result in the creation or loss of key breeding, foraging and overwintering habitats for amphibians 

and reptiles (Maxell and Hokit 1999) and fish. Recreational use of water impoundments brings people and pets into direct contact with native wildlife, 

which can have negative effects. Additionally, predators and game fish use these areas and can have a 

negative effect on amphibians and reptiles (Maxell 

and Hokit 1999). Increased use by waterfowl can lead 

to increased predation on amphibians and reptiles and 

is associated with decreased water quality, and in some 

cases, decreased habitat for amphibians and reptiles.

Alternative A would not change management of 

water impoundments, and therefore would not affect 

amphibian, reptile, and fish species that depend on 

them. Efforts under alternative C to evaluate existing impoundments for rehabilitation, removal, or 

new pond development would likely result in negligible to minor benefits to species that use those 

areas. The removal of many water impoundments in 

alternatives B and D would result in moderate shortterm localized negative effects on some amphibian, 

reptile, and fish populations. However, this openwater habitat need would likely be served over the 

long term by the restoration of native riparian systems, resulting in moderate long-term benefits to 

species that use lentic wetlands. 

Roads and Access

Indirect effects from roads on riparian areas include 

negative effects on wildlife that use riparian areas. 

Large numbers of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and 

small mammals are killed on roads. Some reptiles 

and amphibians undergo mass migrations to and 

from breeding habitats and may be killed while 

crossing roads. Northern leopard frogs exposed to 

loud noises (120 decibels) become immobilized, possibly leading to increased mortality while crossing 

roads. Vehicle noise may prevent amphibians from 

hearing and moving toward breeding areas leading 

to negative effects. Contaminated runoff from roads 

and increased sedimentation from road construction could enter riparian areas, negatively affecting 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 309

amphibians and fish. The density of roads is negatively associated with the probability that amphibians would occupy a pond (Maxell and Hokit 1999). 

Pesticides used to control invasive plants cause 

negative effects on amphibians and reptiles (Maxell 

and Hokit 1999).

Alternative A

There would be no changes from the current status or management practices for other wildlife species under this alternative. All small mammal species 

would be protected from harvesting, resulting in 

maximum abundance if not already obtained. 

Small mammals would benefit from the maintenance of upland habitat; restoration of riparian habitat; a continued, active, fire management program; 

and progressive movement toward a prescriptive 

livestock-grazing program. For small mammal species that are currently below maximum population 

levels, there could be major positive benefits because 

of not hunting and by promoting range expansion. 

However, choosing this alternative would have a 

negligible effect on remaining populations that are 

currently at viable, self-sustaining levels. 

The use of prescribed fire would have mixed 

results on small mammal communities. Short-term, 

negative effects would result from fire due to reduction of residual cover as well as a temporary reduction in forage availability. Species that require 

larger patches of residual cover would be negatively 

affected; however, the effect would be short-term as 

fire-return intervals mimic historical levels. Overall, an increase in prescriptive fire in areas that were 

historically suppressed would result in a long-term, 

positive effect for small mammal communities. 

This alternative would also result in positive 

effects to raptors and other predatory species that 

rely on small mammals for survival. 

Alternatives B and D

Specific objectives and strategies targeted toward 

reptiles, amphibians, and fish would contribute to the 

long-term benefits for these species. The completion 

of inventory plans or baseline surveys for high priority areas would benefit these species by improving 

the ability of the Service to monitor and evaluate the 

success of habitat objectives. 

In addition to the effects of alternative A, management actions in alternatives B and D would continue 

to have long-term, negligible to minor benefits to the 

small mammal community. Active removal of continued, season-long grazing would increase many small 

mammal species found in upland and riparian habitats. Season-long grazing has shown to decrease small 

mammal diversity and relative abundance by limiting residual cover and forage availability for granivorous species (Chapman and Ribic 2002). Prescriptive 

grazing techniques could have short-term, moderate, 

negative effects on small mammal communities. However, small mammal communities would be expected 

to recover after short-term grazing prescriptions. 

Continued research and monitoring would provide additional data on nongame species with limited 

distributions or specific habitat needs (for example, 

bat rookery or roosting sites). Once identified, adaptive management practices could provide more protection for high-priority species and habitat needs. 

Alternative C

As in alternatives B and D, alternative C has specific 

objectives and strategies for amphibians, reptiles, 

and fish. Alternative C would further emphasize the 

restoration of native reptile, amphibian, and fish that 

provide recreational and wildlife-viewing opportunities, which would benefit the populations that are 

being restored. 

Small mammal communities would be negatively 

affected under this alternative. Continued fire suppression in native prairie habitats would negatively 

affect small mammal communities by allowing the 

invasion of exotic species, increasing the encroachment of woody plants, and increasing heavy accumulations of litter (Cid et al. 1991, Larson et al. 2001, 

Howe 1994, Samson and Knopf 1994). Although some 

small mammal species that require large amounts of 

residual cover or greater habitat structure (woody 

vegetation) would be positively affected (for example, western harvest mouse), the small mammal community composition would be expected to diminish 

over time by the reduction of native plant species. 

Similar to alternative B, prescriptive grazing 

techniques should have short-term, moderate, negative effects on small mammal communities. However, small mammal communities would be expected 

to recover after short-term grazing prescriptions. 

Under this alternative, a management objective of 

more grasses and less forbs and shrubs, would negatively affect small mammal communities by eliminating the amount forage available for certain species. 

Particularly, species that forage on forbs and shrubs 

would be negatively affected and a reduction in 

range would be expected.

Overall effects of alternative C would be negligible to minor over the long term. 

Conclusion

Baseline information on amphibian, reptile, and fish 

diversity and abundance is limited. Effects to amphibians, reptiles, and fish would be based mostly on 

changes to the habitat on which they depend including uplands, riparian areas, and water impoundments. Amphibians and reptiles occupy a range of 

habitat types on the refuge, and serve as key indicators for the environmental health of the ecosystem. 
310 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Nineteen species of amphibians and reptiles have 

been identified on the refuge, while numerous fish 

species have been identified in both large rivers and 

small streams during various sampling surveys. 

There would be no changes from the current status or management practices for small mammal species under alternative A. Alternatives B and D would 

continue to have long-term, negligible to minor benefits to the small mammal community. While prescriptive grazing techniques could have short-term, 

moderate, negative effects, small mammal communities would be expected to recover after short-term 

grazing prescriptions. Some small mammal communities would be negatively affected under alternative C 

from continued fire suppression in native prairie 

habitats by allowing the invasion of exotic species, 

increasing the encroachment of woody plants, and 

increasing heavy accumulations of litter.

Efforts under all alternatives to maintain and 

improve upland habitats—including transitioning 

to using prescriptive grazing instead of annual grazing, applying prescribed fire, and managing invasive species—would generally benefit species that 

depend on uplands for parts of their life cycle. The 

short-term negative effects of habitat management 

actions would be outweighed by the long-term benefits. Overall, these benefits would be moderate to 

major under alternative D, followed by alternatives 

B (moderate) and C (minor). Alternative A would 

result in minor, incremental, negative effects on 

upland habitats and their value for amphibians and 

reptiles. 

Alternative A would not change management of 

water impoundments, and therefore would not affect 

amphibian, reptile, and fish species that depend on 

them. Efforts under alternative C to evaluate existing impoundments for rehabilitation, removal, or 

new pond development would likely result in negligible to minor benefits to species that use those areas. 

The removal of many water impoundments in alternatives B and D would result in moderate, shortterm, localized, negative effects on some amphibian, 

reptile, and fish populations, followed by long-term 

benefits. 

The use of pesticides to control invasive weeds 

could harm amphibians and reptiles, but the effects 

could be minimized through proper training in the 

application of chemicals. Under any alternative some 

reptiles and amphibians are likely to be negatively 

affected from the large network of roads on the refuge. Road closures in alternatives B and D could 

benefit amphibians and reptiles in localized areas. 

Mitigation

For management of upland habitats, in essence, the 

objectives and strategies lay out a path for mitigating uplands that are in decline or have not seen significant improvement since implementation of the 

1986 record of decision. This includes (1) establishing 

a more effective monitoring program to look at plant 

species that are declining, (2) reducing fencing in 

some areas, (3) fencing the boundary or keeping livestock away from riparian area corridors, (4) implementing a continual transition toward prescriptive 

grazing, (5) managing wild ungulates, (6) carefully 

applying prescribed fire through approved fire management plans and burn permits, and (7) increasing 

the emphasis on controlling invasive species (horse 

users are required to use weed-free hay, and there 

has been significant effort to increase public education about the transport of invasive species).

Similarly, for riparian area restoration including 

stock pond removal, mitigation has been built into 

the objectives and strategies. This includes tactics 

such as (1) not removing ponds that contain species 

of concern, (2) fencing, (3) keeping livestock out of 

riparian areas, (4) establishing a plan for restoration 

and monitoring the results, (5) incorporating applicable regulatory compliance such as wetland permitting, and (6) frequent supervision of projects to avoid 

adverse effects such as trampling. Refer to chapter 

3, section 3.8, “Habitat—Riparian Area and Wetland.”

Whenever possible, the Service would avoid 

spraying pesticides in sensitive riparian habitats. 

However, invasive species such as saltcedar are found 

along the riparian habitat, and the harm by the lack 

of treatment could have a greater long-term, negative effect on amphibians and reptiles. Developing 

and implementing a stepdown plan for invasive species management, together with the rigorous training of personnel in the use of any chemicals could 

limit negative effects on amphibians, reptiles, and 

native fish species (refer to chapter 3). The implementation of an inventory and monitoring program 

on the refuge would be a first step in identifying the 

most sensitive areas, particularly for species of concern such as the northern leopard frog. Alternatives 

to spraying could be necessary in these areas.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

on BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

None of the proposed alternatives would result in 

cumulative effects on habitat, threatened and endangered species, species of concern, wolf management, furbearers, small mammals, fish, reptiles, and 

amphibians.

While direct and indirect effects of the Enhancement Act of 2000 (conveyance of cabin sites) are outside the scope of this analysis, cumulative effects are 

discussed. Implementation of the Enhancement Act 

of 2000 would potentially result in the addition of 

between 10,000 and 40,000 acres of upland and ripar-
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 311

ian habitat to the refuge. Under any refuge management alternative, the addition of these lands to the 

refuge, which would include large tracts of unbroken 

native prairie sagebrush steppe habitat, and riparian areas, would result in minor cumulative benefits 

to upland and riparian habitat, and the wildlife species that depend on those areas, by removing inholdings, reducing existing habitat fragmentation, and 

improving potential management (FWS 2005).

Implementation of the Fort Peck Dam/Fort Peck 

Lake Master Plan may result in cumulative benefits 

on several biological resources on the refuge. Efforts 

to improve and maintain tern and plover habitat on 

the lakeshore would result in minor cumulative benefits to those species when combined with the benefits of the refuge management objectives that are 

common to all alternatives. Reestablishing cottonwood bottomland in the Nelson Dredge area, may 

result in cumulative benefits to river bottom restoration efforts throughout the Fort Peck and refuge 

region by providing another opportunity to learn 

from successful or unsuccessful practices. The overall cumulative benefit to bottomlands on the refuge 

would be negligible to minor.

BLM, MFWP, other Federal and State agencies, and others are working in concert to conserve 

habitat for greater sage-grouse. Landscape-level 

conservation efforts to protect important habitat would result in cumulative benefits for this species’ within and around the refuge in all alternatives. 

Under alternatives B and D, in particular, the transition toward prescriptive grazing would occur more 

quickly. However, without more specifics from adjacent BLM areas, which are currently revising or 

developing their resource management plans, any 

cumulative impacts for greater sage-grouse from the 

refuge management alternatives are not known.

MFWP has developed management plans for various big game species that include population objectives for the refuge. Most of the refuge management 

objectives for big game are consistent with MFWP’s 

objectives, with the exception of mule deer management and herd composition targets in alternatives B 

and D. While this difference in management plan 

objectives and philosophy exists, it would be speculative to suggest that such a conflict in management 

plans would result in cumulative effects on mule 

deer or any other big game species. Under all alternatives, the Service would continue to work with 

MFWP to manage big game populations on the refuge. 

The American Prairie Reserve has created an 

123,000-acre reserve on public and private lands 

next to the refuge. The Nature Conservancy manages the 63,000-acre Matador Ranch near the northwest edge of the refuge. The continued management 

of American Prairie Reserve and The Nature Conservancy lands for conservation purposes, by either 

providing habitat or by buffering habitat and populations on the refuge, would provide general cumulative benefits to big game species, grassland birds, 

and listed species and species of concern including 

black-footed ferret and sage-grouse. These cumulative benefits would be minor to moderate under 

any alternative, depending on the species, its habitat needs, and metapopulation dynamics. The restoration of bison on American Prairie Reserve lands 

could provide moderate cumulative benefits to restoration planning or implementation for wild bison 

on the refuge by providing a local example of bison 

management with more opportunities for cooperation. These moderate cumulative benefits would be 

limited to alternatives B, C, and D, contingent on the 

pursuit of restoration plans for wild bison on the refuge. 

The efforts by the Ranchers Stewardship Alliance 

to promote ecological, social, and economic conditions that will sustain the biodiversity and integrity 

of America’s northern, mixed-grass prairie will result 

in general cumulative benefits for grassland-dependent 

species.

Efforts by the World Wildlife Fund and the 

National Wildlife Federation to reduce grazing conflict with ground-nesting birds by buying and retiring refuge grazing rights would result in cumulative 

benefits to those species and other grassland-dependent species (including sage-grouse and black-footed 

ferret). Under alternatives A and C, the cumulative 

benefits of these efforts would offset the long-term 

effects of annual grazing. Under alternatives B and D, 

the cumulative benefits would complement refuge 

management efforts to expand prescriptive grazing, 

though the specific effects would vary by location. 

The continued closing of access roads into the 

refuge by adjacent private landowners has been an 

ongoing issue. If this practice continues as recent 

evidence suggests, it could lead to more increases 

in elk populations. Although there could be cumulative effects in all alternatives, the greatest effect 

would be under alternative B where the emphasis 

is on maximizing populations. This would benefit 

elk populations because of reducing disturbance and 

increasing security, particularly when combined 

with the Service’s plans to close 106 miles of road. 

It could also lead to negative effects on vegetation 

from too many elk in some areas because of the lack 

of adequate harvest.

The construction of the proposed Keystone XL 

Pipeline Project would result in localized negative 

effects on biological resources within the pipeline 

corridor. None of the refuge management alternatives, when combined with the effects of the pipeline, are anticipated to result in cumulative effects to 

biological resources.
312 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES for VISITOR 

SERVICES

Visitors to the refuge have the potential to be 

affected by opportunities, their experiences, and 

the setting where the use occurs (Manfredo 2002). 

Service policy emphasizes the need to provide for 

quality opportunities when providing for wildlifedependent recreational activities. Wildlife-dependent recreation programs are evaluated based on 

the goal of providing for quality programs with the 

following elements: (1) safety and compliance with 

applicable laws; (2) minimized conflicts with wildlife and habitat goals and public uses; (3) accessibility for all; (4) resource stewardship, and (5) reliable 

and reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife 

(FWS 2006c). This section addresses the priority 

public uses and the activities and facilities that support those uses and how visitors would be affected 

by the actions in chapter 3. Table 28 compares visitation, miles of road, and level of facility development 

between the alternatives.

Table 28. Comparison of access, visitation, and facilities between the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Visitation aspect Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Miles of open refuge roads 670 564 670 649

Miles of all-weather access 

on refuge roads

60 60 76 65

Miles of additional seasonal closures 0 0 0 15

Fishing visits 60,000* 60,000 60,000 60,000

Hunting visits 103,900 100,000 118,500 108,000

Participation visits in nonconsumptive 

activities (wildlife observation, 

photography, interpretation)

40,000 44,000 48,000–

68,000 

46,000–

50,000

All nonconsumptive visits (includes office 

and other visits)

87,100 93,000 117,585 95,800

Increase in environmental education 

programs

Limited

(with a few informal 

programs)

5% increase 

(with formal programs, 5+/- yearly)

10% increase 

(with formal programs, 8+/- yearly)

10% increase 

(with formal programs, 8+/- yearly)

Number of visitor facilities

Limited

(tour route, visitor 

center, hunting 

blind, signage)

5–10% 

more than A

10–15% 

more than A

10% 

more than A

Total visitation 250,000 253,000 296,085 263,810

*These are the fishing visits attributed to the refuge. USACE estimates nearly 160,000 fishing visits annually.

EFFECTS on HUNTING

This section discusses the effect of habitat management, number of hunters, reintroductions, predator management, hunting opportunities, access, and 

commercial outfitting would have on the hunting 

program. Information about effects resulting from 

harvest objectives is discussed for big game under 

wildlife in section 5.6 above.

Alternative A

Over the long term, there would be little change 

from current hunting opportunities on the refuge. 

Big game, upland birds, waterfowl, and migratory 

gamebirds would be open to hunting, and there 

would be limited coyote hunting opportunities. If 

the bighorn sheep population continued to expand, it 

would benefit hunters seeking this experience. Most 

hunting seasons for species open on the refuge would 

coincide with season and harvest quotas established 

by the State, although in some instances, the refuge 

would promulgate special regulations to provide for 

more restrictive harvest of a specific game species 

when necessitated by a refuge-specific goal or objective for that species. 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 313

Over the long term, hunting would remain near 

current levels of about 103,900 hunters annually 

(refer to table 28). Current resource management 

programs on the refuge would result in a positive 

trend in habitat for game species of wildlife, which 

in turn would likely result in increasing opportunities for hunting and hunter success over time, but 

it would have a negligible effect on the numbers 

of hunters on the refuge. Nationwide, the trend in 

hunting has been decreasing (FWS 2008e). Although 

hunting on the refuge would likely remain stable, it 

would not likely grow without a significant effort to 

increase hunter numbers. 

Access would remain as it is today (refer to table 28 

and access below), with a mix of hunting areas open 

to motorized vehicle access and areas where roadless 

hunting opportunities exist with little or no influence 

by mechanized equipment. Some hunters believe little or no direct road access into some areas of the 

refuge limits their ability to harvest big game, especially cow elk. Others suggest minimal road access is 

a treasured value to get away from the “road hunters,” seek solitude and enjoy a quality experience 

not available elsewhere.

The annual number of permits for commercial 

hunting (outfitters) would be limited to eleven. Some 

individuals could feel commercial outfitters would 

negatively affect their opportunities or experience, 

particularly where they compete for the same space 

and resource, but overall it would have a negligible 

effect on most hunters. As outfitters retire, the refuge would continue the practice of holding those permits and not issuing new permits until a new visitor 

services plan is completed. 

Alternative B

Alternative B would affect hunting in several ways. 

The resource management programs on the refuge 

would shift to a blending of both natural processes 

such as fire and grazing (by wild and domestic) ungulates and artificial processes such as planting food 

and cover crops and construction of water development projects to benefit fish and wildlife. Game wildlife species would be managed according to mutually 

agreed to population objectives with the State, taking into consideration tolerance of adjacent landowners and land managers as well as ensuring no negative 

effects to refuge habitats or other nongame wildlife 

species. Populations would be managed at levels considered natural in terms of densities and natural age 

classifications. As a result, there could be some unique 

opportunities for hunting bull elk or mule deer in the 

8-year class, which would benefit some hunters. 

The numbers of hunters would remain near existing levels. With an emphasis in maximizing wildlife 

numbers, it might be necessary to limit harvest rates, 

at least temporarily; therefore, the number of hunters would be expect to decline slightly to 100,000, 

but the effect would be negligible overall. Alternative B would seek to maximize targeted species such 

as sharp-tailed grouse or greater sage-grouse. With 

an increased emphasis on youth hunting, it is estimated that the refuge could increase the number of 

upland bird hunters by 2,000 annually from 10,000 

to 12,000. Opportunities for big game hunters would 

stay the same or decrease slightly to 85,000 as compared to 90,000 visits in alternative A in the short 

term as intensive habitat restoration occurred or as 

roads were closed.

This alternative also encompasses several wildlife reintroductions including Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep where the habitat would support it and 

there is a social acceptance for such reintroductions. 

Sheep hunting is an important and highly soughtafter opportunity on the refuge and would benefit 

hunters seeking this opportunity.

This alternative would lead the refuge to consider 

more hunting opportunities for mobility-impaired 

hunters as well as for young hunters that may or 

may not exist on other areas. This would result in a 

positive benefit in the overall hunting experience for 

some users and increase the diversity of the current 

hunter user group.

With road closures and access agreements with 

neighboring entities, access would be managed to 

benefit and increase wildlife populations and in some 

instances be managed to promote harvest opportunities. The refuge would promote nonmotorized access 

to some parts of the refuge but also provide for more 

motorized access in other areas where currently there 

are strategies that are more restrictive. This could 

mean allowing game retrieval with motorized vehicles on seasonally closed roads. This would be considered an improvement by those interested in broader 

use of motorized vehicles but also a negative change 

by those advocates of roadless hunting opportunities 

as many seasonally closed roads essentially bisect a 

larger block of roadless refuge hunting areas.

Specific consideration is given in this alternative 

to the monitoring and analysis of ATVs and motorized 

watercraft as they relate to both wildlife use and visitor experience. This could potentially result in regulating these motorized uses in a manner to ensure 

that they are not negatively affecting wildlife or visitors if it is found that they are doing so. This alternative would also lead the refuge to improve areas 

for visitor use and access such as improving camping areas, boat ramps, and all-weather roads that lead 

to these types of facilities. This would be a long-term 

benefit to visitors that desire these facilities. However, it could have a negative effect on wildlife populations, distribution and hunter success in areas that are 

near to these areas due to increased visitation to specific sites. This alternative also notes that following a 
314 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

review of proposed wilderness units it could recommend increasing proposed wilderness acres by 25,037 

acres (refer to wilderness below). This may result in 

improved game populations of specific species and a 

corresponding increase in opportunity for this type of 

hunting experience and improved hunter success.

Under this alternative outfitting and guiding for 

hunting would be evaluated to ensure there are no 

conflicts with other hunters on the refuge. Outfitters would still be required to submit annual report 

with the number of clients, number of days hunted 

and game species sought and harvested. The number 

of outfitting permits for hunting would be adjusted 

during the life of the CCP to meet wildlife and habitat objectives. The refuge would work to reduce conflicts between guides, clients, and the public.

Overall, the implementation of alternative B 

would result in negligible to minor benefits to hunting opportunities and experiences. 

Alternative C

This alternative would maximize wildlife-dependent 

public uses and economic uses while protecting wildlife populations and habitat to the extent possible, 

striking a balance between livestock grazing and 

wildlife utilization of habitat. There would be a considerable emphasis placed on the refuge’s hunting 

program with maximization of opportunity and harvest attempted while at the same time providing for 

diverse opportunities and healthy wildlife populations and habitats. These efforts would benefit hunting opportunities on the refuge. Some of the artificial 

processes discussed under alternative B would also 

be included in this alternative such as food plots and 

water developments.

Compared to alternative A, the number of hunters would be a minor increase of 14,600 (14 percent) 

hunters to about 118,500 hunters over the long term. 

It is estimated that the numbers of big game hunters could increase through concerted efforts at promoting hunting on the refuge and would be expected 

to rise from 90,000 to 100,000 over the long term. 

Upland game hunters would also increase from 

10,000 to 15,000 hunters. There would be a slight 

increase in waterfowl hunters from 3,000 to 3,500. 

The wildlife reintroductions also discussed in 

alternative B would be included in this alternative. As 

it relates to hunting, bighorn sheep reintroductions 

are most notable with the positive benefits to hunters. 

This alternative also addresses the potential inclusion 

of mountain lion hunting with the associated benefits 

and negative effects also noted in alternative B. 

Increases in hunting opportunities noted in alternative B as it relates to mobility-impaired hunters 

and young hunters are included in this alternative 

to even a greater degree. In addition, some “niche 

hunting” opportunities would also be considered 

such as traditional or primitive weapon hunts or specific predator hunts.

With a greater emphasis placed on maximizing 

hunter opportunity and visitation, public use facilities 

and access would be managed accordingly. This would 

mean improved access to boat ramps and improving 

camping facilities, more restrooms and parking facilities. There would be some emphasis placed on nonmotorized access hunting but also provisions to allow 

motorized access on seasonally closed roads for game 

retrieval. There would also be consideration for designation of bicycle use in areas currently not open to 

such use. There would also be consideration given to 

designated horse camping with some facilities development to accommodated increasing interest in this 

type of hunting visitor. The overall benefits of these 

improvements are for the visiting public and would 

be positive for those interested in this type of experience. There could be negative effects to wildlife habitat and wildlife distribution in specific sites where 

increased visitor impacts would occur.

This alternative encourages the refuge to develop 

and expand commercial activities that would be consistent with the wildlife purpose. In this alternative, more outfitter permits would be issued as long 

as they are consistent with refuge policy and procedures for issuing permits, along with anticipated time 

and space restraints, would reduce conflicts with the 

public and between guides. More outfitting and guide 

permits would be issued for pack and retrieval services to facilitate the harvest of big game species in 

roadless areas. This would result in minor economic 

gain for outfitters and guides and could result in a 

small increase in the number of visitors to the refuge. The extent of these negative effects is unknown 

due to incomplete data on the interest by the public for retrieval services in proposed wilderness units 

and guided wildlife-viewing activities. 

Overall, alternative C would result in minor to moderate benefits to hunting opportunities and experiences.

Alternative D

This alternative is based on an ecological processes 

emphasis where various approaches would be used 

to restore the natural function of plant communities and wildlife interactions with habitat, the role of 

fire, water and other influences (refer to objectives 

and strategies in chapter 3). Wildlife populations and 

the subsequent opportunities provided to the public 

through a hunting program would be driven primarily by how these activities would fit into the role of the 

broader ecological processes. This could mean shortterm loss of opportunity if it is beneficial to the overall 

system to maintain or reduce specific game populations. It could result in a long-term benefit to hunting 

programs if, when restoration is achieved, the system 

supports larger and more diverse game populations.
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 315

Over the long term, there would be a modest 

increase of about 4,100, to about 108,000, in the number of hunters as compared to alternative A due to 

the focus on providing quality experiences, more 

opportunities to hunt bighorn sheep, more young 

people hunting, and more mobility-impaired hunters. Overall, this would be negligible increase. The 

number of big game hunters would be expected to 

increase to about 95,000 as compared to 90,000 in 

alternative A in the long term as habitat quality 

improves and with efforts to increase focus on providing quality hunting experiences. The number of 

upland bird hunters would remain about the same as 

alternative A at about 10,000 hunters annually. The 

number of waterfowl hunters would increase slightly 

from 2,900 to 3,000.

As compared to alternative A, this alternative 

would consider additional reintroductions of wildlife including Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. This 

alternative would base the implementation of these 

reintroductions on the appropriateness of how they 

would benefit the landscape from an ecological function perspective. The short- and long-term benefits 

of this initiative were described for the other alternatives. In the long term, this would benefit hunters 

seeking this opportunity.

A mountain lion hunting season would be considered in this alternative. This would be viewed as a 

positive action by those holding an interest in this 

type of hunting opportunity on the refuge, as well 

as the State of Montana’s desire to see the refuge 

participate in this type of hunting, which is currently 

managed by them on existing hunting units immediately outside the refuge. Those opposed to seeing the 

refuge open to top predator hunting would view this 

hunting opportunity negatively.

Alternative D considers the opening of various 

furbearer seasons not currently permitted on the 

refuge. This would include species such as fox, raccoon, and badger. This hunting opportunity for would 

only be considered in a more limited basis and would 

be allowed only when the natural role of predators in 

the system would not be altered through a hunting 

strategy. This could result in a short-term reduction in 

this type of hunting opportunity, but potentially a longterm gain as more diverse predator component may 

become part of a restored system and associated hunting opportunities could be considered if sustainable viable predator populations existed on the refuge.

The overall hunting program on the refuge would 

be based on hunting quality rather than hunting quantity. Diverse age and sex ratios for game species would 

be managed for where possible. This could be benefit to 

those hunters that desire the opportunity to experience 

game in relatively good abundance and the opportunity 

to see older age class animals where the opportunity 

for this is limited in other areas open to public hunting. 

This approach could also limit participation and reduce 

hunter numbers at times when it may be necessary to 

reduce or limit harvest, which could be viewed as a 

negative aspect to this type of hunting program.

Access under this alternative would be managed according to what best provides for improving 

wildlife habitat and overall functioning of the refuge as an ecological system. The road system would 

be dynamic and managed with seasonal and permanent closures as well as open roads that contribute 

positively to improving function and health from an 

ecological perspective. Where possible, roads would 

be managed to improve harvest when necessary. 

This approach would have the positive and negative effects as outlined for the other alternatives as 

it relates to hunter access, participation, and success. 

The effects of ATVs and motorized watercraft would 

be the same as alternative B.

Proposed wilderness units would be expanded 

by about 19,942 acres. As discussed under alternatives B and C, there would be negative and positive effects on the refuge’s overall hunting program 

including from the viewpoint of hunters.

Outfitting and guiding under this alternative 

would be managed similarly to alternative B. 

Overall, alternative D would result in minor to 

moderate benefits to hunting opportunities and 

experiences, depending on the type of experience 

that individual hunters prefer.

Conclusion

The actions in the alternatives would have negligible 

to minor benefits on hunting opportunities across the 

refuge for big game, upland birds, waterfowl, and 

migratory gamebirds. The reasons for these benefits vary by alternative, and are largely dependent 

on the preferences and values of individual hunters.

In the long term, there would be negligible to 

minor differences in the number of hunters using the 

refuge annually with a slight decrease of about 3,900 

hunters in alternative B as compared to alternative 

A, a minor increase of about 14,600 hunters in alternative C and a slight increase of about 4,100 hunters 

in alternative D. Hunters would continue to enjoy a 

wide variety of access for hunting in all alternatives, 

although there would be some distinct differences in 

the amount of road access and proposed wilderness 

acreage, which would positively benefit or negatively 

affect hunters depending on their point of view. 

Mitigation

No mitigation measures would be necessary under 

any alternative. 

EFFECTS on FISHING

Because fishing is a popular activity that occurs on 

the refuge, fishing pressure, access to fishing areas, 

and opportunities are evaluated.
316 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, the State of Montana (MFWP) 

would continue to have primary responsibility for 

all fisheries management within the refuge, which 

is consistent with Service policy on fishing (FWS 

2008e). This includes regulating harvest, egg collecting efforts, and stocking activities. Similarly, 

USACE manages the permitting requirements for 

any commercial fishing activities (including recreational tournaments). The Service would have little control over harvest opportunities for individual 

anglers. Patterns of fishing pressure have historically followed reservoir levels, with periods of high 

water levels tending to result in increased fishing 

pressure and vice versa. This pattern would remain 

in place under all alternatives. As a result, the numbers of fishing visits attributed to the refuge would 

likely remain the same under all alternatives (about 

60,000 annually; USACE attributes nearly 160,000 

fishing visits to lake and recreation areas). 

The Service would work with USACE to extend 

boat ramps to the water’s edge as the lake recedes 

and identify roads that provide direct access to the 

lake including ATV access (refer to access below), 

which would provide long-term benefits for anglers 

desiring better access to the lake.

Alternatives A, B, and D

Alternatives A, B, and D would not result in noticeable 

changes to fishing pressure or opportunities on the 

waters within the refuge. Existing use patterns would 

likely continue due the isolated nature of the reservoir. 

Alternative C

Alternative C would likely result in expanded fishing opportunities, because the Service would be placing a higher priority on improving existing lake and 

river access sites and possibly creating more access 

sites. However, water level management would not 

change, so the high and low use patterns would persist, and the overall number of fishing visits would 

remain at current levels. New or expanded boat 

access would require considerable road improvements (refer to access in chapter 3). USACE would 

need to be a partner in any new boat ramp development. Improvements in access would provide moderate benefits for anglers in the long term.

Conclusion

Under alternatives A, B, and D, there would be few 

noticeable changes in fishing pressure or opportunities on the waters of the refuge, resulting in negligible effects. In alternative C, the Service would 

expand opportunities by improving boat access 

including better boat ramp development, but overall, 

there would not be significant changes in the number of fishermen regardless of the alternative due to 

existing use patterns and isolated nature of the reservoir. Alternative C would have negligible benefits.

Mitigation

No mitigation measures would be necessary under 

any alternative. 

EFFECTS on WILDLIFE OBSERVATION 

and PHOTOGRAPHY

This section addresses effects on users and the 

quality of the wildlife observation and photography program including opportunities and facilities. 

Like other forms of wildlife-dependent recreation, 

Service policy (FWS 2008e) encourages refuges to 

provide quality opportunities for observing and photographing wildlife.

All Alternatives

The refuge would provide the public with many 

opportunities to observe and photograph wildlife. 

Commercial photographers would be required to 

have a special use permit, which would enable the 

refuge to control the number of permits issues and 

minimize negative effects on wildlife or other users. 

For example, the Service would not authorize offroad travel or access into the elk-viewing area. 

Given the few permits that would be issued for commercial photographers, there would be negligible 

conflicts with other user groups or refuge resources. 

Because the Service would be able to use any images 

or footage produced by a commercial photographer 

in brochures and other information, the public would 

benefit from the quality imagery.

Alternative A

The current trend of increases in wildlife observation 

and photography visits would likely continue despite 

few changes in facilities or programs (refer to chapters 3 and 4) but, in the long term, with only negligible improvements in the overall program or facilities 

and the remoteness of the refuge, visitation would 

remain stagnant. Ongoing habitat improvements and 

land acquisition would improve the quality of opportunities for these uses in some areas providing some 

minor benefits. However, this alternative would not 

meet the demand for facilities related to observation and photography (trails, tour routes, overlooks, 

blinds) as gauged by inquiries, past visitation trends, 

and growing tourism visits to the refuge area. 

During peak seasons, visitors would be concentrated in some popular areas like the Elk Viewing 

Area. Dust, crowds, and inadequate parking facilities 

(refer to interpretation in chapter 4) would negatively 

affect some users. There would not be a staff person 

dedicated to the visitor service’s program to develop 

a comprehensive visitor program that could address 

conflicts and improve the overall program. Although 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 317

the refuge would remain a great place to view wildlife, over the long term, the Service would not meet 

its goal of providing a quality wildlife observation and 

photography program for a wider audience. 

Refuge staff help visitors identify wildlife species.

Brett Billings / USFWS

Alternative B

An increased emphasis on habitat improvements and 

land acquisition would improve the quality of wildlife observation and photography in some areas. The 

Service would hire one outdoor recreation planner 

and a visitor service plan would be developed within 

5 years of plan implementation. Having a staff member assigned to the visitor service’s program would 

result in improved programming and facility development that could address some conflicts in popular areas. The modest increases in viewing facilities 

and programs (5 percent over alternative A) would 

improve the quality of the overall program in the long 

term, and visitation would be anticipated to grow by 

about 5–10 percent above alternative A. Improvements in the overall program could be somewhat offset as most of the staff would be directed to more 

important fish and wildlife-related work. Overall, it 

would only partially enable the Service to provide a 

quality wildlife observation and photography program on the refuge.

The reintroduction of bighorn sheep on the south 

side of the river could provide more wildlife-viewing 

opportunities for some visitors. Because this CCP 

and EIS is addressing the potential for wolves colonizing in the Missouri River Breaks at some point 

and the interest by many in wild bison restoration, 

if wolves colonized the refuge or wild bison were 

reestablished in cooperation with MFWP (refer to 

the sections about wolf and wild bison restoration 

under wildlife in chapter 3) under alternatives B and 

D, more wildlife-viewing opportunities could be provided.

Alternative C

With an emphasis on maximizing public use opportunities, wildlife observation and photography visits would increase by 20–50 percent due to habitat 

improvements, accelerated land acquisition, and a 

10-percent increase in related facilities such as trails, 

tour routes, overlooks, and blinds. Two added staff 

would focus on providing public use programs and 

facility development, which could enhance the quality and quantity of observation and photography 

opportunities by a moderate amount. Increased facilities and visitation would result in some minor disturbances to wildlife, although this would result in 

negligible effects on wildlife-viewing opportunities 

given the size of the refuge. The development of a visitor services plan and travel management plan would 

minimize intrusion into important wildlife locations 

and habitat through better planning and facility programming. Any increased use in popular areas like 

the elk-viewing area without any improvements to 

offset conflicts would negatively affect some users. 

This alternative would likely result in long-term positive public and political support, which could positively affect projects and funding for improving the 

quality of fish and wildlife habitat. 

Similar to alternative B, reintroduction of bighorn 

sheep on the south side of the river would provide 

more wildlife-viewing opportunities. Because this 

CCP and EIS is addressing the potential of wolves 

colonizing in Missouri River Breaks at some point 

and the interest by many in wild bison restoration, 

it is likely, if wolves immigrated to the refuge or wild 

bison were reestablished in cooperation with MFWP 

and others visitation would increase (refer to the 

sections on wolf and wild bison restoration under 

wildlife in chapter 3). 

Alternative D

With an emphasis on integrating the wildlife management and public use focus, under this alternative, 

wildlife observation and photography visits are estimated to increase by a minor to moderate amount of 

15–25 percent more in the long term. Similar to alternative C, two added staff would be focused on providing a comprehensive program that incorporated 

better planning and facility development. Similar to 

alternative B, when combined with an emphasis on 

improving habitat conditions and land acquisition, 

quality opportunities to see and photograph wildlife 

would increase by a moderate amount. As with alternatives A and B, any increased use in popular areas 

without any improvements to offset existing conflicts would negatively affect some users.

Conclusion

Under existing conditions, visitation levels would 

remain flat in alternative A. Although the refuge 
318 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

would provide many opportunities to view and photograph wildlife, without a dedicated staff person 

to oversee the public use program or any additional 

facilities to attract visitors seeking nonconsumptive activities, there would be little growth in visitation. Alternative B would add an outdoor recreation 

planner, and combined with habitat improvements and 

modest increases in facilities and programs, the number of visitors coming to the refuge would increase 

by negligible to minor amount (5–10 percent). Alternatives C and D would add two outdoor recreation 

planners although the programming would look considerably different. Alternative C would seek to increase 

a wide range of opportunities that would also provide 

economic benefit for the adjacent communities. Visitation would increase moderately by 20–50 percent over 

existing levels with improved facilities and programs. 

Alternative D would also seek to improve facilities and 

programs but there would be a higher emphasis placed 

on quality over quantity and habitat management. Visitation would increase by a minor to moderate of 15–25 

percent amount. Any increased use in popular areas 

without addressing issues such as parking, dust, and 

crowding would negatively affect some users.

Mitigation

No mitigation measures would be necessary under 

any alternative. 

EFFECTS on 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

National wildlife refuges that are open to the public 

should strive to provide some level of environmental education. Environmental education programs 

should be based on guidelines specified in the Service’s Environmental Education Policy (FWS 2006d). 

The guidelines stress that environmental education 

programs should connect people’s lives to the natural 

world around them, advance environmental and scientific literacy through an interdisciplinary approach 

to learning, strengthen the Refuge System by fostering public knowledge about environmental conservation, allow for participants to experience wildlife, 

wildlife habitat, and cultural resources, and instill a 

sense of stewardship for conservation. This section 

primarily addresses opportunities for environmental 

education programs between the alternatives. 

Alternative A

The Service would provide environmental education 

programs on an opportunistic basis but in large part 

the Service would miss opportunities to educate the 

public about the values of the refuge and the Refuge 

System. The Service would not meet the guidance 

for environmental education in Service policy (FWS 

2006d) because there would be little or no contact 

with refuge staff to answer questions and foster public knowledge or interest in the Service’s messages. 

Alternative B

The addition of an outdoor recreation planner would 

enable the refuge to develop a visitor services plan 

that incorporated a modest increase (5 percent) in 

environmental education programming, compared 

to existing conditions. Specific curriculum-based 

programming would allow staff to train teachers to 

deliver programs independently and more teacher 

workshops would further expand educational capabilities. In the short term, there would be few 

changes in environmental education opportunities. 

However, once the staff position was hired and the 

stepdown plan implemented, there would be minor 

benefits for visitors over the long term, with the ultimate objective of garnishing greater support for 

future refuge and Refuge System programs.

Alternative C

Two outdoor recreation planners, as well as increased 

use of volunteers and partnerships, would enable 

the refuge to increase environmental education programs by about 10–15 percent as compared to alternative A. In the long term, creating refuge-specific 

curricula could moderately enhance awareness of 

the refuge’s wildlife and habitat resources. Providing teacher workshops would allow staff to train 

teachers to deliver programs independently, further 

expanding educational capabilities. The addition of 

a education and interpretive center at Sand Creek 

Field Station would enable the Service to advance 

its goals for environmental education for both children and adults. This alternative could have longterm benefits in terms of public and political support 

that could positively affect projects and funding. 

Alternative D

Similar to alternative C, there would be an addition of two outdoor recreation planners to the staff. 

There would be a minor increase of 10 percent in 

environmental education programming as compared 

to alternative A. The emphasis would be on providing quality programming over quantity that met the 

guidelines specified in Service policy. Specific curriculum-based programming would allow staff to 

train teachers to deliver programs independently 

and more teacher workshops would further expand 

educational capabilities. Students would gain an 

improved understanding of refuge’s natural history, 

wildlife and ecology as well as the mission and importance of the Refuge System. Similar to alternative C, 

the addition of a science and interpretive center at 

Sand Creek Field Station would enable the Service to advance the Service’s goals for environmental education for both children and adults, although 

the messages and programming would differ to some 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 319

degree. In the long term, it would provide a moderate benefit in terms of generating greater support 

for future refuge and Refuge System programs. 

Conclusion

Under existing conditions, very limited environmental education would be offered at the refuge. Under 

alternative B, the Service would hire one staff person and begin to offer some additional programming 

and teacher-led workshops, resulting in negligible 

benefits. Two staff positions would be filled in alternatives C and D, which would enable the Service to 

provide more programming. In addition, an interpretive center at Sand Creek Field Station or combination interpretive and science center would enable 

the Service to advance its goals for environmental 

education, resulting in minor benefits.

Mitigation

No mitigation measures would be necessary under 

any alternative. 

EFFECTS on INTERPRETATION

The guiding principles for the Refuge System’s interpretive programs involve developing opportunities, 

facilities and programs where visitors can develop an 

understanding and appreciation for America’s natural and cultural resources through safe, informative, 

enjoyable, and accessible activities that ultimately 

lead to a sense of stewardship about the refuge’s 

resources (FWS 2006g).

All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, visitors would continue to 

enjoy the refuge’s interpretive facilities from the 

auto tour route, elk-viewing area, an accessible 

hunting blind, the Fort Peck Interpretive Center, 

and other contact stations (refer to interpretation 

in chapter 4), Interpretive signs, exhibits, materials, 

brochures, and informational kiosks would continue 

to provide visitors an opportunity to enjoy and learn 

about the refuge. 

Alternatives A and B

As compared to alternative A, under alternative B, 

there would be modest improvements in the number 

and quality of interpretative facilities and programs. 

In addition to hiring an outdoor recreation planner, 

there would be a 5-percent increase in the number of 

facilities and programs, but overall this would result 

in negligible benefits furthering the Refuge Systems 

principles for interpretation. 

Alternatives C and D

Alternative C would have the greatest improvements in interpretive facilities (5–15 percent) and 

alternative D would be intermediate at about 10 percent. A small visitor center located at Sand Creek 

Field Station under alternative C and a combination 

science and interpretive center under alternative D 

would enable the refuge to provide more quality 

information where the most popular activities occur 

like elk viewing during the fall. Under alternatives C 

and D, the hiring of two outdoor recreation planners 

would enable the refuge to improve programming, 

facilities, signage, and exhibits as compared to alternative A by a moderate amount. 

Conclusion

Similar to wildlife observation, photography and 

environmental education, under existing conditions, 

there would be limited interpretive facilities and 

programs available under alternative A. By hiring 

one staff person in alternative B and two persons in 

alternatives C and D, the Service could increase programs and develop more facilities (10 percent more 

in alternative D and 15 percent more in alternative 

C. A small interpretive center in alternatives C and 

D would enable the refuge to provide quality interpretive programs across the refuge. 

Mitigation

No mitigation measures would be necessary under 

any alternative. 

USFWS

EFFECTS on OUTREACH

Effective outreach depends on open and continuing 

communication and collaboration between the refuge and its many publics. It involves determining and 

understanding the issues, identifying audiences, listening to interested groups and the public, creating

messages, selecting the most effective delivery techniques, and evaluating effectiveness (FWS 2006d). 

Under alternative A, the Service would occasionally take part in State and local events, make presentations, recruit some volunteers to support staff 

efforts, seek grants in partnership with others, and 

use the internet to keep the public informed about 

the refuge’s programs and activities. 
320 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Under alternative B, the Service would increase 

its outreach efforts resulting in a negligible, 5-percent targeted increase in requests for information 

about the refuge. Additionally, there would be a modest increase in efforts to give presentations or host 

open houses annually. Alternative C would result in 

the greatest improvement in outreach efforts resulting in a 15-percent, or minor, targeted increase in 

requests for information by the public. Alternative D 

would be intermediate with a 10-percent, or minor, 

targeted increase. 

As compared to alternative A, alternatives B, C, 

and D, the Service would develop a Friends group 

although the timing would vary in the implementation the group.

Mitigation

No mitigation measures would be necessary under 

any alternative. 

EFFECTS on ACCESS

This section addresses how access to the refuge is 

affected under each alternative. Refer to the rationales for access in chapter 3 for an explanation of 

how and why access would change.

Figure 48. Graph of the proportion of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges within the corresponding travel 

time of the nearest road, by CCP alternative. Source: The Wilderness Society (2009).

All Alternatives

Visitors to the refuge would continue to have many 

opportunities for accessing the refuge ranging from 

the wide network of roads, river access, and designated landing areas on Fort Peck Reservoir for 

seaplanes. All pilots would be required to adhere 

to USACE’s seaplane landing plan (USACE 1995), 

which designates landing areas. Licensed motor 

vehicles would be allowed on refuge roads (refer 

to access under section 4.5 in chapter 4), along with 

other types of users like boaters, bicyclists, snowmobilers, cross-country skiers, and others. There 

would continue to be an extensive network of roads 

although there would be some minor differences 

between the alternatives (refer to table 28 above; 

also see figures 7–10 alternative maps in chapter 3). 

The Wilderness Society (2009) modeled the accessibility of the refuge by foot from a road for each 

alternative, assigning values for the time it takes 

to travel across different vegetation classes while 

accounting for the steepness of the slope. As shown 

in figures 48 and 49, within an hour of walking from a 

road, regardless of the alternative selected, between 

90 and 100 percent of the refuge would be accessible for average hikers. Even with reductions in the 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 321

miles of road under alternative B (106 miles) and 

D (21 miles plus 15 miles of seasonal closures), it 

would result in negligible to minor differences in the 

amount time it would take to access most of the refuge within 30 minutes of a road. Figures 48 and 49 

show various travel times across the refuge. 

The Service has little information on the number 

of boat users across the refuge, but none of the alternatives would negatively affect boat users. Bicyclists could continue to access the refuge from any 

numbered open road or seasonally closed road. 

All alternatives would continue to allow for access 

to State lands within the refuge and to existing private lands. Some roads could be designated as administrative access only. If refuge roads were closed at 

boundary locations, the Service would make every 

effort to make sure the closure occurred within the 

boundary and any parking areas that needed to be 

developed occurred within the boundary and not on 

State or private land.

Figure 49. Graph of the proportion of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges to the nearest road at 30 minutes. 

Source: The Wilderness Society (2009).

Alternative A

Under alternative A the current road system on 

the refuge would remain in place (about 670 miles of 

road). Current refuge data shows about 62 percent 

of the refuge is within 1 mile of an open road, and 82 

percent is within 1 mile of motorized access. Minor 

modifications to the current road system would take 

place over the life of the plan. Where a private landowner has closed access to the refuge, the Service 

would work with the counties and others to provide 

access to the refuge. This would be an ongoing challenge because private lands within and immediately 

adjacent to the refuge restrict access to public land. 

In addition, safety concerns and maintenance could 

require that some roads be rerouted or closed to provide for public safety. Under this alternative, the 

negative effects on vehicular access would be negligible. Figure 50 displays areas of the refuge accessible by foot within certain amounts of time; almost 

all of the refuge is accessible by foot within 90 minutes, and most of the refuge is accessible by foot 

within 30 minutes. This assumes that access occurs 

from within the refuge and not from outside the refuge where an extensive road network provides access 

to many boundary areas. 

Alternative B 

Under alternative B approximately 106 miles of road 

would be closed to improve habitat for wildlife and 
322 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

or better define true public access. In some situations, roads would be closed that are inaccessible to 

the public because of private landownership within 

or outside the refuge. Although a primary reason 

for road closures would be for wildlife benefit, roads 

also would be closed to stop exclusive use in areas 

where access to the refuge has been closed by private landowners. This alternative would close roads 

that are not available to the entire public and would 

stop exclusive use of some roads on the refuge. Road 

closures in this alternative would have a moderate 

positive benefit for wildlife populations (more security), especially big game. It would result in minor 

negative effects on road access with 8 percent fewer 

roads as compared with alternative A. 

Figure 50. Map of accessibility by foot to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative A. 

Source: The Wilderness Society (2009).

Alternative C

The refuge road system under alternative C would 

be very similar to the current road system that 

exists under alternative A. Several roads (Routes 

209 and 108) would be improved (all-weather access), 

which would provide minor benefits for accessibility 

in those areas.

Alternative D

About 21 miles of road would be permanently closed. 

Additionally, 2.4 miles along road 315 (southwest 

side) would be seasonally closed. About 13 miles along 

roads 440, 331, 332, and 333 (northeast side) would be 

seasonally closed during hunting season and designated as game retrieval roads. Access would only be 

allowed during midday for the purposes of retrieving 

game. Route 209 would be improved to all-weather 

access. In addition, those roads that currently do not 

provide vehicle access to the public would be closed 

to stop exclusive use. Effects on access would be negligible (about 5 percent).

Conclusion

Visitors to the refuge would continue to access the 

refuge through a variety of means and opportunities. 

Alternatives A and C would have the most miles 

of road open for travel at 670 miles. Alternative B 

would result in 106 miles of closed road and alternative D would close about 21 miles of road and 15 

miles of additional seasonal closures. Under all alternatives, nearly 80 percent of the refuge would be 

accessible within 30 minutes of walking time and 90 

percent or more would be accessible within an hour 

of walking. Alternative C would have the most allweather access with 76 miles of road, and alternative 

D would have about 65 miles as compared to alternatives A and B with about 60 miles. The overall effect 

on refuge access would be minor negative effects 

from alternative B, minor benefits from alternative C 

negligible effects from alternative D.

Mitigation

No mitigation would be required.

EFFECTS on RECREATION SITES

None of the Service’s actions would affect USACE’s 

management of its developed recreation areas. The 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 323

Service would continue to manage the primitive recreation sites (refer to chapter 4) under all alternatives.

EFFECTS on COMMERCIAL RECREATION 

This section evaluates the effects of wildlife-outfitting and guiding and commercial fishing. 

Alternative A

Wildlife outfitting and guiding activities would continue at the current permitted level of 11 outfitters operating on the refuge. Outfitters would still 

be required to submit annual report with the number of clients, number of days hunted and game species sought and harvested. As outfitters retire, the 

refuge would continue the practice of holding those 

permits and not issuing new permits until a new visitor services plan is completed. There would continue 

to be some conflict with the public in some areas as 

guides and clients compete for the same space and 

resource. Commercial fishing and fishing tournaments are managed by MFWP and USACE on Fort 

Peck Lake. Because USACE has primary jurisdiction on recreational activities on Fort Peck Lake, 

the Service would continue to support MFWP and 

USACE in managing those activities.

Alternatives B and D

Under alternatives B and D outfitting and guiding 

for hunting would be evaluated to ensure there are 

no conflicts with other hunters on the refuge. Outfitters would still be required to submit annual report. 

The number of outfitting permits for hunting would 

be adjusted during the life of the CCP to meet wildlife and habitat objectives. The Service would evaluate permitting outfitting and guide services for 

wildlife viewing, resulting in minor economic gain 

for outfitters and guides and a small increase in 

the number of visitors to the refuge. The extent of 

these effects is unknown due to incomplete data on 

the interest by the public for guided wildlife-viewing activities. Conflicts between guides, clients, and 

the public would be minimized. For commercial fishing and commercial-fishing tournaments, the refuge would work with MFWP and USACE to ensure 

these activities are consistent with Service policy.

Alternative C 

Same as alternatives B and D except more permits 

would be issued as long as they are that consistent with 

refuge policy and procedures for issuing permits, along 

with anticipated time and space restraints, would reduce 

conflicts with the public and between guides. More outfitting and guide permits would be issued for pack and 

retrieval services to facilitate the harvest of cow elk in 

proposed wilderness units and to promote wildlife viewing, resulting in minor economic gain for outfitters and 

guides and a small increase in refuge visitors. 

Conclusion

Under existing conditions, outfitting permits would 

remain at about 11 outfitters operating on the refuge. Alternatives B and D would evaluate the program to ensure there were no substantial conflicts 

with other hunters. The number of hunters could be 

adjusted to meet wildlife and habitat objectives if 

necessary. Under alternative C, more permits could 

be issued provided they were consistent with refuge 

policies and procedures and there were no substantial conflicts with other hunters. There could be more 

permits issued for pack and retrieval services to 

facilitate harvest in wilderness or to promote wildlife viewing.

Mitigation

No mitigation measures would be necessary under 

any alternative. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

on VISITOR SERVICES

The Fort Peck Dam/Fort Peck Lake Master Plan 

describes proposed upgrades and expansions of 

recreational facilities at existing sites. Proposed 

upgrades include expanded camping facilities, 

improved sewage treatment, improved boat ramps, 

improved day use facilities, and increased interpretive facilities. Implementation of the proposed master plan would directly benefit recreational uses on 

Fort Peck Lake and at existing facilities. Because 

many of these areas are used by refuge visitors, 

implementation of the master plan would also result 

in minor to moderate cumulative benefits to recreational access and experiences and commercial uses 

on the refuge (under any refuge management alternative).

The direct and indirect effects of the Enhancement Act of 2000 (conveyance of cabin sites) are outside the scope of this analysis. Implementation of the 

Enhancement Act of 2000 would not result in any 

cumulative effects on refuge recreation areas.

As part of the Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument Resource Management Plan, 

BLM will limit special use permits commercial recreational use on the Missouri River and related lands 

(BLM 2008c). This may adversely affect some users 

in the short term, but would likely result in long-term 

benefits due to a predictable and equitable permit 

system that maintains the quality of the resource. 

Under any refuge management alternative, this may 

result in minor to moderate short-term cumulative 

impacts and long-term cumulative benefits on commercial river access on the refuge.

Implementation of the Upper Missouri River 

Breaks National Monument Resource Management 

Plan includes management actions to improve rec-
324 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

reational access and experiences along the Missouri 

River (BLM 2008c). Under any refuge management 

alternative, these actions may result in minor cumulative benefits to recreational river access opportunities on the refuge. 

5.7 ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES for SPECIAL

AREAS

This section addresses the effects on land areas with 

special land designations including wilderness. Refer 

to specific topics under visual resources and soundscapes for more information. 

EFFECTS on 

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS

None of the alternatives would change the special 

management areas including the Upper Missouri 

Breaks Wild and Scenic River, research natural areas, 

national natural landmarks, and the Lewis and Clark 

Historic Trail (refer to section 4.4 in chapter 4).

EFFECTS on WILDERNESS 

This section evaluates the effects of changes in wilderness protection across the four alternatives. The 

acreage of proposed wilderness protection on the 

refuge and the opportunities to experience wilderness as defined in the Service’s wilderness stewardship policy (FWS 2008c) are evaluated. For complete 

information about the Service’s review on wilderness 

and for a breakout of each wilderness unit, refer to 

appendix E and the alternative maps (figures 7–10) in 

chapter 3. The specific effects from habitat management or other activities in wilderness are addressed 

under the specific resource topic being affected such 

as visual resources, vegetation, wildlife, access, and 

others and is not addressed here. 

Several studies have been completed showing the 

potential irreversible effects of recreation on valuable wilderness. A publication put out by the Wilderness Society and USDA Forest Service, “Keeping It 

Wild: A Citizen Guide to Wilderness Management” 

(1992), is a summary from the Wilderness Act and subsequent legislation. It notes that wilderness should 

provide for human use while preserving the wilderness character, providing outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreational experience. In addition, recreation should 

favor wilderness-dependent activities when managing wilderness use. Other non-wilderness-dependent 

recreation activities taking place in wilderness can 

be enjoyed elsewhere. 

In this analysis, the refuge is examining whether 

new wilderness study areas should be recommended 

and the units where other wildlife-dependent recreational activities can be accommodated. In some of 

the existing proposed areas, the Service has a legal 

responsibility to allow access to State and private 

inholdings. While the habitat within those areas is 

still valuable for wildlife, nonetheless, under existing 

conditions, it has been fragmented. 

Table 29 summarizes the amount of wilderness 

that would be protected under each alternative. The 

narratives that follow describe the effects of the various levels of protection.

Table 29. Wilderness protection under the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres in UL Bend Wilderness1 20,819 20,819 20,819 20,819

Acres of current proposed wilderness2 155,288 155,288 155,288 155,288

Increase in acres 0 +25,869 0 +19,942

Acres of total wilderness protection 

(designated and proposed) 176,107 201,976 176,107 196,049

% Change in wilderness protection 0 +17 0 +13 

% of Refuge with wilderness protection3 16 18 16 18 

1

 Based on the legal acreage.

2

 The actual proposed wilderness acreage sent forth to Congress was 155,288 acres, but with advances in technology, 

 current GIS acreages may differ slightly.

3

 Based on the 1.1 million-acre refuge boundary.
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 325

UL Bend Wilderness protects habitat for the greater sage-grouse, a species of concern on the refuge.

USFWS

All Alternatives

There would be no effects to the 20,819 acres in the 

UL Bend Wilderness, which would continue to protect important habitat and wildlife values including 

the black-footed ferret (endangered) and other species of concern such as the greater sage-grouse. It 

would offer outstanding opportunities for solitude 

and primitive and unconfined recreation. No motorized vehicles would be allowed. 

Game carts would not be allowed in UL Bend 

Wilderness, but they would be allowed in all proposed wilderness units. In proposed wilderness units 

where livestock grazing still occurred, some wilderness users could be negatively affected by the visual 

impact of livestock grazing (refer to visual resources 

in section 5.4 above and see figure 16 in chapter 4).

The transition to prescriptive grazing would continue, but there would be differences between alternatives on how quickly this would occur.

Alternative A

Under alternative A, the acreage of proposed wilderness would remain at 155,288 acres as proposed 

in 1974 (Note: Current GIS calculations estimate the 

acreage as 158,619 acres, which is within the accepted 

2-percent differential margin). Within the refuge 

boundary, about 16 percent of the refuge would be 

protected as wilderness. Overall, maintaining the 

current size and location for proposed wilderness 

units would have negligible effects on wildlifedependent recreation opportunities or other wilderness values. Recreationists looking for solitude and 

primitive recreation would be able to find multiple 

opportunities across the refuge as well as for those 

who want better access with their recreational experience (refer to access in section 5.7 above). A higher 

level of land protection would continue for all 15 proposed wilderness units protecting the characteristics that make them primitive and allowing natural 

processes to work freely, sustaining the ecological 

processes that create the interconnected web of life 

in wilderness. (The Wilderness Society 1992).

The transition away from annual grazing and 

toward prescriptive grazing would occur as grazing units became available, primarily through ranch 

sales. Degradation of the scenic and ecological wilderness values—due to the presence of livestock and 

subsequent trampling, soil compaction, lower water 

quality, decreased environmental health, or other 

negative effects—would continue in some units, particularly in areas with higher livestock stocking rates 

or where there was heavy grazing by wild ungulates. 

Alternative B

Under alternative B, there would be a net gain of 

25,869 acres of protected wilderness land. This would 

result in a 17-percent increase in wilderness lands 

across the refuge (refer to table 29). Eighteen percent of the refuge would be protected as wilderness 

as compared to 16 percent in alternative A. By add-
326 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

ing acreage to several of the current proposed wilderness units, the refuge would increase protection 

of natural ecosystems and allow natural processes to 

work freely. Road closures surrounding wilderness 

would total about 13 miles. Most of the closures are 

short spur roads. The reduction in disturbance to 

wildlife within those areas would have a minor benefit, allowing wildlife to forage and migrate between 

forage sites with less possibility of disturbances and 

hindrance due to roads. In a few localized areas, the 

closures could make it more difficult to manage big 

game through hunting, but given the overall accessibility of the refuge, the negative effect would be negligible (figures 48, 49, and 50). Although some species 

tolerate road systems, there are other species, particularly large carnivores, that are usually absent in 

landscapes with high road densities (Noss 1991). 

The transition to prescriptive grazing would 

occur over most of the refuge within 4–7 years, 

which would benefit the scenic and ecological wilderness values in the long term. The rate at which this 

occurred would depend on how quickly prescriptive 

grazing was carried out in the proposed wilderness 

units. Overall, the proposed wilderness changes in 

alternative B would have minor benefits on wilderness and values on the refuge.

Alternative C

Wilderness protection under alternative C would be 

the same as under alternative A. Near wilderness, 

some formerly seasonally closed could be opened, 

allowing for more access to the refuge. However, no 

new roads would be proposed. While the additional 

access would have a minor negative effect on wildlife 

and habitat, it would allow for increased use of the 

refuge and provide for more recreation such as hunting and game retrieval.

Graveling the Knox Ridge Road could detract 

from the wild and scenic river values of the Missouri 

River because more traffic would be visible from 

some areas along the river. There would be more 

dust and noise associated with increased vehicle use 

as compared with current conditions (not graveled 

and not passable when wet). The degree of increased 

negative effect would vary with the expectation of 

the river user, the condition of the road (graveling 

the road would not equate to all-season), and the 

amount of increased traffic. Not all parts of the road 

are visible from the river. With projected increases 

in refuge visitation of 20–50 percent, there could be 

minor negative effects associated with graveling the 

road.

Overall, the proposed wilderness changes in alternative C would have minor negative effects on wilderness values on the refuge. As with alternative A, 

there would continue to be degradation of the scenic 

and ecological wilderness values in those proposed 

wilderness units where annual grazing still occurred.

Alternative D

Under alternative D, there would be an increase of 

19,942 acres or a 13 percent increase of wilderness 

protection. Eighteen percent of the refuge would be 

protected as wilderness. This would result in minor 

benefits for wilderness protection. There would be 

very few miles of road closures associated with the 

additional proposed wilderness acres. These road 

closures would allow wildlife to migrate between forage sites with fewer disturbances.

Similar to alternative C, graveling the Knox 

Ridge Road could detract from the wild and scenic 

river values of the Missouri river because more vehicles would be visible from the river in some locations. 

There would also be more dust and noise associated 

with the increased vehicle use as compared to existing conditions. With projected increases in refuge 

visitation of 15–25 percent, there could be minor negative effects associated with graveling the road.

The transition to prescriptive grazing would 

occur over most of the refuge within 6–9 years, 

which would benefit the scenic and ecological wilderness values in the long term. Similar to alternative B, the rate at which this occurred would depend 

on how quickly prescriptive grazing was carried out 

in the proposed wilderness units. Overall, the proposed wilderness changes in alternative B would 

have minor benefits on wilderness and values on the 

refuge.

Conclusion

Under all alternatives, 20,819 acres of designated 

wilderness in UL Bend Wilderness would remain 

protected as identified in the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

No motorized vehicles would be allowed. Increases 

in proposed wilderness would provide more protection of those natural ecosystems and allow natural 

processes to work freely.

Under alternatives A and C, the proposed wilderness acreage would remain at 155,288 acres as proposed in 1974. Within the refuge boundary, about 16 

percent of the refuge would be protected as wilderness. In alternative B, there would be a net gain of 

25,869 acres of proposed wilderness, resulting in a 

17-percent change refugewide. Alternative D would 

have a net gain of 19,942 acres (13 percent). The 

effects on total designated and proposed wilderness 

acres, and the values that they provide, would be 

minor benefits in alternative B and D.

Graveling the Knox Ridge Road under alternatives C and D could detract from the wild and scenic river values of the Missouri River. With minor to 

moderate increases in refuge visitation, there could 

be minor negative effects associated with graveling 

the road.
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 327

Mitigation

No mitigation measures would be necessary under 

any alternative. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS on SPECIAL AREAS

BLM has three wilderness study areas that are contiguous with existing designated wilderness on the 

refuge. The existing configuration and management of these areas to preserve wilderness values 

provides moderate cumulative benefits to the management and integrity of wilderness on the refuge 

by expanding the total size of wilderness areas. 

These moderate cumulative benefits would be the 

same under all alternatives.

Alternative B would result in 13 miles of road 

closures within or adjacent to wilderness. Overall, 

the cumulative impact on access would be negligible (most of the road closures are in units that are 

prescriptively grazed). Alternative D has one small 

road closure associated with proposed wilderness 

additions (road 311); the cumulative impact on access 

would be negligible.

None of the alternatives would result in cumulative impacts on other special land designations.

5.8 ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES for

CULTURAL and HISTORICAL 

RESOURCES 

Many of the refuge’s prehistoric and historic resources have not been surveyed. Formal investigations 

have been sporadic and there is still a lot the Service 

does not know about these resources (refer to section 

4.6 in “Chapter 4—Affected Environment”).

EFFECTS COMMON to ALL ALTERNATIVES

Activities outlined in each alternative have the potential to negatively affect cultural resources, either by 

direct disturbance during construction of habitat projects and facilities related to public use or administration and operations, or indirectly by exposing cultural 

and historic artifacts during management actions such 

as habitat restoration or prescribed burning. The presence of cultural resources including historic properties 

would not prevent a Federal undertaking or project, but 

any undertaking would be subject to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, or other laws protecting cultural resources (refer to “Appendix D—Key 

Legislation and Policy”). Many negative effects to cultural resources would be identified, and options for minimizing negative effects would be discussed before any 

implementation of the project. Refuge staff would provide the zone archaeologist (region 6) a description and 

location of all projects, activities, routine maintenance, 

and operations that could negatively affect ground and 

structures, details on requests for allowable uses, and 

the options being considered. The zone archaeologist 

would analyze these undertakings for their potential 

to affect historic properties and enter into consultation 

with the State Historic Preservation Officer and other 

parties as appropriate. As necessary, the refuge would 

notify the public and local government officials. The Service would protect all known gravesites. Any collection 

of plant or other materials for tribal ceremonial purposes 

would be conducted under a special use permit. 

EFFECTS of ALTERNATIVES B, C, and D

As compared to alternative A, under alternatives B, 

C, and D, the Service would increase protection and 

preservation of cultural resources found on the refuge primarily through better planning and more survey work. Development of a stepdown plan early in 

the implementation of the CCP would benefit cultural resources, particularly if it were integrated 

early with habitat management plans. More survey 

work would enable the refuge to identify areas with 

a high or moderate likelihood of historic properties, 

and actions could be taken to limit negative effects 

on cultural resources. 

Visitors who are interested in the refuge’s historical past would benefit from an increased emphasis 

on interpretation of the refuge’s cultural resources 

and the efforts to preserve its rich past. 

CONCLUSION

The Service would continue to follow all cultural 

resources laws for any project work on the refuge. 

Under alternatives B, C, and D, the Service would 

increase protection efforts largely through better 

planning, survey work, and law enforcements. Tribes 

would be allowed to collect and use plants and other 

resources for ceremonial purposes under a special 

use permits. These efforts would result in negligible 

to minor benefits to cultural resources. 

MITIGATION

For cultural resources, any mitigation measures 

would be addressed with the State Historic Preservation Officer. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS on 

CULTURAL and HISTORICAL RESOURCES

None of the alternatives would result in cumulative 

impacts on cultural and historical resources.
328 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

5.9 ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES for

PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

The primary effects would be on Hell Creek and Bug 

Creek. 

EFFECTS COMMON to ALL ALTERNATIVES

Paleontological resources would be protected on 

the refuge in accordance with the Paleontological 

Resources Protection Act of 2009. However, the digging of fossils, even when done under a special use 

permit would result in direct, negative, and longterm effects from the excavation of these resources 

from their original context. In keeping with the provisions of the Protection Act, the excavation of these 

important fossils by credible research facilities would 

contribute to the knowledge and interpretation of 

the fossil history of the area. The refuge would continue to issue permits to the Museum of the Rockies 

or others to collect paleontological resources. Recreational digging would be prohibited. The national 

natural landmarks at Hell Creek and Bug Creek 

would be conserved. 

EFFECTS of ALTERNATIVES B, C, and D

As required by the Protection Act, the Service would 

work with Montana State University to develop a 

stepdown plan to protect paleontological resources 

and facilitate uniform permitting for research for 

credible research. Increased law enforcement, educational, and interpretive exhibits would ensure 

protection of these resources while providing opportunities for the public to enjoy and learn about these 

resources. These measures would result in minor 

benefits to paleontological resources.

CONCLUSION

Under all of the action alternatives, the continued 

adherence to the Paleontological Resources Protection Act of 2009, along with the completion of a 

stepdown plan and increased management, interpretation, and law enforcement would result in minor 

benefits to paleontological resources on the refuge 

over the long term. 

MITIGATION

No mitigation measures would be necessary under 

any alternative. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS on

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

None of the alternatives would result in cumulative 

impacts on paleontological resources.

USFWS
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 329

5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES for 

the SOCIOECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT

The Service contracted with USGS through the Policy and Science Assistance Branch of the Biological 

Resources Division, Fort Collins Science Center for 

the economic impact analysis for this CCP and EIS. 

It is important to note that the economic value of a 

refuge encompasses more than just the effects of the 

regional economy. Refuges also provide substantial 

nonmarket values (values for items not exchanged 

in established markets) such as maintaining endangered species, preserving wetlands, educating 

future generations, and adding stability to the ecosystem (Carver and Caudill 2007). However, quantifying these types of nonmarket values is beyond the 

scope of this study. 

The methods used to conduct a regional economic 

impact analysis are described below. An analysis of 

the management objectives and strategies found in 

chapter 3 that could affect stakeholders and residents and the local economy is then presented. The 

refuge management activities of economic concern in 

this analysis follow:

■ refuge purchases of goods and services within the 

local community

■ refuge personnel salary spending

■ grazing operations

■ spending in the local community by refuge visitors

■ revenues generated from Refuge Revenue Sharing 

program

METHOD for the REGIONAL 

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Economic input–output models are commonly used 

to determine how economic sectors will and will 

not be affected by demographic, economic, and policy changes. The economic impacts of the management alternatives for the refuge were estimated 

using IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning), a 

regional input–output modeling system developed 

by USDA Forest Service. IMPLAN is a computerized database and modeling system that provides 

a regional input–output analysis of economic activity in terms of 10 industrial groups involving more 

than 400 economic sectors (Olson and Lindall 2000). 

The IMPLAN model draws on data collected by the 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group from multiple Federal 

and State sources including the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. 

Census Bureau (Olson and Lindall 2000). This study 

used the 2007 IMPLAN (version 2) county-level 

data profiles for McCone, Garfield, Fergus, Phillips, 

Petroleum, and Valley Counties. IMPLAN countylevel employment data estimates were found to be 

comparable to the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic 

Information System data for the year 2007. 

Because of the way industries interact in an economy, a change in the activity of one industry affects 

activity levels in several other industries. For example, if more visitors come to an area, local businesses will purchase extra labor and supplies to 

meet the increase in demand for additional services. 

The income and employment resulting from visitor purchases from local businesses represent the 

direct effects of visitor spending within the economy. 

Direct effects measure the net amount of spending 

that stays in the local economy after the first round of 

spending; the amount that does not stay in the local 

economy is termed a leakage (Carver and Caudill 

2007). To increase supplies to local businesses, input 

suppliers must also increase their purchases of inputs 

from other industries. The income and employment 

resulting from these secondary purchases by input 

suppliers are the indirect effects of visitor spending within the economy. Employees of the directly 

affected businesses and input suppliers use their 

incomes to purchase goods and services. The resulting increased economic activity from new employee 

income is the induced effect of visitor spending. The 

indirect and induced effects are known as the secondary effects of visitor spending. “Multipliers” (or 

“response coefficients”) capture the size of the secondary effects, usually as a ratio of total effects to 

direct effects (Stynes 1998). The sums of the direct 

and secondary effects describe the total economic 

impact of visitor spending in the local economy. 

For each alternative, regional economic effects 

from the IMPLAN model are reported for the following categories: 

■ Local output represents the change in local sales 

or revenue.

■ Employment represents the change in number 

of jobs generated in the region from a change in 

regional output. IMPLAN estimates for employment include both full- and part-time workers, 

which are measured in total jobs.

■ Labor income is from employee wages and salaries, including income of sole proprietors and payroll benefits. 

The CCP provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes over 

a 15-year timeframe. The economic impacts reported 

in this report are on an annual basis in 2007 dollars. 

Large management changes often take several years 
330 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

to achieve. The estimates reported for alternatives B, 

C, and D represent the final economic effects after all 

changes in management have been carried out. 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS of ALTERNATIVE A

The economic impacts from revenue-sharing payments, refuge administration, public use activities, 

and other refuge management activities associated 

with livestock grazing are analyzed.

Revenue Sharing

Forty percent of the acreage within the refuge boundary is under the primary jurisdiction of the Service. Most of the acreage (51 percent) falls under 

the primary jurisdiction of USACE, with the Service having secondary jurisdiction in those areas. 

The Montana DNRC and private landowners own the 

remaining acreages. Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, local counties receive an 

annual payment for lands that have been purchased 

by full fee-simple acquisition by the Service. Table 

30 shows the Service fee acquisition acreage in each 

surrounding county.

Table 30. Full fee-simple acquisition acreage and 

refuge revenue-sharing payments for the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges (fiscal year 2008).

County Full fee-simple 

acquisition (acres)

Refuge revenuesharing payment ($)

Fergus 2,512 2,626

Garfield 5,952 6,819

McCone 2,784 1,325

Petroleum 2,981 2,360

Phillips 12,715 17,347

Valley 6,455 4,652

 Totals 24,935 25,684

Refuge revenue-sharing payments are based on the 

greater of 75 cents per acre or 0.75 percent of the 

fair market value of lands acquired by the Service. 

The exact amount of the annual payment depends on 

congressional appropriations, which in recent years 

have tended to be less than the amount to fully fund 

the authorized level of payments. In 2008, the sixcounty area surrounding the refuge received refuge 

revenue-sharing payments totaling $25,684 (refer 

to table 30). Table 31 shows the resulting economic 

impacts of refuge revenue-sharing payments under 

alternative A. Accounting for both the direct and 

secondary effects, refuge revenue-sharing payments 

for alternative A generate total annual economic 

impacts of $32.6 thousand in local output, $7 thousand in labor income, and less than one-third of a job 

in the local impact area.

Table 31. Annual economic impacts from refuge revenue-sharing payments by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative A (2007$).

Type of impact

Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects 25.5 5.0 0

Secondary effects 7.1 2.0 0

 Total economic impact  32.6 7.0 0

Refuge Administration

The spending by refuge employees and work-related 

purchases are identified.

Employees’ Personal Purchases. Refuge employees live in and spend their salaries on daily living 

expenses in communities near the refuge thereby 

generating impacts within the local economy. Household consumption expenditures consist of payments 

by individuals (households) to industries for goods 

and services used for personal consumption. The 

IMPLAN modeling system contains household consumption spending profiles that account for average 

household spending patterns by income level. These 

profiles also capture average annual savings and 

allow for leakage of household spending to outside 

the region. The current approved refuge staff consists of 28 permanent and 21 seasonal employees for 

alternative A, as shown in table 6 in chapter 3.

Based on fiscal year 2008 salary charts, it was 

estimated that annual salaries for alternative A 

would total over $2.3 million. Table 32 shows the economic impacts associated with spending of salaries in 

local area by refuge employees under alternative A. 

For alternative A, salary spending by refuge personnel would directly account for $1.5 million in local 

output, 11 jobs, and $277.2 thousand in labor income 

in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier 

effects would generate an additional $375.2 thousand in local output, four jobs, and $98.9 thousand 

in labor income. Accounting for both the direct and 

secondary effects, salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative A would generate total economic 

impacts of $1.9 million in local output, 15 jobs, and 

$376.1 thousand in labor income.

Work-Related Purchases. A wide variety of supplies 

and services are purchased for refuge operations and 

maintenance activities. Refuge purchases made in 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 331

the six-county area, contribute to the local economic 

impacts associated with the refuge. According to refuge records, approximately 40 percent of the annual 

nonsalary budget expenditures are spent on goods and 

services purchased in the six-county area. Major local 

expenditures include supplies and services related to 

building maintenance and construction; auto repairs, 

parts, and fuel; and utilities. Average annual nonsalary expenditures for alternative A are anticipated to 

be $1.45 million. Table 33 shows the economic impacts 

associated with work-related expenditures in the sixcounty area. For alternative A, work-related expenditures would directly account for almost $597 thousand 

in local output, two jobs, and $59 thousand in labor 

income in the local economy. Accounting for both the 

direct and secondary effects, work-related purchases 

for alternative A would generate total economic 

impacts of $670.8 thousand in local output, three jobs, 

and $79.8 thousand in labor income.

Table 32. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative A (2007$).

Local output Labor income Employment 

Type of impact ($ thousands) ($ thousands) (number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects 1,502.1 277.2 11

Secondary effects 375.2 98.9 4

 Total economic impact  1,877.3 376.1 15

Public Use and Access 

The impact from expenditures by refuge visitors is 

evaluated.

Table 33. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for 

CCP alternative A (2007$).

Local output Labor income Employment 

Type of impact ($ thousands) ($ thousands) (number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects 596.8 58.8 2

Secondary effects 74.0 21.0 1

 Total economic impact  670.8 79.8 3

Refuge Visitors’ Expenditures in the Local Economy. Spending associated with recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generates significant 

economic activity. The Service report “Banking on 

Nature: The Economic Benefits of National Wildlife 

Refuges Visitation to Local Communities” estimated 

the impact of national wildlife refuges on their local 

economies (Carver and Caudill 2007). According to 

the report, more than 34.8 million visits were made 

to national wildlife refuges in fiscal year 2006, which 

generated $1.7 billion of sales in regional economies. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

spending by national wildlife visitors generated nearly 

27,000 jobs, and over $542.8 million in employment 

income (Carver and Caudill 2007). Approximately 

82 percent of total expenditures were from nonconsumptive activities, 12 percent from fishing, and 

6 percent from hunting (Carver and Caudill 2007). 

The refuge offers a wide variety of year-round accessible recreational opportunities including big game 

hunting, upland game hunting, fishing, migratory 

gamebird and waterfowl hunting, and nonconsumptive wildlife-viewing, education, and photography 

opportunities. Information on State and regional 

trends and associated economic impacts of these recreational activities were presented in the previous 

section. This section focuses on the local economic 

impacts associated with refuge visitation. Annual refuge visitation estimates are based on several refuge 

statistic sources including visitors entering the visitor center or other offices, traffic counters, hunting 

permits, and general observation by refuge personnel. Annual refuge visitation estimates are on a per 

visit basis. Table 34 summarizes estimated refuge visitation by type of visitor activity for alternative A.

To determine the local economic impacts of visitor 

spending, only spending by persons living outside the 

local six-county area are included in the analysis. The 

rational for excluding local visitor spending is twofold. 

First, money flowing into the local area from visitors 

living outside the local area (hereafter referred to as 

nonlocal visitors) is considered new money injected 

into the local economy. Second, if residents of the local 

six-county area visit the refuge more or less due to 

the management changes, they will correspondingly 

change their spending of their money elsewhere in 

the six-county area, resulting in no net change to the 

local economy. These are standard assumptions made 

in most regional economic analyses at the local level. 

Refuge visitation statistics and hunting permits were 

used to determine the percentage of nonlocal refuge 
332 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 34. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative A.

Visitor activity Number 

of visits

Percentage of 

nonlocal visits

Number of 

nonlocal visits

Number of hours spent 

at the refuge per visit

Number of nonlocal visitor days2

Consumptive use 

Fishing 60,0001 50 30,000 8 30,000

Big game hunting3 90,000 70 63,000 8 63,000

Waterfowl and 

migratory bird hunting3

2,900 70 2,030 8 2,030

Upland game hunting3 10,000 75 7,500 8 7,500

Nonconsumptive use

Nature trails, other 

wildlife observation, and 

office visits

87,100 70 60,970 4 30,485

 Total 250,000 — 163,500 — 133,015

1 These are the fishing visits attributed to the refuge. USACE estimates nearly 160,000 fishing visits annually. 2 One visitor day = 8 hours. 3 Refer to section 5.6 for discussion of visitor use numbers.

Table 35. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative A (2007$).

Impact aspect Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects

Fishing 2,367.7 646.4 30

Hunting 8,913.9 2,606.0 123

Wildlife viewing 3,337.6 975.4 51

 Subtotal 14,619.2 4,227.8 204

Secondary effects

Fishing 917.6 244.5 9

Hunting 3,519.7 946.6 36

Wildlife viewing 1,438.0 379.2 15

 Subtotal 5,875.3 1,570.3 60

Total effects

Fishing 3,285.3 890.9 39

Hunting 12,433.6 3,552.6 159

Wildlife viewing 4,775.6 1,354.6 66

 Total economic impact 20,494.5 5,798.1 264

visitors. Table 35 shows the estimated percentage of 

nonlocal refuge visits for alternative A.

A visitor usually buys a wide range of goods and 

services while visiting an area. Major expenditure 

categories include lodging, restaurants, supplies, 

groceries, and recreational equipment rental. This 

analysis used the average daily visitor spending profiles from the “Banking on Nature” report (Carver 

and Caudill 2007), which were derived from the 2006 

“National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation.” The survey reports triprelated spending of State residents and nonresidents 

for several different wildlife-associated recreational 

activities. For each recreation activity, spending is 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 333

reported in the categories of lodging, food and drink, 

transportation, and other expenses. Carver and 

Caudill (2007) calculated the average per-person 

per-day expenditures by recreation activity for each 

region of the Service. Residents were defined as living within 30 miles of the refuge and nonresidents as 

living outside the 30-mile radius (Carver and Caudill 2007). For this analysis, nonlocal visitors match 

the nonresident spending profile definition. Therefore, the spending profile for nonresidents for the 

Service’s region 6 (where the refuge is located) was 

used. Nonresident average daily spending profiles 

for big game hunting ($190.38 per day), small game 

hunting ($156.87 per day), migratory bird hunting 

($67.62 per day), and freshwater fishing ($112.02 per 

day) were used to estimate nonlocal visitor spending 

for refuge hunting and fishing-related activities. The 

average daily nonresident spending profile for nonconsumptive wildlife recreation (observing, feeding, 

or photographing fish and wildlife) was used for nonconsumptive wildlife-viewing activities ($140.46 per day). 

The visitor spending profiles are estimated on an 

average per day (8 hours) basis. Because some visitors only spend short amounts of time on the refuge, 

counting each refuge visit as a full visitor day would 

overestimate the economic impact of refuge visitation. To properly account for spending, the annual 

number of nonlocal refuge visits was converted to 

visitor days. Refuge personnel estimate that nonlocal 

hunters and anglers spend a full visitor day (8 hours) 

on the refuge. Nonlocal visitors that view wildlife on 

nature trails or take part in other wildlife observation activities typically spend 4 hours (0.5 visitor day) 

on the refuge. Table 34 shows the number of nonlocal 

visitor days by recreation activity for alternative A.

Total spending by nonlocal refuge visitors was 

determined by multiplying the average nonlocal visitor daily spending by the number of nonlocal visitor 

days. Table 35 summarizes the total economic impacts 

associated with current nonlocal fishing, hunting (all 

types), and nonconsumptive (wildlife viewing) visitation for alternative A. Nonlocal refuge visitors would 

spend over $20.9 million in six-county area annually. 

This spending would directly account for $14.6 million in local output, 204 jobs, and $4.2 million in labor 

income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $5.9 million 

in local output, 60 jobs, and $1.6 million in labor income. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

spending by nonlocal visitors for alternative A would 

generate total economic impacts of $20.5 million in local 

output, 264 jobs and $5.8 million in labor income. 

Livestock Grazing

Service records show there were 42 cattle permits 

on the refuge in 2008 (refer to table 36). During 2008, 

approximately 24,000 AUMs were permitted; however, only 18,872 AUMs were actually used. Garfield County had the largest number of permits and 

AUMs (38.1 percent and 36.2 percent respectively). 

Both McCone and Phillips Counties had 19 percent of 

the permits, but Phillips accounted for 25.7 percent 

of total refuge AUMs while McCone only accounted 

for 14.4 percent. Valley County had 11.9 percent of 

total permits, and accounted 19.2 percent of total 

refuge AUMs. Both Fergus and Petroleum received 

less than 10 percent of total permits (9.5 percent and 

2.4 percent respectively), while accounting for only 

1.9 percent and 2.5 percent of total refuge AUMs.

Table 36. Grazing permits and AUMs for the Charles 

M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges (2008).

County Number of permits Number of AUMs

Fergus 4 359

Garfield 16 6,839

Petroleum 1 468

Phillips 8 4,849

McCone 8 2,726

Valley 5 3,631

 Total 42 18,872

Table 37. Economic impact of grazing on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges (2007$).

Impact aspect Value per AUM Total for AUMs permitted 

(24,000) at the refuge

Total for AUMs of actual use 

(18,872) at the refuge 

Value of production $41.09 $986,160 $775,450 

Total economic impact (output) $79.52 $1,908,480 $1,500,620 

Total labor earnings $18.17 $436,080 $342,993 

Total employment 0.000741 job 18 jobs 14 jobs

Average earnings per job $24,532.00 $24,532 $24,532 

Source: David Taylor (professor, University of Wyoming, personal communication; 2009).

While total AUMs supplied by the refuge have 

decreased from 2001 to 2008, revenues received from 

refuge grazing permits have risen due to increases in 

refuge grazing fees from $9.50 per AUM in 2001 to 

$17.20 per AUM in 2008. 

Table 37 summarizes the estimated economic 

impact of one AUM of refuge grazing to the six-
334 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

county area economy if the refuge grazing is considered in isolation. This analysis, conducted by Dr. 

David Taylor (agricultural economist at the University of Wyoming), was estimated from a modified 2007 IMPLAN model of the six-county area. 

These estimates are based on the 1999–2008 average 

value of production for cow and calf operations in the 

northern Great Plains region of the United States 

(Economic Research Service 2009), which includes 

the refuge area, and a 2006 University of Idaho cow 

and calf budget (a specific budget for the six-county 

area was not available, the Idaho budget was determined to be the best match). On a per AUM basis, 

the average value of production was $41.09. Due 

to economic linkages between ranching and the 

rest of the six-county area economy, the total output from the production associated with one AUM 

of grazing was estimated to be $79.52. This represents the total economic activity that occurs within 

the region from production from one AUM of livestock grazing. Because of this economic activity, it 

is estimated that $18.17 of labor income are generated throughout the local economy and 0.000741 

jobs are supported per AUM of livestock grazing. The 0.000741 jobs represent about one job for 

every 1,350 AUMS of livestock grazing. Average earnings per job for this employment are $24,532 per year.

For alternative A, the current level of permitted 

refuge grazing (24,000 AUMs) would generate $986.2 

thousand of production in six-county area annually. 

This production would account for $1.9 million in total 

economic output, $436 thousand in labor earnings, 

and 18 jobs in the local economy (refer to table 37). 

The current level of AUMs actually used on the refuge (18,872 AUMs) would generate $775.5 thousand 

of production in six-county area annually. This production would account for $1.5 million in total economic output, $343 thousand in labor earnings, and 

14 jobs in the local economy (refer to table 37). 

Summary of Economic Impacts for 

Alternative A

Table 38 summarizes the direct and total economic 

impacts of refuge management activities for alternative A in the six-county area. Under alternative A, 

refuge management activities directly related to all 

refuge operations generate an estimated $16.7 million in local output, 217 jobs and $4.6 million in labor 

income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would 

generate total economic impacts of $23.1 million in 

local output, 282 jobs, and $6.3 million in labor income. In addition, grazing on refuge lands generates 

$1.5 million in total output, 14 jobs, and $343 thousand in labor income in the six-county area economy. 

The economic impacts associated with grazing were 

not included in the summary of refuge management 

activities for alternative A (refer to table 38). Grazing 

would be on a prescriptive basis for all other alternatives where the specific number of AUMs are 

unknown; therefore, grazing impacts were not analyzed.

In 2007, total labor income was estimated at 

$466.4 million and total employment was estimated 

at 17,945 jobs for the six-county area (Minnesota 

IMPLAN Group 2007). Excluding grazing operations, total economic impacts associated with refuge 

operations under alternative A represents 1.3 percent of total income and 1.6 percent of total employment in the overall six-county area economy. Total 

economic effects of refuge operations play a larger 

role in the communities near the refuge such as 

Table 38. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative A (2007$).

Impact aspect Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Refuge revenue sharing

Direct effects 25.5 5.0 0

 Total effects 32.6 7.0 0

Refuge administration

Direct effects 2,098.9 336.0 13

 Total effects 2,548.1 455.9 18

Public use 

Direct effects 14,619.2 4,227.8 204

 Total effects 20,748.6 5,798.1 260

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects 16,743.6 4,568.8 217

 Total effects 23,075.2 6,261.0 282

Note: Economic impacts associated with grazing are not included.
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 335

Lewistown, Glasgow, Fort Peck, Jordan, and Malta 

where most of the refuge’s public use–related economic activity occurs. 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS of ALTERNATIVE B

The economic impacts under alternative B from revenue sharing, refuge administration, public use activities, and other management activities are analyzed.

Revenue Sharing

The effects would be the same as for alternative A. 

Refuge Administration

The impact from staff purchases and work-related 

purchases are evaluated.

Employees’ Personal Purchases. Proposed staff for 

alternative B includes all approved staff positions 

(refer to table 6 in chapter 3) plus five added positions. The new positions are an outdoor recreation 

planner, law enforcement officer, refuge operations 

specialist, range technician, and a technician. Table 

39 shows the economic impacts associated with 

spending of salaries in the six-county area by refuge 

employees under alternative B. For alternative B, 

salary spending by refuge personnel would directly 

account for $1.7 million in local output, 13 jobs, and 

$306.7 thousand in labor income in the local economy. 

The secondary or multiplier effects would generate 

an additional $415.1 thousand in local output, four 

jobs, and $109.8 thousand in labor income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative B 

would generate total economic impacts of $2.1 million in local output, 17 jobs, and $416.5 thousand in 

labor income. Due to the increased personnel levels 

for alternative B, the associated economic effects of 

staff salary spending would generate $199.6 thousand more in local output, two more jobs, and $40.4 

thousand more in labor income than alternative A. 

Table 39. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL 

Bend Refuges for CCP alternative B (2007$).

Local output Labor income Employment 

Type of impact ($ thousands) ($ thousands) (number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects 1,661.8 306.7 13

Secondary effects 415.1 109.8 4

 Total economic impact  2,076.9 416.5 17

Work-Related Purchases. Nonsalary expenditures for 

alternative B are anticipated to increase in proportion 

with the salary increase for the new staff positions 

for a total annual nonsalary budget of $1.61 million 

(an 11-percent increase compared to alternative A). 

Table 40 shows the economic impacts associated with 

work-related expenditures in the six-county area for 

alternative B. These estimates assume 40 percent of 

the nonsalary budget would be spent on goods and 

services purchased in the six-county area (same as 

current and alternative A). Work-related expenditures under alternative B would directly account 

for $660.3 thousand in local output, two jobs, and 

$65.1 thousand in labor income in the local economy. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

work-related purchases for alternative B would generate a total economic impact of $742.2 thousand in 

local output, three jobs, and $88.4 thousand in labor 

income. Due to the increased nonsalary expenditures 

for alternative B, the associated economic effects of 

work-related purchases would generate $71.3 thousand more in local output and $8.6 thousand more in 

labor income than alternative A.

Table 40. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for 

CCP alternative B (2007$).

Type of impact

Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects 660.3 65.1 2

Secondary effects 81.9 23.3 1

 Total economic impact  742.2 88.4 3

Public Use and Access 

Visitor expenditures are evaluated.

Refuge Visitors’ Expenditures in the Local Economy. 

Changes in refuge management activities can affect 

recreational opportunities offered and visitation levels. Table 41 shows the estimated visitation levels 

associated with each visitor activity for alternative B. 

Under alternative B, annual visitation is antici-
336 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

pated to increase for waterfowl hunting (3 percent), 

upland game hunting (20 percent), and nonconsumptive use activities (7 percent) compared to alternative A (refer to table 35 under alternative A above). 

No change is anticipated for fishing activities while 

big game hunting is anticipated to decrease by 6 percent compared to alternative A.

Table 41. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative B.

Number Percentage of Number of Number of hours spent Number of nonVisitor activity of visits nonlocal visits nonlocal visits at the refuge per visit local visitor days2

Consumptive use 

Fishing

Big game hunting3

Waterfowl and 

migratory bird hunting3

Upland game hunting3

60,0001

85,000

3,000

12,000

50

70

70

75

30,000

59,500

2,100

9,000

8

8

8

8

30,000

59,500

2,100

9,000

Nonconsumptive use

Nature trails, other 

wildlife observation, and 

office visits

93,000 70 65,100 4 32,550

 Total 253,000 — 165,700 — 133,150

1

 These are the fishing visits attributed to the refuge. USACE estimates nearly 160,000 fishing visits annually.

2

 One visitor day = 8 hours.

3

 Refer to section 5.6 for discussion of visitor use numbers. 

Table 42. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative B (2007$).

Impact aspect

Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects

Fishing 2,367.7 646.4 30

Hunting 8,641.8 2,529.0 119

Wildlife viewing 3,563.7 1,041.5 54

 Subtotal 14,573.2 4,216.9 203

Secondary effects

Fishing 917.6 244.5 9

Hunting 3,413.4 919.3 35

Wildlife viewing 1,535.4 404.9 16

 Subtotal 5,866.4 1,568.7 60

Total effects

Fishing 3,285.3 890.9 39

Hunting 12,055.2 3,448.3 154

Wildlife viewing 5,099.1 1,446.4 70

 Total economic impact 20,439.6 5,785.6 263

Table 42 summarizes the total economic impacts 

associated with current nonlocal fishing, hunting (all 

types), and nonconsumptive visitation for alternative B. Nonlocal refuge visitors would spend over 

$20.8 million in the six-county area annually. This 

spending would directly account for $14.6 million 

in local output, 203 jobs, and $4.2 million in labor 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 337

income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $5.9 million in local output, 60 jobs, and $1.6 million in labor 

income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by nonlocal visitors for alternative B would generate total economic impacts of 

$20.4 million in local output, 263 jobs, and $5.8 million 

in labor income. Even though visitation increased 

slightly (135 total nonlocal visitor days) compared to 

alternative A, the increase in waterfowl hunting (70 

visitor days with an average spending of $67.62 per 

day), upland game hunting (1,500 visitor days with 

an average spending of $156.87 per day), and nonconsumptive use activities (2,065 visitor days with 

an average spending of $140.46 per day) does not offset the decrease in big game hunters (3,500 visitor 

days with an average spending of $190.39 per day). 

Therefore, for alternative B, the associated economic 

effects of refuge visitation would be less than alternative A by $54.9 thousand in local output, one job, 

and $12.5 thousand in labor income.

Livestock Grazing

For alternative B, refuge management would progressively move toward a prescriptive grazing 

regime, and it would be carried out on 50–75 percent 

of the refuge within 4–7 years. As a result, the level 

of grazing could be reduced or increased for short 

periods.

As shown in table 23 in chapter 4, the refuge supplies less than 1 percent of total AUMs in the sixcounty area. Therefore, changes to refuge grazing 

levels would not be significant for the six-county economy but could impact individual ranches with refuge grazing permits. The refuge grazing impacts in 

table 37 under alternative A assume that the only 

affect on the ranching operation from refuge grazing 

is the direct production associated with the refuge 

AUMs. Although most ranches are typically only 

partially dependent on Federal land grazing for forage, this forage source can be a critical part of their 

livestock operation due to the rigidity of seasonal forage availability (Taylor et al. 2008). Therefore, potential reductions in income and net ranch returns can be 

greater than just the direct economic loss from reductions in Federal grazing AUMs (Rowe and Bartlett 

2001, Taylor et al. 2008, Van Tassell and Richardson 1998). The level of an increased impact above 

the direct production associated with refuge AUMs 

would depend on several factors including the individual ranch’s level of dependency on refuge grazing, 

the magnitude of the proposed change in grazing, the 

financial solvency of the ranch, and the availability of 

alternative sources of forage (Taylor et al. 2008). 

Summary of Economic Impacts for 

Alternative B

Table 43 summarizes the direct and total economic 

impacts of refuge management activities for alternative B in the six-county area. Excluding grazing 

operations, refuge management activities directly 

related to refuge operations would generate an estimated $16.9 million in local output, 218 jobs and $4.6 

million in labor income in the local economy under 

alternative B. Including direct, indirect, and induced 

effects, all refuge activities would generate total 

economic impacts of $23.3 million in local output, 

283 jobs and $6.3 million in labor income. Excluding 

grazing operations, total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under alternative B represents 1.4 percent of total income and 1.6 percent 

of total employment in the overall six-county area 

Table 43. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative B (2007$).

Impact aspect

Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Refuge revenue sharing

Direct effects 25.5 5.0 0

 Total effects 32.6 7.0 0

Refuge administration

Direct effects 2,322.1 371.8 15

 Total effects 2,819.1 504.9 20

Public use 

Direct effects 14,573.2 4,216.9 203

 Total effects 20,439.6 5,785.6 263

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects 16,920.8 4,593.7 218

 Total effects 23,291.3 6,297.5 283

Note: Economic impacts associated with grazing are not included.
338 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations 

play a larger role in the communities near the refuge 

such as Lewistown, Glasgow, Fort Peck, Jordan, and 

Malta where most of the refuge’s public use–related 

economic activity occurs. 

Table 44 summarizes the change in economic effects 

associated with refuge operations under alternative B 

as compared to alternative A. Due to increases in refuge administration and decreases in big game hunting, alternative B would generate $216.0 thousand 

more in local output, $36.4 thousand more in labor 

income and one more job as compared to alternative A.

Table 44. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative B 

compared with CCP alternative A (2007$).

Local output Labor income Employment 

Impact aspect ($ thousands) ($ thousands) (number of full- and part-time jobs)

Refuge revenue sharing

Direct effects 0 0 0

 Total effects 0 0 0

Refuge administration

Direct effects +223.2 +35.8 +2

 Total effects +270.9 +48.9 +2

Public use 

Direct effects –46.0 –10.9 –1

 Total effects –309.0 –12.5 +3

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects +177.2 +24.9 +1

 Total effects +216.0 +36.4 +1

ECONOMIC IMPACTS of ALTERNATIVE C

The economic impacts under alternative C as a result 

of revenue sharing, refuge administration, public use 

activities, and other management activities are evaluated.

Revenue Sharing

The effects would be the same as for alternative A. 

Refuge Administration

The purchases by staff in the communities or other 

work-related purchases are evaluated.

Employees’ Personal Purchases. Proposed staff for 

alternative C includes all current staff positions 

(refer to table 6 in chapter 3) plus seven added positions: two outdoor recreation planners; two maintenance workers; one law enforcement officer; one 

station manager (UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge); and one range technician. Table 45 shows the 

economic impacts associated with spending of salaries in the six-county area by refuge employees 

under alternative C. For alternative C, salary spending by refuge personnel would directly account for 

$1.7 million in local output, 13 jobs, and $321.5 thousand in labor income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an 

additional $435.1 thousand in local output, four jobs, 

and $114.7 thousand in labor income. Accounting for 

both the direct and secondary effects, salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative C would generate total economic impacts of $2.2 million in local 

output, 17 jobs, and $436.2 thousand in labor income. 

Due to the increased personnel levels for alternative C, the associated economic effects of staff salary spending would generate $300 thousand more in 

local output, two more jobs, and $60.1 thousand more 

in labor income than alternative A.

Table 45. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative C (2007$).

Type of impact

Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects 1,742.0 321.5 13

Secondary effects 435.1 114.7 4

 Total economic impact  2,177.1 436.2 17
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 339

Work-Related Purchases. Nonsalary expenditures for 

alternative C are anticipated to increase in proportion 

with the salary increase for the new staff positions 

for a total annual nonsalary budget of $1.68 million 

(16-percent increase compared to alternative A). 

Table 46 shows the economic impacts associated with 

work-related expenditures in the six-county area for 

alternative C. These estimates assume 40 percent of 

the nonsalary budget would be spent on goods and 

services purchased in the six-county area (same as 

current and alternative A). Work-related expenditures under alternative C would directly account 

for $692.2 thousand in local output, two jobs, and 

$68.2 thousand in labor income in the local economy. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

work-related purchases for alternative B would generate a total economic impact of $778.0 thousand in 

local output, three jobs and $92.6 thousand in labor 

income. Due to the increased nonsalary expenditures 

for alternative B, the associated economic effects of 

work-related purchases would generate $107.2 thousand more in local output and $12.8 thousand more in 

labor income than alternative A.

Table 46. Local economic impacts of work-related purchases by the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for 

CCP alternative C (2007$).

Local output Labor income Employment 

Type of impact ($ thousands) ($ thousands) (number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects 692.2 68.2 2

Secondary effects 85.8 24.4 1

 Total economic impact  778.0 92.6 3

Public Use and Access 

The impact from visitor expenditures is evaluated.

Refuge Visitors’ Expenditures in the Local Economy. 

In table 47, the estimated visitation levels associated with each visitor activity are shown for alternative C. Under alternative C, visitation increases are 

anticipated for all activities expect fishing as compared to alternative A (refer to table 34).

Table 48 summarizes the total economic impacts 

associated with current nonlocal fishing, hunting (all 

types), and nonconsumptive visitation for alternative C. Nonlocal refuge visitors would spend almost 

$23.4 million in the six-county area annually. This 

spending would directly account for $17.1 million in 

local output, 240 jobs, and $5 million in labor income 

Table 47. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative C.

Visitor activity

Number 

of visits

Percentage of 

nonlocal visits

Number of 

nonlocal visits

Number of hours spent 

at the refuge per visit

Number of nonlocal visitor days2

Consumptive use 

Fishing 60,0001 50 30,000 8 30,000

Big game hunting3 100,000 70 70,000 8 70,000

Waterfowl and 

migratory bird hunting3

3,500 70 2,450 8 2,450

Upland game hunting3 15,000 75 11,250 8 11,250

Nonconsumptive use

Nature trails, other 

wildlife observation, and 

office visits

117,585 70 82,310 4 41,155

 Total 296,085 — 196,010 — 154,855

1 These are the fishing visits attributed to the refuge. USACE estimates nearly 160,000 fishing visits annually. 2 One visitor day = 8 hours. 3 Refer to section 5.6 for discussion of visitor use numbers.
340 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier 

effects would generate an additional $6.9 million in 

local output, 70 jobs, and $1.8 million in labor income. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

spending by nonlocal visitors for alternative C would 

generate total economic impacts of $24 million in local 

output, 310 jobs and $6.8 million in labor income. Due 

to the increased visitation levels (except for fishing) 

under alternative C, the associated economic effects 

of visitor spending would generate $3.5 million more 

in local output, 46 more jobs, and $999.2 thousand 

more in labor income than alternative A.

Table 48. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative C (2007$).

Impact aspect

Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects

Fishing 2,367.7 646.4 30

Hunting 10,240.0 2,990.2 141

Wildlife viewing 4,505.8 1,316.8 69

 Subtotal 17,113.5 4,953.4 240

Secondary effects

Fishing 917.6 244.5 9

Hunting 4,045.0 1,087.5 41

Wildlife viewing 1,941.3 511.9 20

 Subtotal 6,903.9 1,843.9 70

Total effects

Fishing 3,285.3 890.9 39

Hunting 14,285.0 4,077.7 182

Wildlife viewing 6,447.1 1,828.7 89

 Total economic impact 24,017.4 6,797.3 310

Livestock Grazing

For alternative C, refuge management would gradually move toward a prescriptive grazing regime 

on those units that are fenced or are currently not 

assigned a permit holder. As with alternative B, prescriptive grazing would be initiated to meet specific 

wildlife and habitat objectives. As a result, the level 

of grazing would remain consistent from year-toyear with some fluctuations due to units being prescriptive grazed to meet goals and objectives.

As shown in table 23 in chapter 4, the refuge supplies less than 1 percent of total AUMs in the sixcounty area. Therefore, changes to refuge grazing 

levels would not be significant for the six-county economy but could impact individual ranches with refuge 

grazing permits. The refuge grazing impacts in table 37 

under alternative A assume that the only affect on 

the ranching operation from refuge grazing is the 

direct production associated with the refuge AUMs. 

Although most ranches are typically only partially 

dependent on Federal land grazing for forage, this 

forage source can be a critical part of their livestock 

operation due to the rigidity of seasonal forage availability (Taylor et al. 2008). Therefore, potential reductions in income and net ranch returns can be greater 

than just the direct economic loss from reductions in 

Federal grazing AUMs (Van Tassell and Richardson 

1998, Rowe and Bartlett 2001, Taylor et al. 2008). The 

level of an increased impact above the direct production associated with refuge AUMs would depend on 

several factors including the individual ranch’s level of 

dependency on refuge grazing, the magnitude of the 

proposed change in grazing, the financial solvency of 

the ranch, and the availability of alternative sources 

of forage (Taylor et al. 2008). 

Summary of Economic Impacts for 

Alternative C

Table 49 summarizes the direct and total economic 

impacts of all refuge management activities for alternative C in the six-county area. Under alternative C, 

refuge management activities directly related to all 

refuge operations generate an estimated $19.6 million in local output, 255 jobs, and $5.4 million in labor 

income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would 

generate total economic impacts of $27 million in local 

output, 330 jobs, and $7.3 million in labor income. 

Excluding grazing operations, total economic impacts 

associated with refuge operations under alternative C 

would represent 1.6 percent of total income and 1.8 

percent of total employment in the overall six-county 

area economy. Total economic effects of refuge oper-
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 341

ations play a larger role in the communities near the 

refuge such as Lewistown, Glasgow, Fort Peck, Jordan, and Malta where most of the refuge’s public use–

related economic activity occurs.

Table 50 summarizes the change in economic 

effects associated with refuge operations under 

alternative C as compared to alternative A. Due to 

increases in refuge administration and visitation, alternative C would generate $3.9 million more in local 

output, 48 additional jobs, and $1 million more in 

labor income as compared to alternative A.

Table 49. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative C (2007$).

Local output Labor income Employment 

Impact aspect ($ thousands) ($ thousands) (number of full- and part-time jobs)

Refuge revenue sharing

Direct effects 25.5 5.0 0

 Total effects 32.6 7.0 0

Refuge administration

Direct effects

 Total effects

2,434.2 

2,955.1 

389.7 

528.8

15

20

Public use 

Direct effects

 Total effects

17,113.5

24,017.4

4,953.4

6,797.3

240

310

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects

 Total effects

19,573.2

27,005.1

5,348.1

7,333.1

255

330

Note: Economic impacts associated with grazing are not included.

Table 50. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative C 

compared with CCP alternative A (2007$).

Impact aspect

Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Refuge revenue sharing

Direct effects 0 0 0

 Total effects 0 0 0

Refuge administration

Direct effects +335.3 +53.7 +2

 Total effects +407.0 +72.8 +2

Public use 

Direct effects +2,494.3 +725.6 +36

 Total effects +3,268.8 +999.2 +50

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects +2,829.6 +779.3 +38

 Total effects +3,929.9 +1,072.0 +48

ECONOMIC IMPACTS of ALTERNATIVE D

The economic impacts under alternative D from revenue sharing, refuge administration, public use activities, and other management activities are evaluated.

Revenue Sharing

The effects would be the same as for alternative A. 

Refuge Administration

The purchases by staff in the communities or other 

work-related purchases are evaluated.

Employees’ Personal Purchases. Proposed staff for 

alternative D includes all current staff positions (refer 

to table 6 in chapter 3) plus seven added positions: 

two outdoor recreation planners; one maintenance 

worker; one law enforcement officer; one station 

manager (UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge); 

one range technician; and one technician. Table 51 

shows the economic impacts associated with spending of salaries in the six-county area by refuge 

employees under alternative D. For alternative D, 
342 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

salary spending by refuge personnel would directly 

account for $1.7 million in local output, 13 jobs, and 

$321 thousand in labor income in the local economy. 

The secondary or multiplier effects would generate 

an additional $434.4 thousand in local output, four 

jobs, and $114.5 thousand in labor income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative C 

would generate total economic impacts of $2.2 million in local output, 17 jobs, and $435.5 thousand in 

labor income. Due to the increased personnel levels 

for alternative D, the associated economic effects of 

staff salary spending would generate $296 thousand 

more in local output, two more jobs, and $59 thousand more in labor income than alternative A.

Table 51. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by employees at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative D (2007$).

Local output Labor income Employment 

Type of impact ($ thousands) ($ thousands) (number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects 1,739.2 321.0 13

Secondary effects 434.4 114.5 4

 Total economic impact  2,173.6 435.5 17

Work-Related Purchases. Nonsalary expenditures for 

alternative D are anticipated to increase in proportion with the salary increase for the new staff positions, a 16-percent increase (same as alternative C) 

compared to alternative A. Therefore, the impacts 

would be the same as for alternative C, as shown in 

table 46 above. 

Public Use and Access 

The impact from visitor expenditures is evaluated.

Refuge Visitors’ Expenditures in the Local Economy. In 

table 52, the estimated visitation levels associated 

with each visitor activity are shown for alternative D. 

Under alternative D, slight increases in visitation 

are anticipated for all activities except fishing and 

upland game hunting as compared to alternative A 

(refer to table 32 above).

Table 53 summarizes the total economic impacts 

associated with current nonlocal fishing, hunting (all 

types), and nonconsumptive visitation for alternative D. Nonlocal refuge visitors would spend almost 

$21.8 million in the six-county area annually. This 

spending would directly account for $15.8 million 

in local output, 221 jobs, and $4.6 million in labor 

income in the local economy. The secondary or mulTable 52. Estimated annual visitation of the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges for CCP alternative D.

Visitor activity

Number 

of visits

Percentage of 

nonlocal visits

Number of 

nonlocal visits

Number of hours spent 

at the refuge per visit

Number of nonlocal visitor days2

Consumptive use 

Fishing 60,0001 50 30,000 8 30,000

Big game hunting3 95,000 70 66,500 8 66,500

Waterfowl and 

migratory bird hunting3

3,000 70 2,100 8 2,100

Upland game hunting3 10,000 75 7,500 8 7,500

Nonconsumptive use

Nature trails, other 

wildlife observation, and 

office visits

95,810 70 67,067 4 33,534

 Total 263,810 — 173,167 — 139,634

1 These are the fishing visits attributed to the refuge. USACE estimates nearly 160,000 fishing visits annually. 2 One visitor day = 8 hours. 3 Refer to section 5.6 for discussion of visitor use numbers. 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 343

tiplier effects would generate an additional $6.4 million in local output, 65 jobs, and $1.7 million in labor 

income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by nonlocal visitors for alternative D would generate total economic impacts of 

$22.2 million in local output, 287 jobs, and $6.3 million in labor income. Due to the increased visitation 

levels (except for fishing and upland game hunting) 

under alternative D, the associated economic effects 

of visitor spending would generate $1.7 million more 

in local output, 23 more jobs, and $497.5 thousand 

more in labor income than alternative A.

Table 53. Annual economic impacts of spending by nonlocal visitors to the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative D (2007$).

Impact aspect

Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Direct effects

Fishing 2,367.7 646.4 30

Hunting 9,803.9 2,872.0 135

Wildlife viewing 3,671.4 1,073.0 56

 Subtotal 15,843.0 4,591.4 221

Secondary effects

Fishing 917.6 244.5 9

Hunting 3,870.5 1,042.6 40

Wildlife viewing 1,581.8 417.1 16

 Subtotal 6,369.9 1,704.2 65

Total effects

Fishing 3,285.3 890.9 40

Hunting 13,674.4 3,914.6 175

Wildlife viewing 5,253.2 1,490.1 72

 Total economic impact 22,212.9 6,295.6 287

Livestock Grazing

For alternative D, refuge management would move 

toward a prescriptive grazing regime to promote 

ecological resilience, promote biological diversity, 

integrity, and heterogeneity across the landscape. 

Prescriptive grazing would be carried out across 

50–75 percent of the refuge within 6–9 years. As a 

result, the level of grazing could probably be reduced 

from the current level but could possibly increase for 

short periods.

As shown in table 23 in chapter 4, the refuge supplies less than 1 percent of total AUMs in the sixcounty area. Therefore, changes to refuge grazing 

levels would not be significant for the six-county 

economy but could affect individual ranches with refuge grazing permits. The refuge grazing impacts in 

table 37 under alternative A assume that the only 

affect on the ranching operation from refuge grazing 

is the direct production associated with the refuge 

AUMs. Although most ranches are typically only 

partially dependent on Federal land grazing for forage, this forage source can be a critical part of their 

livestock operation due to the rigidity of seasonal forage availability (Taylor et al. 2008). Therefore, potential reductions in income and net ranch returns can 

be greater than just the direct economic loss from 

reductions in Federal grazing AUMs (Van Tassell 

and Richardson 1998, Rowe and Bartlett 2001, Taylor et al. 2008). The level of an increased impact above 

the direct production associated with refuge AUMs 

would depend on several factors including the individual ranch’s level of dependency on refuge grazing, 

the magnitude of the proposed change in grazing, the 

financial solvency of the ranch, and the availability of 

alternative sources of forage (Taylor et al. 2008). 

Summary of Economic Impacts for 

Alternative D

Table 54 summarizes the direct and total economic 

impacts of all refuge management activities for alternative D in the six-county area. Excluding grazing, 

refuge management activities directly related to all 

refuge operations generate an estimated $18.3 million in local output, 236 jobs and $5 million in labor 

income in the local economy under alternative D. 

Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all 

refuge activities would generate total economic 

impacts of $25.2 million in local output, 307 jobs and 

$6.8 million in labor income. Excluding grazing operations, total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under alternative D would represent 

1.5 percent of total income and 1.7 percent of total 

employment in the overall six-county area economy. 
344 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Total economic effects of refuge operations play a 

larger role in the communities near the refuge such 

as Lewistown, Glasgow, and Malta where most of the 

refuge’s public use–related economic activity occurs.

Table 55 summarizes the change in economic 

effects associated with refuge operations under 

alternative D as compared to alternative A. Due to 

increases in visitation and refuge administration, 

alternative D would generate $1.6 million more in 

local output, 19 additional jobs, and $569.6 thousand 

more in labor income as compared to alternative A.

Table 54. Summary of economic impacts of all management activities at the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges for CCP alternative D (2007$).

Impact aspect

Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Refuge revenue sharing

Direct effects 25.5 5.0 0

 Total effects 32.6 7.0 0

Refuge administration

Direct effects 2,431.4 389.2 15

 Total effects 2,951.6 528.1 20

Public use 

Direct effects 15,843.0 4,591.4 221

 Total effects 22,212.9 6,295.6 287

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects 18,299.9 4,985.6 236

 Total effects 25,197.1 6,830.7 307

Table 55. Change in economic impacts for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges under CCP alternative D 

compared with CCP alternative A (2007$).

Impact aspect

Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number of full- and part-time jobs)

Refuge revenue sharing

Direct effects 0 0 0

 Total effects 0 0 0

Refuge administration

Direct effects +332.5 +53.2 +2

 Total effects +403.5 +72.1 +2

Public use 

Direct effects +1,223.8 +363.6 +17

 Total effects +1,464.3 +497.5 +27

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects +1,556.3 +416.8 +19

 Total effects +2,121.9 +569.6 +25

IMPACTS on PRIVATE LANDS and 

LIVESTOCK PERMITTEES

In addition to economic impacts described above, the 

effects on livestock grazers from changes in annual 

grazing to prescriptive grazing including fencing 

changes, stock pond renovations, and changes in wilderness on current livestock permittees were evaluated. For more information on current livestock 

grazing, refer to chapter 4 and figure 16.

All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, the Service would extend 

agreements that are in place for fire suppression on 

adjacent lands (Montana Cooperative Fire Management Response Agreement 2011–2015). Over time, 

the use of prescribed fire in alternatives B and D 

and to a lesser extent in C would reduce heavy fuel, 

thus reducing the risk for severe wildfires spreading 

across private lands, but implementation of alternative would not eliminate the risk for wildfire altogether. 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 345

Table 56. Acres of grazing lands available under the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend 

Refuges.

EXISTING CONDITIONS 2010

Total acres of refuge grazing lands = 740,0301

Acres with no grazing allotments = 77,475 (10%)

Acres available for grazing = 662,555 (90%)

 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

 Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Acres % of Total

Area under annual grazing

 409,849– 

 331,278

55–45 331,278– 

 165,639

45–22 409,849–

 331,278

55–45 331,128–

 165,639

45–22

Area under prescriptive grazing2

 252,706– 

 370,015

 34–50 331,278–

 555,023

50–75 252,706–

 370,015

Up to 50 331,278–

 555,023

50–75

Area with no grazing allotments

 77,475 10 Variable Variable Variable

Implementation timeframe

Over 15 years Within 4–7 years Over 15 years Within 6–9 years

1 Refer to figure 16 in chapter 4. This acreage accounts for all of the Service’s lands available for grazing including those 

 with no current grazing allotment, lands grazed under annual grazing, and lands currently grazed under prescriptive 

 grazing. It does not include private or State inholdings within the refuge boundary.

2 This acreage would depend on amount of acreage with no grazing allotment. If all of the yellow lands remained with 

 no grazing allotment, 662,555 acres would be available for grazing either prescriptively or under annual grazing; if all 

 of the yellow lands were available for grazing in the future, the highest amount available for prescriptive grazing would 

 be 740,030 acres. The total available for annual grazing would not exceed 409,849 acres (existing conditions) and 

 would continue to decrease as prescriptive grazing is carried out. 

As the Service continues the transition and implementation of prescriptive grazing across the refuge, 

there would be increased transportation costs for 

permittees as they would not necessarily be able to 

turn out their cattle at the beginning of the season 

as they have done in the past. For some permittees, 

this could be a moderate to major impact depending 

on the distance traveled, the number of times per 

season livestock needed to be moved, and even market prices for beef. For those operators who are used 

to moving livestock to alternative sources of forage, 

increased transportation costs would not be as significant. 

Alternatives A and C

The alternatives would have varying impacts on 

current livestock permittees as shown in table 56. 

Under existing conditions, a minimum of 34 percent 

of the refuge would be grazed prescriptively, and any 

change from annual grazing would only occur when 

grazing units became available through the sale to 

a third party, or when habitat evaluations are completed and prescriptive grazing is required to meet 

habitat objectives. Since 1990, the Service has moved 

from no prescriptive grazing to 34 percent. Because 

the Service must move to a prescriptive-based program to meet legal and policy requirements, under 

alternative A, based on the past 20 years, it would 

likely approach 50 percent within 15 years. Under 

alternative A, the total available acreage for annual 

grazing would never exceed 409,849 acres and it 

would continue to decrease. The acres with no grazing allotments (77,475) would remain the same as the 

Service would be unlikely to graze those allotments. 

Under alternative C, the Service would implement 

prescriptive grazing on up to 50 percent of the total 

available grazing lands (some of the acreage with no 

grazing allotments could be prescriptively grazed 

in the future depending on habitat needs) within 

15 years. The refuge would continue the practice of 

holding grazing permits as ranches sell their lands 

to outside parties. Any move to prescriptive grazing would occur mostly on units that would become 

vacant in the future so the negative effects on current permit holders would be minor. Fence removal 

and stock pond renovations would occur on those 

units that are managed under prescriptive grazing 

plan. New boundary fence construction would have 

negligible to minor impacts on a few permittees that 

would have pastures that are in common with refuge lands.
346 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Alternatives B and D

Under alternatives B and D there would be moderate to major impacts on some livestock permittees as 

the Service moved to a greater emphasis on prescriptive grazing over annual grazing (refer to table 56). 

Under alternative B, the Service would move to prescriptive grazing over 50–75 percent of the refuge in 

4–7 years, whereas the timeframe under alternative 

D would occur over 6–9 years. Over 15 years, 331,278 

to 555,023 acres would be prescriptively grazed 

under alternatives B and D for an increase of 16–41 

percent as compared to existing conditions (252,706 

acres). Compared to existing conditions where only 

662,555 acres of the 740,030 acres are being grazed 

either by annual or prescriptive grazing under alternatives B and D, the acres with no current Federal 

grazing allotments could be prescriptively grazed 

in the future. Steer operations typically have more 

flexibility and could adapt easier to a prescriptive 

program. When developing habitat management 

plans with a prescriptive grazing component, the 

Service would work with the existing permittees so 

they could arrange their operations for future grazing needs on the refuge, which could reduce negative 

effects on the permittees. 

Additionally, there would be moderate direct 

impacts on permittees when the Service removed 

25–50 percent of the interior fences; however, there 

would be a minor economic benefit when the Service issued contracts for this work. There could be 

moderate to major impacts on permittees when the 

Service renovated stock ponds to restore natural 

hydrological conditions of riparian areas downslope. 

There would be minor to moderate negative effects 

due to the closing of 106 miles of road and increasing wilderness acreage in six units by 25,869 acres 

under alternative B. Under alternative D, the closing 

of about 21 miles of road and increase in wilderness 

acreage by 19,942 acres would result in negligible-tominor impacts on livestock owners. 

IMPACTS on STATE GRAZING LANDS

Under all alternatives, the Service would extend 

agreements that are already in place for aggressive fire suppression activities on DNRC lands. Over 

time, the use of prescribed fire in alternatives B and D 

and to lesser extent in C would reduce heavy fuel, 

thus reducing the risk for severe wildfires spreading 

across State lands, but implementation of any alternative would not eliminate the risk for wildfire all 

together. Implementation of a prescriptive grazing 

program across 50–75 percent of the refuge in alternatives B and D and up to 50 percent in alternative C 

could negatively impact DNRC in meeting their 

statutory obligations of generating revenue for local 

schools. The degree to which this would occur is not 

known, but under all alternatives, the Service would 

work with DNRC to develop special use permits 

that would allow permittees to continue to graze 

habitat units. If permittees no longer desired to keep 

their grazing permits, the Service would work with 

DNRC to assume permits, providing money exists. 

EFFECTS on ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Within the spirit and intent of Executive Order 12898, 

Federal actions to address environmental justice in 

minority populations and low-income populations, no 

actions being considered in this final CCP and EIS 

would disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health effects on minority 

or low-income populations as compared to the public. 

Under all alternatives the Service would not 

charge for public use activities, and a variety of opportunities and activities would be offered. Native American tribes would like to see increased opportunities 

for tribal hunting; however, licensing and harvest levels are regulated by the State, and this would not

change under any alternative. Tribal members who 

are interested in collecting small quantities of plants 

or other natural resources would need to contact the

refuge manager and obtain a special use permit before 

collecting materials for ceremonial purposes. 

Future road closures would not disproportionately displace any minority or low-income populations. Changes in habitat management practices 

including moving away from annual grazing, removing fences, or eliminating stock ponds could impact 

some individuals who have low incomes, particularly 

those who rely solely on farming or ranching and are 

solely dependent on forage within the refuge (refer to 

chapter 4, section “4.8 Socioeconomics”). The degree 

to which any low-income rancher who is an existing 

permittee would be affected by changes in the grazing program would depend on several factors including the dependency on refuge grazing, the financial 

solvency of the ranch, and the availability of alternative sources of forage (Taylor et al. 2008).

The Service is committed to ensuring that all 

members of the public have equal access to America’s 

fish and wildlife resources, as well as equal access to 

information that would enable them to meaningfully 

take part in activities and policy shaping. 

CONCLUSION

Under alternative A, refuge management activities 

directly related to all refuge operations generate 

an estimated $16.7 million in local output, 217 jobs 

and $4.6 million in labor income in the local economy. 

Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic impacts 

of $23.1 million in local output, 282 jobs, and $6.3 million in labor income. Excluding grazing operations, 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 347

total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under alternative A represents 1.4 percent of 

total income and 1.6 percent of total employment in 

the overall six-county area economy. 

The refuge currently supplies less than 1 percent 

of total AUMs in the six-county region (about 22,581 

AUMs in 2008; see table 23 in chapter 4). While moving toward a greater emphasis on prescriptive grazing could negatively impact individual ranchers 

holding refuge grazing permits, the overall effects to 

the counties would be negligible to minor. The specific number of AUMs grazed on the refuge would be 

difficult to predict with any certainty in light of the 

uncertainties of ranches changing ownership, potential for droughts, grazing fees, and habitat conditions. 

Under alternative B, excluding grazing operations, the refuge would generate an estimated $16.9 

million in local output, 218 jobs, and $4.6 million in 

labor income in the local economy, with total economic 

impacts of $23.3 million in local output, 283 jobs, and 

$6.3 million in labor income. Excluding grazing operations, total economic impacts associated with refuge 

operations under alternative B represents 1.4 percent 

of total income and 1.6 percent of total employment in 

the overall six-county area economy. Due to increases 

in refuge administration and decreases in big game 

hunting, alternative B would generate $216.0 thousand more in local output, 36.4 thousand more in labor 

income and one more job as compared to alternative A. 

The overall economic effect of alternative B would be 

negligible, compared to existing conditions.

Under alternative C, the refuge would generate an 

estimated $19.6 million in local output, 255 jobs and 

$5.4 million in labor income in the local economy, with 

total economic impacts of $27 million in local output, 

330 jobs, and $7.3 million in labor income. Excluding 

grazing operations, total economic impacts would represent 1.6 percent of total income and 1.8 percent of 

total employment in the overall six-county area economy. Due to increases in refuge administration and visitation, alternative C would generate $3.9 million more 

in local output, 48 additional jobs, and $1 million more in 

labor income as compared to alternative A. The overall economic effect of alternative C would be negligible to minor benefits, compared to existing conditions.

Under alternative D, the refuge would generate an estimated $18.3 million in local output, 236 

jobs, and $5 million in labor income in the local economy, with total economic impacts of $25.2 million 

in local output, 307 jobs, and $6.8 million in labor 

income. Excluding grazing operations, total economic impacts would represent 1.4 percent of total 

income and 1.4 percent of total employment in the 

overall six-county area economy. Due to increases in 

visitation and refuge administration, alternative D 

would generate $2.1 million more in local output, 25 

additional jobs, and $569.6 thousand more in labor 

income as compared to alternative A. The overall 

economic effect of alternative D would be minor benefits, compared to existing conditions.

The alternatives would have varying degrees of 

effects on livestock permittees as changes in annual 

and prescriptive grazing, fencing changes, stock pond 

renovations, and wilderness units occurred. Under 

existing conditions, about 34 percent of the refuge 

would be prescriptively grazed and this would not 

change unless units became available through the 

sale to a third party, or when habitat conditions dictated a change. Alternative C would apply prescriptive grazing on 50 percent of the refuge in 15 years, 

but the refuge would continue the practice of holding grazing permits as ranches sold their lands to 

outside parties. Fence removal or stock pond renovations would only occur on lands that were converted 

to prescriptive grazing. Overall, there would only be 

negligible to minor negative effects in alternatives A 

and C.

Alternatives B and D would have greater impacts 

on livestock permittees and, for some, these could be 

moderate to major as the Service applied prescriptive grazing on up 75 percent of the refuge. The 

schedule would be more aggressive under alternative B than under D. There would be moderate negative effects on permittees when the Service removed 

25–50 percent of the interior fences or renovated 

stock ponds, although the actual removal of any fencing would bring about a short-term economic benefit 

as a result of contracting out the work. Alternative B 

would have the greatest impact on permittees with 

the closing of 106 miles of road, and an increase in wilderness protection by 25,676 acres, limiting access in 

some areas. Road closures in alternative D would be 

minor (21 miles). Working with permittees during 

the development of HMPs would enable ranchers to 

make arrangements for future grazing needs.

Implementation of any alternative would not 

affect existing agreements with DNRC for fire suppression activities nor would it affect access. The 

greater use of prescribed fire in alternatives B and D 

and to a lesser extent in alternative C would reduce 

some of the risk for severe wildfire spreading across 

State lands. Implementation of a prescriptive grazing 

program across much of the refuge in alternatives B, 

D, and to a lesser extent in C could negatively affect 

DNRC if refuge grazing lands became less attractive 

to permittees. This could be offset by working with 

DNRC to assume permits if money permitted.

MITIGATION

Working closely with ranch permittees and DNRC 

during the development of HMPs would enable them 

to plan in advance for changes in their operations. 
348 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS on the

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

As described in chapter 4, landownership patterns 

near the refuge are continuing to see a transition 

toward nontraditional ownership and management 

(such as the American Prairie Reserve’s 123,000-

acre preserve and The Nature Conservancy’s 

63,000-acre Matador Ranch), along with the purchase of private ranches by absentee owners. The 

2009 purchase and retirement of two grazing allotments on the refuge by the National Wildlife Federation (totaling about 45,000 acres) are consistent 

with this trend. While the reduction or elimination 

of grazing on private conservation lands is generally 

believed to have a negative economic impact on local 

communities, some individual ranchers have benefitted financially by the opportunity to sell their land or 

grazing interests to outside entities. The economic 

impacts of absentee ranch owners are less apparent. 

While current economic and demographic trends 

in the six-county region surrounding the refuge are 

likely to have negative effects on local communities, 

none of the refuge management alternatives would 

contribute to those impacts. Instead, all of the alternatives would likely result in negligible to minor 

cumulative benefits to local communities by increasing income, jobs, and (under action alternatives B–D) 

more opportunities for recreation and tourism. 

Changes in livestock grazing management and 

stocking rates in alternatives B and D would likely 

further reduce the availability of grazing land in the 

region. However, considering that the refuge currently supplies less than 1 percent of all AUMs in the 

region, the regional cumulative effect of refuge management actions, when combined with the economic 

effects of other land management changes, would be 

negligible.

The real or perceived effect of land use and management changes on the social and traditional values 

of nearby communities is an important consideration. As described in chapter 4, many residents in 

the area have had family ties to the land and the agricultural economy for several generations. These residents strive to maintain those economic and social 

traditions and feel threatened by changes in land 

use (particularly livestock grazing) both on and off 

the refuge. Others may see economic opportunities from conservation-oriented property sales or 

increased recreational activity. It is difficult to quantify these types of impacts, or to identify the differences between perceived or actual impacts. If 

changes in landownership patterns and management 

in the region has a negative effect on social and traditional values, the changes in livestock grazing management under alternatives B and D would result 

in minor cumulative effects. Alternatives A and C 

would result in negligible cumulative benefits by 

maintaining existing management approaches.

5.11 IRREVERSIBLE and

IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE 

COMMITMENTS

The National Environmental Policy Act requires a 

discussion of any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would result from implementing the alternatives. An irreversible commitment of 

resources means nonrenewable resources are consumed or destroyed. These resources are permanently lost due to plan implementation. In contrast, 

an irretrievable commitment of resources is the loss 

of resources or resource production, or use of renewable resources during the 15-year of the plan.

All alternatives would result in an irreversible commitment of soil resources. Topsoil would be removed 

before a facility construction for the use in revegetation 

of disturbed areas or the excavation of fossils. Even 

with the best management practices, some irreversible 

soil loss due to erosion would occur. Livestock grazing, 

particularly in any riparian areas where it still occurs, 

could contribute to soil erosion, although the amounts 

would vary by alternative. The use of prescribed fire 

would improve plant vigor and health, but there could 

be some temporary losses of soil. Major wildfires could 

lead to severe soil erosion. Loss of soil, as well as 

changes to visual resources due to facility development 

would be an irretrievable commitment of resources. 

The digging of fossil resources would be an irreversible commitment of resources. These resources 

would no longer be in the ground in their original context, although they would continue to be available 

to the public for research and educational purposes.

Federal money for staff and operations would 

be an irretrievable commitment of resources. These 

resources would not be available for other Federal 

programs or projects.

Fossil fuel used by motor vehicles, boats, and 

equipment, either by the Service or the public would 

represent an irreversible commitment of resources 

because their use is lost for future generations. In 

addition, they would result in irretrievable negative 

effects on air quality and global climate change.

Like fossil fuel, prescribed fires and wildfires 

would emit carbon and particulates in the air and 

would result in irretrievable negative effects on air 

quality and global climate change.

The loss of income for some livestock permittees could result in an irreversible commitment of 

resources and an irretrievable loss of revenue for 

the six adjacent counties. The trend toward imple-
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 349

menting prescriptive grazing over annual grazing to 

meet Service legal mandates for managing habitat 

and wildlife could result in lost income and revenue 

depending on several factors. The use of livestock 

grazing would not be ended on the refuge, but permittees would need to adapt their operations to 

graze on the refuge. Reduction of income and net 

ranch returns would depend on an individual ranch’s 

level of dependency on refuge grazing, the financial 

solvency of the ranch, and the availability of alternative sources of forage (Taylor et al. 2008). Refuge 

grazing only accounts for 1 percent of the revenues 

across the six counties; therefore, revenue losses for 

the counties would not be significant. Losses would 

be greater under alternatives B and D and to a 

lesser degree under alternative C and A, but under 

all alternatives the Service would continue to carry 

out prescriptive grazing. Excluding livestock grazing, the refuge would continue to generate jobs and 

local income in the six-county economy. The overall economic effect of alternative B would be negligible and under alternatives C and D, there could be 

negligible to minor benefits in revenue for the local 

economies, which would offset revenue losses for the 

counties. Therefore, losses would not necessarily be 

irreversible.

The continued transition toward implementing 

prescriptive grazing across the refuge could result 

in an irreversible commitment of revenue resources 

for DNRC for local schools. The degree of the loss 

of income would depend on several factors. If permittees no longer desired to keep their grazing permits on DNRC lands, as has been done in the past, 

the Service would work with DNRC to assume the 

permits, providing that money exists. This could offset any revenue loss for DNRC and there would not 

be an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

resources.

5.12 SHORT-TERM USES 

of the ENVIRONMENT and

MAINTENANCE of LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY

Historical uses of the refuge including early settlement, agricultural uses, roads and access, livestock 

grazing and developed recreational areas, have 

affected the long-term productivity of the refuge’s 

ecological environment. Short-term uses of the refuge associated with implementing the CCP include 

(1) restoration of former agricultural areas, (2) restoration of riparian areas or water impoundments, 

(3) construction of facilities or boundary fences, (4) 

removal of fencing, and (5) improving and maintaining roads. Implementing the CCP modifications and 

enhancement of the natural environment—using 

prescribed fire, livestock grazing, and hunting to 

control wildlife populations—would contribute to the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of the refuge environment.

5.13 ADHERENCE to

PLANNING GOALS

The following sections are descriptions by goal of how 

and how well each alternative meets that goal for the 

refuge. Table 57 summarizes this discussion.

Table 57. Ratings for how well the actions in the CCP alternatives meet the goals for the Charles M. Russell and 

UL Bend Refuges.

Goal

Alternatives—adherence to goals*

A B C D

Habitat and wildlife management ✕ ❚ ❚ ●

Threatened and endangered species and species of concern ❚ ● ❚ ●

Research and science ❚ ● ❚ ●

Fire management ✕ ● ✕ ●

Public use and education ❚ ❚ ● ●

Wilderness ❚ ● ❚ ●

Cultural and paleontological resources ● ● ● ●

Refuge operations and partnerships ❚ ● ● ●

*Ratings note that an alternative either satisfies (●) the goal, partially satisfies(❚) the goal, or does not satisfy (✕) the goal. 

HABITAT and WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

The goal is to conserve, restore, and improve the biological integrity, environmental health, and ecological 
350 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

diversity of the refuge’s plant and animal communities 

of the Missouri River Breaks and surrounding prairies to support healthy populations of native plants 

and wildlife in a changing climate. Working with others, reduce and control the spread of nondesirable, 

nonnative, invasive plant and aquatic species for the 

benefit of native communities on and off the refuge.

The most important component of this goal is 

the first sentence. Alternatives A and C would not 

restore biological integrity, environmental health 

or ecological diversity. Alternative A would not 

enable the refuge to manage wildlife and habitat in 

a comprehensive fashion as the 1986 plan was not 

intended to be comprehensive. The Service would 

manage 65 habitat units that were originally established by BLM for grazing purposes and not for wildlife. Alternative C would take some steps toward 

improving existing conditions but would only minimize damaging effects in some areas. Alternative 

B would only partially improve biological integrity, 

environmental health, and ecological diversity primarily because maximizing populations would not 

necessarily improve biological diversity, integrity, 

and environmental health. Alternative D would fully 

meet the biological integrity, health, and diversity 

goal, plus have an emphasis on improving resiliency. 

All alternatives would work with others to reduce 

and control the spread of invasive species, but alternative A would maintain only existing program levels, whereas alternatives B, C, and D would work to 

achieve greater reductions (25–50 percent). Therefore, alternative A does not satisfy this goal.

THREATENED and ENDANGERED SPECIES

and SPECIES of CONCERN

The goal is to contribute to the identification, preservation, and recovery of threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern that occur or have historically occurred in the northern Great Plains. 

All alternatives would meet basic requirements 

of this goal; however, alternative A would only maintain the status quo. There would not be any extra 

effort to contribute to the preservation of threatened and endangered species, so it only partially 

satisfies the goal, where as alternatives B, C, and 

D would protect, conserve, and enhance threatened 

and endangered species.

RESEARCH and SCIENCE

The goal is to advance the understanding of natural 

resources, ecological processes, and the effectiveness 

of management actions in a changing climate in the 

northern Great Plains through compatible scientific 

investigations, monitoring, and applied research.

Alternative A would maintain only existing research programs. Alternative C would not advance 

the understanding of ecological processes although 

research would continue under all alternatives. 

Alternatives B and D would fully meet the goal.

A researcher checks a deer for signs of disease.

USFWS

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

The goal is to manage wildland fire using a management response that promotes fire’s natural role in 

shaping the landscape while protecting values at risk. 

Alternatives A and C would not promote fire’s 

natural role while alternatives B and D would. All 

alternatives would protect private property.

PUBLIC USE and EDUCATION

The goal is to provide all visitors quality education, 

recreation, and outreach opportunities that are 

appropriate and compatible with the purpose and 

goals of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge 

System while maintaining the remote and primitive 

experience unique to the refuge.

All alternatives would provide for a variety of 

hunting and fishing opportunities. Alternative C 

would focus on more opportunities (quantity) whereas 

alternative D would focus on providing quality experiences. There would be minor increases in hunting visitors in alternatives C and D and a negligible decrease 

in alternative B.

Alternative A would not have an outdoor recreation planner and there would very limited environmental education opportunities and few improvements 

for nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent users. Alternative B would have one outdoor recreation planner, 
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 351

which would enable the refuge to improve programming but would still be limited and would not 

advance wildlife-dependent public uses or environmental education program to any great degree. Visitation would in essence remain stagnant over 15 

years. Alternatives C and D would staff two outdoor 

recreation planners, which would enable the refuge 

to provide for more quality wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education programs and 

would seek some moderate increases in the number 

of visitors participating in those programs. 

WILDERNESS

The goal is to conserve, improve, and promote the wilderness character and associated natural processes of 

designated and proposed wilderness areas and wilderness study areas within the refuge for all generations.

Alternatives A and C would maintain the status 

quo but would not improve or promote wilderness 

qualities; therefore, it would only partially satisfy 

the wilderness goal. Alternatives B and D would 

fully satisfy the goal.

CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

The goal is to identify, value, and preserve the paleontology and cultural resources of Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge to connect refuge staff, visitors, and the community to the area’s prehistoric 

and historic past.

All alternatives would identify, value, and preserve paleontological and cultural resources. 

REFUGE OPERATIONS and PARTNERSHIPS

The goal is to, through effective communication and 

innovative use of technology and resources, use 

money, personnel, partnerships, and volunteer programs for the benefit of natural resources while recognizing the social and economic connection of the 

refuge to adjacent communities. 

All alternatives would maintain existing partnerships. Alternative A would not have a volunteer 

program nor would the refuge work to increase conservation strategies across the landscape, whereas 

alternatives B, C, and D would seek to increase partnerships across the conservation landscape and start 

a volunteer and Friends program. 

5.14 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE 

EFFECTS

Generally most adverse and negative environmental 

effects associated with implementation of the CCP 

would be short term and minimal. During construction of more facilities on the refuge, wildlife would 

be disturbed and temporarily displaced. Facilities 

construction also would result in minor, short-term 

disturbance of soils and erosion. Excavation of paleontological resources would result in short-term disturbance of soils and the removal of fossils from the 

refuge. The use of prescribed fire would result in 

short-term losses of vegetation. Although there is 

the potential for prescribed fire to escape the refuge boundary and burn private lands resulting in 

unavoidable adverse effects, by following prescribed 

fire plans and approved fires prescriptions, the risk 

would be greatly reduced. The long-term effects of 

implementing the CCP would be beneficial to the 

biological community and the diversity and productivity of the refuge ecosystem. Moving toward a prescriptive grazing and fire program would enable the 

refuge to use grazing to meet specific habitat objectives. Restoring former agricultural fields would 

reduce the growing infestation of invasive species 

on the refuge. There would be some increases in the 

level of visitation, particularly in alternatives C and 

D, but they would be minor to moderate differences 

over existing conditions. Changes to the refuge grazing program would not be significant for the sixcounty economy but could affect individual ranches 

with grazing permits. Similarly, the reduction of 

fences, stock pond removal, and increased transportation costs could result in moderate impacts for 

some permittees. Close communication with permittees as new habitat management plans are carried 

out could reduce some of these impacts. With proper 

planning and placement of new facilities, effects on 

refuge resources would be minimal. 

5.15 CONFLICTS with

FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, and

LOCAL AGENCIES

Actions considered in this environmental impact statement do not appear to conflict with USACE, BLM or 

tribal goals, objectives, policies, or plans. 

Where USACE has primary jurisdiction and 

the Service has secondary jurisdiction, a memorandum of understanding guides how habitat and wildlife resources are managed. None of the actions in 

this CCP and EIS conflicts with any memorandum 

of understanding the Service has with USACE. The 

Service did not analyze issues related to lake levels 

on Fort Peck, the developed recreation areas, real 

estate activities related to the cabin sales on the east 

end of the refuge, or fishing tournaments as these 

are actions where USACE has primary jurisdiction.
352 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

The Service has consulted with Fort Belknap and 

Fort Peck Tribes in the development of this CCP and 

EIS. The tribes are interested in collecting and using 

plants or other resources for ceremonial and traditional purposes. The CCP and EIS does not conflict 

with this interest as the tribes only need to contact 

the refuge manager and obtain a special use permit. 

Although wild bison are not currently managed on 

the refuge, many of the tribes consider them as central to their culture. This CCP and EIS has proposed 

and evaluated an option in alternatives B and D to 

only consider a reintroduction of wild bison if MFWP 

led the issue and addressed all pertinent concerns of 

the Service and the public. Any future wild bison restoration would be a part of a separate planning effort 

involving multiple partners. Additionally, the tribes 

also have any interest in conducting ceremonial hunts 

on the refuge as elk and deer are also central to their 

culture. Because hunting is regulated by the State of 

Montana, the tribes would need to work with State 

on arranging for a ceremonial hunt on the refuge.

As a cooperating agency, the State of Montana has 

played an important role in the development of this 

CCP and EIS. None of the actions in this CCP and 

EIS would close or take away access to State lands 

within the refuge. The Service would eliminate any 

end-of-route effects such as parking on State lands.

The Service has coordinated closely with MFWP 

in the development of this CCP and EIS and has reviewed all State management plans including those 

for deer, elk, prairie dogs, fish, and many other wildlife species. Nearly all of the objectives for wildlife 

management are consistent with MFWP’s objectives. 

The six adjacent counties and the Missouri River 

Council of Conservation Districts have also been 

cooperating agencies in this planning effort. The 

counties and conservation districts have expressed 

concerns about the Service’s actions in this planning process. Foremost, the counties and the conservation districts are opposed to any change that 

would negatively affect livestock grazers on the refuge (refer to upland objectives in chapter 3 and the 

discussion on other effects on livestock operations).

The counties are also concerned about issues related 

to roads and particularly about recognizing rights-ofway under R.S. 2477 or where they believe they have a 

valid county-petitioned right-of-way.

This CCP and EIS does not negate any valid 

rights-of-way the counties may have, but determining the legal validity of any right-of-way is outside 

the scope of the plan. The roads that are reflected in 

alternative A reflect the refuge’s current guide map.

Other issues that concern the counties and conservation districts include the use of prescribed fire, 

wilderness protection, land acquisition, wildlife and 

habitat management and reintroductions. The Service fully evaluated several alternative options in 

the draft CCP and EIS, which considered all of these 

concerns.

5.16 COMPARISON of 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

Table 58 summarizes the above environmental consequences, by estimated level of benefit, to compare 

refuge management under each alternative.
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 353

Table 58. Summary of the environmental consequences for actions of the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A

No action

Alternative B

Wildlife populations

Alternative C

Public and economic uses

Alternative D

Ecological processes 

(preferred alternative)

Climate change

Habitat management 

actions would result in benefits; vehicle emissions 

would result in effects.

  

Negligible overall effect on 

global climate change.

  

Air quality

Motorized equipment use 

would have a negligible 

effect.

  

Motorized vehicle use would 

concentrate emissions during high use periods.

Negligible to minor 

increases in vehicle emissions due to increased visitation.

 

Short-term negligible 

impacts from prescribed fire; 

short-term major impacts 

from large wildfires.

More frequent negligible prescribed fire effects and reduced 

short-term impacts (moderate) from large wildfires.

Similar to B, except greater 

effects from large wildfires 

due to greater biomass.

Same as B.

Visual resources

Negligible overall effects 

from facilities and structures.

  

Negligible effect based on 

current road visibility.

Minor benefit due to road 

closures.

Same as A. Negligible to minor benefit 

due to closed roads.

Negligible to moderate 

benefits from management 

efforts for invasive species 

control and river bottom 

restoration.

  

Short-term negligible 

impacts from prescribed fire 

and wildfire.

Short-term negligible 

impacts and long-term 

minor benefits from prescribed fire and wildfire.

Same as A. Same as B.

Minor impact to some users 

from livestock grazing.

Moderate benefit to some 

users due to prescriptive 

livestock grazing regime.

Negligible impact to some 

users from livestock grazing.

Same as B.

Soundscapes

Negligible to minor impacts 

due to motorized boats, road 

use, and facility construction.

Same as A, with minor benefits in localized areas due 

to road closures.

Same as A, with minor to 

moderate impacts in localized areas due to snowmobile access.

Same as B.

Negligible impact from gunshots.

  

Soils

Negligible short-term 

impacts and long-term benefits from river bottom restoration.

  
354 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 58. Summary of the environmental consequences for actions of the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A

No action

Alternative B

Wildlife populations

Alternative C

Public and economic uses

Alternative D

Ecological processes 

(preferred alternative)

Soils (continued)

Negligible short-term 

impacts and long-term benefits from prescribed fire.

Minor short-term impacts 

and long-term benefits from 

prescribed fire.

 

Moderate to major shortterm impacts due to fire 

suppression and large wildfires.

Minor to moderate shortterm impacts due to fire 

suppression and large wildfires.

 

Continued moderate to 

major impacts from livestock 

grazing in some areas; longterm improvements where 

prescriptive grazing is carried out.

Same as A, except improvements from prescriptive 

grazing would be greater.

Same as A. Same as B.

Minor overall impacts from 

public use; moderate to 

major impacts in localized 

areas.

Negligible short-term 

impacts due to facility construction.

  

Negligible effects on localized areas from research 

excavations for cultural and 

paleontological resources.

Same as A. Greater impacts (negligible 

to minor) due to increased 

research opportunities for 

cultural and paleontological 

resources.

Same as A.

Water resources

Negligible effect on hydrology 

and water quality.

  

Vegetation

Minor, short-term, negative effects on uplands; moderate to major long-term 

impacts due to continuation of existing management 

(fire suppression, slow conversion to prescriptive grazing, and little prescribed 

fire).

Variable effects on uplands 

depending on target and 

focal species and management emphasis; overall 

long-term moderate benefits but some overbrowsing 

could occur.

Minor long-term benefits for 

uplands due to improved 

management including prescriptive grazing and balanced use by wild and 

domestic ungulates.

Long-term major benefits for 

uplands due to emphasis on 

restoring natural processes 

using prescribed grazing 

and fire.

Minor to moderate longterm benefits for river bottoms that are restored to 

native communities; longer 

timeframe due to minimal 

commitment of resources.

Minor to moderate longterm benefits for river bottoms (same as A), except 

more aggressive approach is 

more likely to succeed in a 

shorter timeframe.

Same as B, except cooperative approach would allow 

restoration to begin more 

quickly.

Same as B, with a less 

aggressive approach.

Shorelines primarily under 

USACE jurisdiction; negligible effects.

  
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 355

Table 58. Summary of the environmental consequences for actions of the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A

No action

Alternative B

Wildlife populations

Alternative C

Public and economic uses

Alternative D

Ecological processes 

(preferred alternative)

Vegetation (continued)

Minor long-term benefits for 

riparian areas and wetlands 

from grazing and habitat 

management actions.

Continued moderate 

impacts in localized areas 

from grazing and severe 

wildfires.

Moderate long-term benefits for riparian areas and 

wetlands due to more extensive prescriptive grazing, 

prescribed fire, and water 

impoundment removal.

Continued moderate 

impacts in localized areas 

from grazing and severe 

wildfires. (Same as A)

Minor to moderate longterm benefits for riparian 

areas and wetlands due to 

more extensive prescriptive 

grazing and water impoundment rehabilitation.

Continued moderate 

impacts in localized areas 

from grazing and severe 

wildfires. (Same as A)

Same as B, with moderate 

to major benefits and continued moderate impacts in 

localized areas from grazing 

and severe wildfires. (Same 

as A)

Wildlife

Minor benefits for big game 

from ongoing population 

management and habitat 

improvements.

Minor to moderate longterm benefits for big game 

from management toward 

natural ecosystem processes 

and reduced livestock conflicts.

Moderate, long-term, negative effects on big game from 

management that emphasizes maximum harvests.

Moderate long-term benefits for big game from a 

balanced approach to population, habitat, and harvest 

management.

Negligible effects on furbearers and small predators 

(no changes in management).

Major long-term benefits for 

furbearers and small predators due to active reintroduction of some species.

Minor to major impacts due 

to increased harvest of furbearers and small predators.

Negligible impact on furbearers and small predators 

from harvest opportunities 

based on acceptable population levels.

Negligible effects on birds. 

Habitat impacts would generally offset benefits.

Moderate to major, localized, negative effects on 

birds due to grazing.

Moderate to major longterm benefits for birds due 

to upland and riparian habitat management.

Moderate to major, localized, negative effects on 

birds due to grazing. (Same 

as A)

Similar to B, with minor 

long-term benefits.

Moderate to major, localized, negative effects on 

birds due to grazing. (Same 

as A)

Same as B.

Moderate to major, localized, negative effects on 

birds due to grazing. (Same 

as A)

Minor, incremental, negative 

effects on amphibians, reptiles, 

and fish due to upland and 

riparian habitat degradation.

Negligible effects on small 

mammals.

Moderate benefits for 

amphibians, reptiles, and fish 

due to upland and riparian 

habitat improvements.

Negligible to minor benefits 

to small mammals from prescriptive grazing and habitat improvements.

Same as B for amphibians, reptiles, and fish, with 

minor benefits.

Negligible to minor negative 

effects on small mammals 

due to continued fire suppression and loss of native 

habitat structure.

Same as B for other wildlife, with moderate to major 

benefits.

Negligible benefits on TES 

and species of concern (no 

specific objectives).

Direct effects on TES and 

species of concern from wolf 

and wild bison management 

objectives would be negligible.

Moderate to major longterm benefits due to prescriptive grazing, fire 

management, and general 

habitat improvements.

Direct effects on TES and 

species of concern from wolf 

and wild bison management 

objectives would be negligible. (Same as A)

Same as B. Same as B.
356 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table 58. Summary of the environmental consequences for actions of the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative A

No action

Alternative B

Wildlife populations

Alternative C

Public and economic uses

Alternative D

Ecological processes 

(preferred alternative)

Special management areas

Negligible impact on wilderness. No effects on other 

special designations.

Minor benefit due to new 

recommendations for wilderness study areas (+25,869 

acres).

Negligible impact on wilderness.Minor benefit due to new 

recommendations for wilderness study areas 

(+19,942 acres).

No effects on other special 

management areas.

  

Visitor services

Negligible effects on hunting. No long-term change 

from current hunting opportunities.

Negligible to minor benefits including unique and 

expanded hunting opportunities and improved access 

management. 

Minor to moderate benefits 

from an expanded emphasis 

on hunting opportunities and 

harvest.

Minor to moderate benefits 

for hunting, depending on 

individual preferences.

Negligible effects on fishing. Same as A. Same as A, plus negligible 

benefits from expanded boat 

ramp access.

Same as A.

Negligible effects on wildlife observation and photography. Visitation levels 

would remain flat.

Facilities would not meet 

demand.

Negligible to minor benefits 

for wildlife observation and 

photography with increased 

staff (1), facilities, and programs to accommodate 

increased visitation.

Moderate benefits for wildlife observation and photography with increased staff 

(2), facilities, and programs 

with an emphasis on economic benefits.

Moderate benefits for wildlife observation and photography with increased staff 

(2) and a greater emphasis 

on quality programs.

Negligible effects on environmental education. Very little environmental education 

would be offered.

Negligible benefits for environmental education with 

increased staff (1) and programming.

Minor benefits for environmental education with 

increased staff (2), programs, 

and facilities.

Same as C, with greater 

emphasis on quality programs.

Negligible effects for interpretation (limited programs 

and facilities).

Negligible benefits for interpretation with increased staff 

(1) and modest improvements 

in facilities and programs.

Minor benefits for interpretation with increased staff 

(2), and expanded facilities. 

Negligible effects for 

outreach.

Negligible benefits due to 

increased outreach efforts.

Minor benefits due to increased and targeted outreach. 

Negligible effects on access. 

670 miles of road open to 

visitors.

Minor negative effects on 

access due to 106 miles of 

closed road. 

Minor benefits for access 

due to road improvements 

along Knox Ridge and road 

108 or game retrieval on 

some formerly closed roads 

(outside of wilderness) and 

consideration of winter 

access to fishing areas from 

the south and north side of 

the Missouri River.

Negligible impact on access 

due to 21 miles of closed road 

and 15 miles of seasonal closures. Minor benefits for 

access due to road improvements along Knox Ridge 

road or game retrieval on 

some closed roads (outside 

of wilderness) and a winter 

access route to an ice-fishing 

area from the south side of 

the Missouri River.

Negligible effect for commercial recreation. Current 

level of permits (11) would 

remain.

Negligible benefits for commercial recreation due to 

efforts to minimize conflicts.

Minor benefits for commercial recreation due to additional permits and efforts to 

reduce conflicts.

Same as B.
Chapter 5 —Environmental Consequences 357

Table 58. Summary of the environmental consequences for actions of the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Alternative D Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Ecological processes No action Wildlife populations Public and economic uses (preferred alternative)

Cultural and paleontological resources

Negligible effects on cultural resources.Negligible to minor benefits 

for cultural resources due 

to increased resource protection.

 

Negligible effects on paleontological resources.Negligible to minor benefits 

for paleontological resources 

due to increased management, interpretation, and 

law enforcement.

 

Socioeconomics

Negligible impact on 

regional economics.

Negligible impact on 

regional economics, generating an additional $216,000 

in local output and one more 

job.

Minor benefits for regional 

economics, generating $3.9 

million in local output and 48 

additional jobs.

Minor benefits for regional 

economics, generating $2.1 

million in local output and 25 

additional jobs.

Negligible to minor impact on 

livestock permittees.

Moderate to major impact on 

livestock permittees due to 

transition to prescriptive grazing, fence removal, and stock 

pond removal.

Same as A, with minor 

impact on some permittees 

due to boundary fence construction.

Same as B.

No effect on environmental 

justice.

  

Admiral

© Cindie Brunner

Fritillary

© Cindie Brunner

Painted Lady

© Cindie Brunner

Glossary

accessible: Pertaining to physical access to areas 

and activities for people of different abilities, 

especially those with physical impairments.

active management: The direct manipulation of habitats or wildlife populations to achieve specific 

objectives. Actions could include planting food 

plots, managing water levels, prescribed grazing 

or fire, or wildlife relocations.

adaptive resource management: The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring 

to gain information and experience necessary to 

assess and change management activities; a process that uses feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation of management actions to 

support or change objectives and strategies at 

all planning levels; a process in which policy decisions are carried out within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions 

and assumptions inherent in management plan. 

Analysis of results helps managers determine 

whether current management should continue 

as is or whether it should be modified to achieve 

desired conditions. 

Administration Act: National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966.

alternative: A reasonable way to solve an identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 

1500.2); one of several different means of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and contributing to the Refuge System mission (The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). 

amphibian: A class of cold-blooded vertebrates 

including frogs, toads, or salamanders.

annual: A plant that flowers and dies within 1 year of 

germination.

appropriate management response: The response to 

a wildfire based on an evaluation of risks to firefighter and public safety, the circumstances under 

which a fire occurs including weather and fuel 

conditions, natural and cultural resource management objectives, protection priorities, and values 

to be protected.

appropriate use: A proposed or existing uses on 

national wildlife refuges that meet at least one 

of the following: (1) is a wildlife-dependent recreational use; (2) contributes to fulfilling refuge 

purposes, the Refuge System mission, or goals 

and objectives outline in a CCP; or (3) the refuge 

manager has evaluated the use and found it to be 

appropriate.

ATV: All-terrain vehicle.

AUM: Animal-unit month.

baseline: A set of critical observations, data, or information used for comparison or a control. 

BCR: Bird conservation region.

biological control: The use of organisms or viruses to 

control invasive plants or other pests.

biological diversity, also biodiversity: The 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 (The 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. 

biological integrity: Biotic composition, structure, 

and function at genetic, organism, and community 

levels. 

biotic: Pertaining to life or living organisms; caused, 

produced by, or comprising living organisms.

BLM: See Bureau of Land Management.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): A Federal agency 

that was established in 1946 through consolidation of the General Land Office and U.S. Grazing 

Service. The agency has a multiple-use mandate 

is responsible for a variety of programs for managing and conserving surface and subsurface mineral estates, mostly in the western United States.

canopy: A 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.

cervid: All members of the family Cervidae and 

hybrids including deer, elk, moose, caribous, reindeer, and related species. 

CFR: See Code of Federal Regulations.

cfs: Cubic feet per second.

CO2: Carbon dioxide.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The 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.

compatibility determination: See compatible use. 

compatible use: A wildlife-dependent recreational 

use or any other use of a refuge 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 pur-
360 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

poses of the refuge (The 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): A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute 

to the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet 

other relevant mandates (The Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). 

concern: See issue. 

conservation district: Organized in the 1930s as a 

response to the severe erosion problems, a district 

is often a political subdivision of a State. Money 

comes from assessments levied on real property 

within the boundaries of the district. It helps citizens in conserving renewable natural resources.

conspecific: An individual belonging to the same 

species as another.

cool-season grasses: Grasses that begin growth earlier in the season and often become dormant in the 

summer. These grasses will germinate at lower 

temperatures. Examples of cool-season grasses 

at the refuge are western wheatgrass, needle and 

thread, and green needlegrass. 

county road: In general, means any public highway 

opened, established, constructed, maintained, 

abandoned in accordance with State law.

cover, cover type, canopy cover: Present vegetation.

cultural resources: The remains of sites, structures, 

or objects used by people in the past. 

depredation: Destruction or consumption of eggs, 

broods, or individual wildlife due to a predatory 

animal; damage inflicted on agricultural crops or 

ornamental plants by wildlife. 

DNRC: Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation.

DOI: Department of the Interior.

drawdown: The act of manipulating water levels in 

an impoundment to allow for the natural dryingout cycle of a wetland. 

EA: See environmental assessment.

ecological resilience: The ability to absorb disturbances, to be changed, and then to reorganize and 

still have the same identity, that is, keep the same 

basic structure and ways of functioning. A resilient system is forgiving of external shocks; a disturbance is unlikely to affect the whole. A resilient 

habitat (1) sustains many species of plants and 

animals and a highly variable structural composition; (2) is asymmetric; (3) exemplifies biological 

integrity, biological diversity, and environmental 

health; and (4) adapts to climate change.

ecosystem: A 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 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.

ecosystem resilience: See ecological resilience.

EIS: Environmental impact statement. 

endangered species, Federal: A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant part of its range. 

endangered species, State: A 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. Populations of 

these species are at critically low levels or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 

endemic species: Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality.

Enhancement Act: Title VIII of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000.

environmental assessment: A 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 provides sufficient evidence and analysis of effects to determine whether 

to prepare an environmental impact statement or 

finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

environmental health: Composition, structure, and 

functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic 

features.

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency.

extinction: The complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing.

extirpation: The extinction of a population; complete 

eradication of a species within a specified area.

fauna: All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area. 

Federal trust resource: A trust is something 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 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: All species where the Federal Government has primary jurisdiction includ-
Glossary 361

ing federally endangered or threatened species, 

migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain 

marine mammals.

fire refugia: Those places within the landscape that 

due to size, soils, or topography do not burn as 

often, as intensely, or at all with frequent light 

ground fire. In landscapes with frequent fire 

return intervals, respect for fire refugia is essential for protection of fire intolerant plant species. 

flora: All the plant species of an area. 

fire management plan (FMP): A plan that identifies 

and integrates all wildland fire management and 

related activities within the context of approved 

land and resource management plans. The plan 

defines a program to manage wildland fires (wildfire and prescribed fire).

focal species: A multispecies approach where the 

ecological needs of a suite of species are used to 

define an ideal landscape to maintain the range 

of habitat conditions and ecological processes 

required by landbirds or other species. Focal species are considered most sensitive to or limited by 

certain ecological processes (such as fire or nest 

predation) or habitat attributes (such as patch 

size or snags). The needs of a suite of focal species 

are then used to help guide management activities.

forb: A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a 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: The alteration of a large block of habitat that creates isolated patches of the original 

habitat that are interspersed with a variety of 

other habitat types; the process of reducing the 

size and connectivity of habitat patches, making 

movement of individuals or genetic information 

between parcels difficult or impossible.

Friends group: Any formal organization whose mission is to support the goals and purposes of its 

associated refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge Association overall; Friends organizations 

and cooperative and interpretive associations. 

FTE: A 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.

geocaching: A high-technology scavenger hunt in 

which objects are hidden at secret outdoor locations for participants to find using Global Positioning System positions posted on the Internet.

geographic information system (GIS): A computer system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data; a 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.

Global Positioning System (GPS): A navigational system involving satellites that a allows a user with 

a receiver to determine precise coordinates for 

their location on the earth’s surface.

goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units 

(The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 620 FW 

1.5). 

GPS: See Global Positioning System.

grassland tract: A contiguous area of grassland without fragmentation.

GS: General Schedule (pay rate schedule for certain 

Federal positions). 

habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives and grows. 

habitat disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat 

structure or composition; may be natural (for 

example, wildfire) or human-caused events (for 

example, timber harvest and disking). 

habitat management plan (HMP): A stepdown plan to 

a comprehensive conservation plan that identifies in detail how the objectives and strategies for 

uplands, riparian areas, river bottoms, and shorelines will be carried out.

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type: A land 

classification system based on the concept of distinct plant associations. 

HDP: See height density plot.

height–density plot (HDP): Methods used to record 

the height of visual obstruction of plant cover. A 

measuring pole is observed at points along a line 

transect from a set distance and angle. It provides 

information on the adequacy of nesting cover for 

sharp-tailed grouse. 

herbivory: Grazing of grass and other plants by any 

animal.

heterogeneity: diversity or dissimilar species within 

a landscape

HMP: See habitat management plan.

HUA: Hydrologic unit area.

huntable: A species that can be hunted on the refuge 

in accordance with Federal and State regulations.

IMPLAN: Impact Analysis for Planning.

impoundment: A 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. 

indigenous: Originating or occurring naturally in a 

particular place.
362 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

inholding: Non-Service land owned by private, other 

agency, or other group landowners that is within 

the boundary of a national wildlife refuge. 

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. 

introduced species: A 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 plant, also noxious weed: 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. 

invertebrates: An animal that lacks an internal skeleton or backbone such as insects, butterflies, and 

aquatic species like snails. 

inviolate sanctuary: A place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted.

issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision; for example, a Service initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, a 

threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition (The Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual, 602 FW 1.5).

lentic: Still-water wetlands. These wetlands occur in 

basins and lack a defined channel and floodplain. 

Examples include perennial, intermittent bodies 

of water like lakes, reservoirs, stock ponds.

long-distance animal movement: The ability of a wildlife species to move greater distances in search of 

forage without fences.

lotic: Flowing water wetlands are associated with 

rivers, streams and drainage ways. These riparian 

wetlands contain a defined channel and floodplain.

management alternative: See alternative. 

MFWP: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks.

MIAG: Montana/Idaho Airshed Group.

migration: Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically 

from one region or climate to another for feeding 

or breeding.

migratory birds: Birds that follow a seasonal movement from their breeding grounds to their wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and 

songbirds are all migratory birds.

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: A transition zone between the 

tallgrass prairie and the shortgrass prairie dominated by grasses of medium height that are 

approximately 2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich as 

the tallgrass prairie and moisture levels are less.

monitoring: The process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time. 

national wildlife refuge: A designated area of land, 

water, or an interest in land or water within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not 

include coordination areas; a complete 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): Sets the mission and the 

administrative policy for all refuges in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public 

uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining appropriateness and compatibility; 

establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of 

the Interior for managing and protecting the Refuge System; requires a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This 

act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation 

Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

native species: A species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem.

neotropical migrant: A bird species that breeds north 

of the United States and Mexican border and winters primarily south of this border.

nest success: The percentage of nests that successfully hatch one or more eggs of the total number 

of nests initiated in an area.

nongovernmental organization: Any group that is not 

a Federal, State, tribal, county, city, town, local, or 

other governmental entity.

noxious weed, also invasive plant: Any living stage 

(including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic or other plant of a kind that is of foreign origin (new to or not widely prevalent in the United 
Glossary 363

States) and can directly or indirectly injure crops, 

other useful plants, livestock, poultry, other interests of agriculture including irrigation, navigation, fish and wildlife resources, or public health. 

According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act 

(Public Law 93–639), a noxious weed (such as 

invasive plant) is one that causes disease or has 

adverse effects on humans or the human environment and, therefore, is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the United States and to 

public health.

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

NWR: National wildlife refuge.

objective: An objective is a 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 provide the basis for determining management strategies. Objectives should be attainable 

and time-specific and should be stated quantitatively to the extent possible. If objectives cannot 

be stated quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively (The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 

602 FW 1.5). 

passive management: This management approach 

allows for natural processes such as fire, grazing, 

and flooding to occur with little human assistance 

or funding, which conserves limited funds while 

increasing the likelihood of self-sustaining communities.

patch: An area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental conditions.

patch burning: The use of prescribed fire each year in a 

different location or patch within a larger unfenced 

landscape. With an ecology-driven purpose, 

patch burning has high potential to increase biodiversity and wildlife habitat. This management 

practice creates a mosaic of heavily grazed and 

lightly grazed areas that provide a diverse vegetative structure and increase diversity in the 

same grazing unit.

perennial: Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a 

lifespan of more than 2 years.

plant community: An assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition; occurs in particular 

locations under particular influences; a reflection 

or integration of the environmental influences on 

the site such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar 

radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a 

general kind of climax plant community, such as 

ponderosa pine or bunchgrass. 

preferred alternative: The Service’s final selection 

(after analysis of alternatives in a draft NEPA 

document) of a management alternative to carry 

out, which is documented in a “record of decision” 

for an EIS or a “finding of no significant impact” 

for an EA and published in the Federal Register. 

The decision is based on the legal responsibility 

of the Service including the missions of the Service and the Refuge System, other legal and policy mandates, the purpose of the refuge, and the 

vision and goals in the final CCP. In addition, the 

Service considers public, tribal, and agency input 

along with land uses in the ecosystem, environmental effects, and budget projections.

prescribed fire: A wildland fire originating from a 

planned ignition to meet specific objectives identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan 

for which NEPA requirements (where applicable) 

have been met before ignition. These objectives 

could be hazardous fuel reduction, habitat- or 

wildlife-oriented, or other objectives in the prescribed fire burn plan.

prescriptive grazing: The planned application of livestock grazing at a specified season, duration and 

intensity to accomplish specific vegetation management objectives. The objectives are designed 

to achieve the broader habitat and wildlife goals. 

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’s purposes. This includes 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation.

properly functioning condition: Qualitative method for 

assessing the condition of riparian-wetland areas. 

It describes both the assessment and the conditions of the wetland area. It evaluates how well 

the physical processes are functioning through 

use of a checklist. 

proposed action: The alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

(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; Native American tribes; and foreign 

nations. It may include anyone outside the core 

planning team. It includes those who may or may 

not have shown an interest in Service issues and 

those who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

public domain: Lands that were not under private 

or State ownership during the 18th and 19th 

centuries in the United States, as the country 

was expanding. These lands were obtained from 

the 13 colonies, Native American tribes, or purchases from other counties. The domain was con-
364 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

trolled by the Federal Government and sold to 

States or private interests through the General 

Land Office, which would eventually become the 

Bureau of Land Management.

public involvement: A 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 of public views is given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management. 

purpose of the refuge: The purpose of a refuge is specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

Executive order, agreement, public land order, 

donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing authorization or expanding a 

refuge, a refuge unit, or a refuge subunit (The 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). 

pyric herbivory: Grazing promoted through fire. The 

fire–grazing interaction is critical in maintaining 

heterogeneity (dissimilar species resulting in 

variety) of grassland ecosystems.

quality wildlife-dependent recreation: Programs are 

based on 11 criteria that defined under 605 FW1, 

“General Guidelines for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation.” Quality programs include the following: safety of participants and compliance with 

laws and regulations; minimized conflicts with 

other goals or users; accessibility, stewardship, 

and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people; public understanding and appreciation 

of the natural resources; reliable and reasonable 

opportunities to experience wildlife; accessible 

facilities that blend in with the natural setting; 

and visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs.

raptor: A carnivorous bird such as a hawk, a falcon, 

or a vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on meat 

taken by hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses).

R.S. 2477: Revised Statute 2477. Section 2477 of the 

Revised Statutes emerged from section 8 of the 

Mining Act of 1866, which provided rights-of-way 

for the construction of highways over public lands, 

not reserved for public uses. It was repealed on 

October 21, 1976, under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act. 

refuge purpose: See purpose of the refuge.

Refuge System: See National Wildlife Refuge System.

refuge use: Any activity on a refuge, except administrative or law enforcement activity, carried out 

by or under the direction of an authorized Service 

employee. 

resident species: A species inhabiting a given locality 

throughout the year; nonmigratory species.

resilience: The ability to absorb disturbances, to be 

changed and then to reorganize and still have the 

same identity (keep the same basic structure and 

ways of functioning).

rest: Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands.

restoration: Management emphasis designed to move 

ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, 

such as healthy upland habitats and aquatic systems. 

Riparian and Wetland Research Program: A program 

through the University of Montana’s Department 

of Forestry that the Service contracted with in 

1999–2000 to look at water quality on the refuge.

riparian area or riparian zone: An area or habitat that 

is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems including streams, lakes, wet areas, and 

adjacent plant communities and their associated 

soils that have free water at or near the surface; 

an area whose components are directly or indirectly attributed to the influence of water; of or 

relating to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes the land immediately 

adjoining and directly influenced by streams. For 

example, riparian vegetation includes all plant 

life growing on the land adjoining a stream and 

directly influenced by the stream.

RLGIS: Refuge land geographic information system.

SAMMS: See Service Asset Maintenance Management System.

scoping: The process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. 

seasonally flooded: Surface water is present for extended periods in the growing season, but is absent 

by the end of the season in most years.

sediment: Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers.

sentinel plant species: Plant species that vanish first 

when the ecological processes that occur within 

an ecosystem are out of balance (refer to appendix F).

Service: See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS): A national database that contains the 

unfunded maintenance needs of each refuge; projects include those required to maintain existing 

equipment and buildings, correct safety deficiencies for the implementation of approved plans, 

and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

shorebird: Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds 

such as a plover or a snipe that frequent the seashore or mudflats.

spatial: Relating to, occupying, or having the character of space.

special status species: Plants or animals that have 

been identified through Federal law, State law, 

or agency policy as requiring special protection 
Glossary 365

of monitoring. Examples include federally listed 

endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate 

species; State-listed endangered, threatened, candidate, or monitor species; Service’s species of 

management concern; or species identified by the 

Partners in Flight Program as being of extreme 

or moderately high conservation concern. 

special use permit: A permit for special authorization 

from the refuge manager required for any refuge 

service, facility, privilege, or product of the soil 

provided at refuge expense and not usually available to the public through authorizations in Title 

50 CFR or other public regulations (Refuge Manual, 5 RM 17.6).

species of concern: Those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the definition of special 

status species, that are of management interest 

by virtue of being Federal trust species such as 

migratory birds, important game species, or significant keystone species; species that have documented or apparent populations declines, small 

or restricted populations, or dependence on 

restricted or vulnerable habitats.

stepdown management plan: A plan that provides the 

details necessary to carry out management strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation plan (The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 

602 FW 1.5). 

strategy: A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5).

suppression: All the work of extinguishing a fire or 

confining fire spread.

target species: A species selected, because of specific biological or social reasons, for management 

and monitoring. A target species could be a focal, 

endangered, big game, or other species.

TEA–21: 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century.

TES: Threatened and endangered species.

threatened species, Federal: Species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that 

are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part 

of their range. 

threatened species, State: A plant or animal 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. 

travel corridor: A landscape feature that facilitates 

the biologically effective transport of animals between larger patches of habitat dedicated to conservation functions. Such corridors may facilitate 

several kinds of traffic including frequent foraging movement, seasonal migration, or the once in 

a lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. These are 

transition habitats and need not contain all the 

habitat elements required for long-term survival 

or reproduction of its migrants. 

trust resource: See Federal trust resource.

trust species: See Federal trust species.

ungulate: A hoofed mammal such as horses, cattle, 

deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep.

USACE: See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): The Federal 

agency whose mission is to provide vital public 

engineering services in peace and war to strengthen the Nation’s security, energize the economy, 

and reduce risks from disasters. 

U.S.C.: United States Code.

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS, FWS): 

The 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 

93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System 

comprised of more than 530 national wildlife refuges 

and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It 

also runs 65 national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological service field stations, the agency 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, and helps foreign Governments with their 

conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal 

aid program that distributes millions of dollars in 

excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to 

State wildlife agencies.

USFS: USDA Forest Service.

USFWS: See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): A Federal agency 

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.

USGS: See U.S. Geological Survey.

UWA: Unified watershed assessment.

viability: Ability to survive and developing adequately. For a plant, the ability to survive and 

bear fruits or seeds without being fenced.

vision statement: A concise statement of the desired 

future condition of the planning unit, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, specific refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates (The 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). 

visual obstruction: Pertaining to the density of a plant 

community; the height of vegetation that blocks 

the view of predators and conspecifics to a nest. 
366 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

waterfowl: A category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans.

watershed: The region draining into a river, a river 

system, or a body of water.

wetland management district: Land that the Refuge 

System acquires with Federal Duck Stamp funds 

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).

wild bison: In Montana, wild buffalo are defined as 

buffalo or bison that have not been reduced to 

captivity per Montana Code Ann. §87–2–101(16). 

Bison that are free roaming and held in public 

trust are classified as a game species in Montana. 

The State of Montana’s legal classification of bison 

changes based on whether they are found on commercial farms or in private conservation herds or 

whether they are found in the wild.

wildfire: An unplanned ignition of a wildland fire 

(such as a fire caused by lightning, volcanoes, and 

unauthorized and accidental human causes) and 

any escaped prescribed fire.

wildland fire: Any nonstructure fire that occurs in the 

wildland including wildfire and prescribed fire.

wildland–urban interface: The line, area, or zone 

where structures and other human development 

meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland 

and vegetative fuel. 

wilderness review: The process used to identify and 

recommend for congressional designation Refuge 

System lands and waters that merit inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. It 

is a required element of a CCP and includes three 

phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. 

wilderness, also designated wilderness: An area designated in legislation and administered as part of 

the National Wilderness Preservation System.

wilderness, proposed: An area of the Refuge System that the Secretary of the Interior has recommended to the President for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System.

wilderness, recommended: An area of the Refuge 

System that the Director of the Service has recommended to the Secretary of the Interior, through 

the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks, for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System.

wilderness study area (WSA): An area the Service 

is considering for wilderness designation, which 

has been is identified and established through the 

inventory component of a wilderness review.

wildlife-dependent recreational use: Use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, or 

interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these 

are the six priority public uses of the Refuge System. 

woodland: Open stands of trees with crowns not usually touching, generally forming 25–60 percent 

cover.

WSA: Wilderness study area.
Appendix A

List of Preparers and Contributors

This document is the result of the extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the planning team, cooperating agencies, and other Service or agency contributors listed below.

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE STAFF on the PLANNING TEAM

Name Agency, position, and location Education and experience Contribution

Laurie Shannon USFWS region 6 planning team 

leader; Lakewood, Colorado

B.S. recreation resources 

management; 27 years

Project coordination, 

organization, writing 

and review

Barron Crawford Charles M. Russell Refuge 

project leader until 2010; 

Lewistown, Montana

B.S. and M.S. wildlife and 

fisheries science; 18 years

Project oversight, 

writing and review

Rick Potts Charles M. Russell Refuge 

project leader from 2010; 

Lewistown, Montana

B.S. animal science, M.S. 

animal nutrition and 

wildlife management; 33 

years

Project oversight and 

review

Bill Berg Charles M. Russell Refuge 

deputy project leader; 

Lewistown, Montana

B.S. wildlife management 

and zoology; 29 years

Writing, review, and 

oversight

Trina Brennan Charles M. Russell Refuge 

wildlife refuge specialist; 

Lewistown, Montana

B.S. fisheries and wildlife 

management; 5 years

Help with project 

coordination, 

organization and writing

Matt Derosier Charles M. Russell Refuge, 

Sand Creek Field Station 

manager; Lewistown, Montana

B.S. wildlife management; 

21 years

Writing and review

JoAnn Dullum Charles M. Russell Refuge 

wildlife biologist; Lewistown, 

Montana

B.S. zoology, M.S. wildlife 

biology; 15 years

Writing and review

Mike Granger Charles M. Russell Refuge 

fire management officer; 

Lewistown, Montana

B.S. and M.S. wildlife 

biology; 25 years

Writing and review

Paula Gouse Charles M. Russell Refuge, 

Fort Peck Field Station wildlife 

refuge specialist; Fort Peck, 

Montana

B.S. biology; 13 years Writing and review

Dan Harrell Charles M. Russell Refuge 

habitat biologist; Lewistown, 

Montana

B.S. fish and wildlife 

management; 18 years

Writing and review

Nathan Hawkaluk Charles M. Russell Refuge, 

Jordan Field Station manager; 

Jordan, Montana

B.S. fish and wildlife 

management; 7 years

Writing and review

Aaron Johnson Charles M. Russell Refuge, 

Fort Peck Field Station 

manager; Fort Peck, Montana

B.S. wildlife management; 

12 years

Writing and review
368 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE STAFF on the PLANNING TEAM

Name Agency, position, and location Education and experience Contribution

Neil Kadrmas Charles M. Russell Refuge 

wildlife biologist; Lewistown, 

Montana

B.S. and M.S. wildlife and 

fisheries science; 5 years

Writing and review

Danielle Kepford Charles M. Russell Refuge 

realty specialist; Lewistown, 

Montana

B.S. wildlife and fisheries 

sciences; 10 years

Realty and land 

acquisition review

Randy Matchett Charles M. Russell Refuge senior 

wildlife biologist; Lewistown, 

Montana

B.S. and M.S. wildlife 

biology; 27 years

Writing and review

Beverly

Roedner Skinner

Charles M. Russell Refuge; 

wildlife refuge specialist, 

Lewistown, Montana

B.S. and M.S. wildlife 

management; B.S. 

agriculture and 

horticulture; teacher 

certificate (science for 

grades 5–12); 20 years

Writing and review

Bob Skinner Charles M. Russell Refuge 

habitat biologist; Lewistown, 

Montana

B.S. zoology, M.S. wildlife 

management, Ph.D. wildlife 

management; 30 years

Writing and review

COOPERATING AGENCY MEMBERS

Name Agency, position, and location Education and experience Contribution*

Rich Adams BLM HiLine district field 

manager; Malta, Montana

B.S. range and forest 

management; 31 years

Planning team member

Gary Benes BLM district manager, Central 

Montana; Lewistown, Montana

B.A. geography and 

history, B.S. natural 

resource conservation

Planning team member

John Daggett USACE operations project 

manager; Fort Peck, Montana

B.S. civil engineering; 20 

years at Fort Peck

Planning team member

Lee Iverson Petroleum County 

commissioner; Winnett, 

Montana

B.S. animal husbandry; 12 

years

Planning team member

Vicki Marquis Missouri River Conservation 

District Council coordinator; 

Great Falls, Montana

B.A. chemistry; 5 years on 

council

Planning team member

Darin McMurry USACE lake manager; Fort 

Peck, Montana

B.S. wildlife science; 23 

years

Planning team member

Chris Pileski** DNRC, Eastern Land Office, 

acting area manager; Miles 

City, Montana

B.S. forestry; 14 years Planning team member

Laurie Riley Missouri River Conservation 

District Council coordinator; 

Great Falls, Montana

2 years on council Planning team member

Lesley Robinson Phillips County commissioner; 

Malta, Montana

5 years Planning team member
Appendix A— List of Preparers and Contributors 369

COOPERATING AGENCY MEMBERS

Name Agency, position, and location Education and experience Contribution*

Clive Rooney DNRC, Northeastern 

Land Office, area manager; 

Lewistown, Montana

B.A. business 

administration; 20 years

Planning team member

Tom Stivers MFWP wildlife biologist; 

Lewistown, Montana

B.S. wildlife biology, 

M.S. fish and wildlife 

management; 30 years 

Planning team member

Mark Sullivan MFWP region 6 wildlife 

program manager; Glasgow, 

Montana

B.S. biology, M.S. fish and 

wildlife management; 20 

years

Planning team member

*Primary representative of respective agency at meetings: participated on planning team; helped identify issues; provided input on 

 alternatives, objectives, and strategies; reviewed planning documents; and provided information as requested.

**Replaced Rick Strohmyer.

OTHER SERVICE or AGENCY CONTRIBUTORS

Name Agency, position, and location Contribution

John Chaffin DOI Office of the Solicitor attorney 

advisor; Billings, Montana

Legal advisor to the Service

Erin Clark Charles M. Russell Refuge 

wilderness fellow; Lewistown, 

Montana

Writing and review of the wilderness review

Richard Coleman, 

Ph.D.

USFWS region 6 assistant regional 

director; Lakewood, Colorado

Refuge System policy guidance

Mark Ely USFWS region 6 GIS specialist; 

Lakewood, Colorado

GIS map preparation for document

Patti Fielder USFWS region 6 hydrologist; 

Lakewood, Colorado

Help with writing water resources section

Jackie Fox Charles M. Russell Refuge 

biological science technician; 

Lewistown, Montana

Help with document preparation

Shannon Heath USFWS region 6 outdoor 

recreation planner; Helena, 

Montana

Help with developing public use objectives and 

overview of visitor services

Wayne King USFWS region 6 wildlife biologist; 

Lakewood, Colorado

Review of region 6 fish and wildlife priorities

Dean Rundle USFWS region 6 refuge supervisor 

(Montana, Wyoming, Utah, 

Colorado); Lakewood, Colorado

Refuge System policy guidance

Michael Spratt USFWS region 6 chief, division 

of refuge planning (retired); 

Lakewood, Colorado

Planning guidance

Meg Van Ness USFWS region 6 archaeologist; 

Lakewood, Colorado

Help with cultural resources objectives

Brant Loflin USFWS region 6 zone 

archaeologist; Bozeman, Montana

Help with cultural resources and paleontology 

information
370 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

OTHER CONSULTANTS

Name Agency and position Contribution

Roxanne Bash Federal Highways Administration, 

Western Federal Lands Office; 

Vancouver, Washington

Help with transportation planning

Jessica Clement Colorado State University; Fort 

Collins, Colorado

Help in facilitation of public use objectives 

workshop

George Fekaris Federal Highways Administration, 

Western Lands Office; Vancouver, 

Washington

Help with transportation planning

Lynne Koontz 

Ph.D.

USGS Fort Collins Science Center 

economist; Fort Collins, Colorado

Analysis of socioeconomic impacts

Mimi Mather Shapins–Belt Collins planner; 

Boulder, Colorado

Facilitation of planning team and public meetings; 

help with document preparation

Bill Mangle ERO Resources natural resources 

planner; Denver, Colorado

Help with analysis and research for reasonably 

foreseeable activities and cumulative impacts, and 

other environmental analysis documentation

Natalie Sexton

USGS Fort Collins Science 

Center wildlife biologist (human 

dimensions); Fort Collins, Colorado

Facilitation and help with public use objectives 

and analysis of socioeconomic impacts

Rick Schroeder

USGS Fort Collins Science Center 

biologist (retired); Fort Collins, 

Colorado

Help with vision and goals; provided input on 

writing biological objectives

Many other individuals also provided invaluable help with the preparation of this CCP and EIS. The Service 

acknowledges the efforts of the following individuals and groups toward the completion of this plan. The diversity, talent, and knowledge contributed and dramatically improved the vision and completeness of this document.

— Mark Albers, BLM field manager; Malta, Montana

— Mary Bloom, BLM assistant field manager; Miles City, Montana

— Katie Butts, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana

— Clayton Christensen, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana

— John Esperance, USFWS region 6 planning branch chief (retired); Lakewood, Colorado

— Jim Forsythe, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana

— Kim Greenwood, USFWS region 6 tribal liaison; Lakewood, Colorado

— Glenn Guenther, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Fort Peck, Montana

— Pat Gunderson, MFWP; Glasgow, Montana

— Scott Haight, BLM assistant field manager; Lewistown, Montana

— Brian Haugen, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana

— Asuka Ishizaki, formerly with USGS Fort Collins Science Center; Fort Collins, Colorado

— Jody Jones, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana

— Bob King, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana

— Chris King, Petroleum County commissioner; Winnett, Montana

— Gerry Majerus, BLM; Lewistown, Montana

— Paul Pallas, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana

— Margaret Raper, BLM field manager; Miles City, Montana

— John Ritten, Ph.D., University of Wyoming professor; Laramie, Wyoming 

(helped USGS with the socioeconomic analysis)
Appendix A— List of Preparers and Contributors 371

— Carl Seilstad, Fergus County commissioner; Lewistown, Montana

— David Taylor, Ph.D., University of Wyoming professor; Laramie, Wyoming 

(helped USGS with the socioeconomic analysis)

— Dale Tribby, BLM; Miles City, Montana

Appendix B

Public Involvement Summary

Following the guidance found in the National Environmental Policy Act, the Improvement Act, and 

the Service’s planning policy, the planning team has 

made sure all that all interested groups and the public 

have had an opportunity to be involved in the planning process. The term “stakeholder” is commonly 

used to refer to individual citizens; organizations; businesses; Native American tribes; Federal, State, and 

local governmental agencies; and others who have 

expressed an interest in the issues and outcomes of 

the planning process.

B.1 PUBLIC SCOPING 

ACTIVITIES

The formal scoping period began on December 4, 

2007, with the publication of a notice of intent in the 

Federal Register (FR–23467). The notice of intent 

notified the public of the Service’s intent to begin the 

CCP and EIS process and solicited public comments. 

OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

Early in the pre-planning phase and before publication of the notice of intent in the Federal Register, 

the Service outlined a process that would be inclusive 

of diverse stakeholder interests and would involve a 

range of activities for keeping the public informed 

and ensure meaningful public input. This process 

was summarized in a planning update titled Public 

Involvement Summary (FWS 2007a) and posted to 

the project Web site. The full report titled “Charles 

M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Public Involvement Process” was included as an appendix in the 

scoping report (FWS 2008b), which was posted on 

the project’s Web site. Throughout scoping, the planning team used various methods to solicit guidance 

and feedback from interested groups and the public. 

These methods included a variety of outreach materials, public meetings, cooperating agency meetings, 

briefings and presentations, as well as personal conversations, letters, email and telephone calls.

Planning Updates

A planning update (Issue 1, January 2008) (FWS 

2007a) was mailed to the initial mailing list of 625 

people and businesses before the first round of public meetings. The planning update, together with the 

earlier Planning Involvement Summary (FWS 2007a), 

outlined the planning process, draft vision and goals for 

the CCP, and dates, times and locations of the public 

scoping meetings. Refuge staff handed out the updates 

at various local agency meetings. The planning update 

distribution list consisted of individuals, agencies, and 

organizations who had previously expressed an interest in refuge activities. Following the close of the public 

comment period for scoping, Planning Update, Issue 2, 

May 2008 (FWS 2007a) was mailed and posted to the 

planning Web site. This update summarized the comments and key findings from scoping.

Press Release

A news release announcing the planning process and 

notifying the public of the schedule and location of the 

public meetings was sent to nearly 270 media organizations throughout Montana including congressional 

offices, other Federal and State agency offices, and 

tribal agencies. Several news articles featured the 

planning processed in newspapers, radio, TV, and 

online publications before the meetings. The Service 

distributed a second news release when one of the 

meetings (Bozeman) had to be rescheduled due to 

inclement weather.

Paid Advertisements

The Service placed paid advertisements in nine 

newspapers to publicize the project and invite the 

public to the scoping meetings. The advertisements, 

3.75×6 inches, were placed in the Billings Gazette 

(January 24), Bozeman Daily Chronicle (January 

24), Great Falls Tribune (January 24), Circle Banner (January 17), Glasgow Courier, Glendive Ranger 

Review (January 17), Jordan Tribune (January 25), 

Lewiston News–Argus (January 16), and Phillips 

County News (January 16). 

Project Web Site

The Service established a project Web site <www

.fws.gov/cmr/planning> in January 2008 (FWS 2007a). 

From the Web site, interested groups and the public could learn about meetings, download documents, 

get their name added to the project mailing list, and 

provide comments. 

Public Scoping Meetings

Approximately 210 people attended one of seven 

public scoping meetings across Montana from January 29–February 21, 2008 in Great Falls, Fort Peck, 
374 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Malta, Lewistown, Jordan, Billings, and Bozeman. 

The planning team listened to many ideas and concerns that were expressed and answered questions 

from a variety of interested groups and the public. 

The initial comment period was scheduled to end on 

February 4, 2008, but was extended to February 29, 

2008.

Following a brief welcome and introduction, Service staff made a 15-minute presentation that outlined 

the following points:

■ description of the Service and the purpose of the 

Refuge System

■ key points of the legislation establishing the 

Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges

■ CCP and EIS process

■ project schedule

The remainder of the meeting was broken up into 

two components: (1) a question and answer session; 

and (2) an opportunity for participants to make official public comments.

SCOPING SUMMARY and UPDATE

During the comment period for scoping, the Service 

received 23,867 (FWS 2008b) written responses in the 

form of letters, emails, or from the handout sheet provided at the public meeting. Twenty-three organizations submitted comments.

Following the comment period, the planning team 

prepared a scoping report summarizing the scoping 

phase. Copies of the report were provided to the cooperating agencies and posted to the project Web site. The 

comments were placed into a spreadsheet and included 

in the scoping report. Additionally, the team summarized the key activities in a second planning update 

(Issue 2, January 2008) (FWS 2007a), which was mailed 

out to the entire mailing list and posted to the project 

Web site.

The comments were consolidated into seven significant topics of concern with several subtopics. The 

seven primary topics are habitat and wildlife, public uses and access wilderness, socioeconomic issues, 

water resources, adjacent lands and partnerships 

and cultural values, traditions, and resources. These 

are addressed in more detail in chapter 1.

B.2 COOPERATING AGENCIES 

and TRIBAL COORDINATION

In accordance with the Service’s planning policy (FWS 

2000c), the pre-planning and scoping process began 

with formal notification to Native American tribes and 

other Federal and State agencies with a land management interest and inviting them to participate as cooperating agencies and members of the planning team. 

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

The Service sent letters of notification about the 

planning process including an invitation to participate on the planning team to the following tribes: 

Arapahoe Business Council, Chippewa Cree Tribe, 

Crow Tribal Council, Fort Belknap Tribal Council, 

Fort Peck Tribal Council, and Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe. In July 2009, the Service reached out again to 

several of the closest tribes to the refuge, Fort Peck 

and Fort Belknap and made arrangements for a formal briefing and consultation (July 8–9, 2009).

FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL AGENCIES

In addition to notifying the tribes, the Service sent 

letters about the planning process including an invitation to participate on the planning team to the following agencies: USACE, BLM, MFWP, and DNRC. 

The Service sent notification letters to the Montana State Historic Preservation Office and to the 

six counties (Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, 

Phillips, and Valley). In September 2007, Service 

staff met with representatives from the conservation districts and the counties to inform them of the 

CCP and EIS process and discuss the project.

As a result, the Service received formal letters 

requesting cooperating agency status from the six 

counties, the Garfield County Conservation District, and the Missouri River Conservation District 

Council. The Service granted the six counties cooperating agency status. Two representatives attended 

planning team meetings on behalf of all the counties. 

Additionally, the Service granted the six conservation districts that surround the refuge cooperating 

agency status, allowing for one representative to 

attend meetings on behalf of all the conservation districts.

In summary, the cooperating agencies included 

USACE, BLM, MFWP, DNRC, Fergus, Petroleum, 

Garfield, McCone, Phillips, and Valley Counties, and 

the Missouri River Conservation Districts. A memorandum of understanding was signed by all the agencies, and the signed document was posted to the 

planning Web site (FWS 2007a).

B.3 PLANNING TEAM 

MEETINGS

In November 2007, the planning team met with the 

Federal and State agencies. Following the addition of the counties and Missouri River Conservation Districts as cooperating agencies, in April 2008 

the entire planning team met twice. The first meeting occurred April 15 for bringing all the cooperating agencies together, as several agencies had been 
Appendix B—Public Involvement Summary 375

added since the first meeting in the fall of 2007. Key 

topics included developing of the Memorandum of 

Understanding, discussion of the Scoping Report, the 

upcoming alternatives development workshop, and 

a preliminary discussion about alternative scenarios. 

A second meeting occurred when the refuge 

staff met for a 3-day alternatives workshop, which 

included representation from most of the cooperating agencies involved in the project. At this workshop preliminary alternative concepts were further 

developed. Some agency representatives chose 

instead to take part in a 2-day briefing held June 

17–18, 2008, to discuss the concepts that had been 

further refined and to go out onto the refuge to discuss specific issues. For this meeting, the Service 

mailed all of the cooperating agencies a copy of the 

revised draft alternatives table before the meeting. 

The cooperating agencies offered substantial input 

and feedback on the initial draft alternatives during the June briefing including written comments 

that were submitted by McCone County. The Service incorporated many of those comments and concerns before publishing the entire alternatives chart 

for the public on the Web site in early August.

In early January and February 2009, the planning team met twice to develop preliminary objectives and strategies for all the alternatives. In May of 

2009, the Service held another planning team meeting, which included all the county commissioners for 

the purposes of discussing roads and the accuracy of 

the data the Service had acquired to date.

The Service provided the cooperating agencies 

with copies of the internal review document in April 

2010. Following a 5-week review period, the Service 

met with the cooperating agencies in June 2010 to 

discuss the significant issues identified during their 

review. Before release of the public draft, the Service met again with the cooperating agencies to 

advise them of any significant changes to the document.

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

The Service considers alternatives development as 

part of an iterative process in the development of the 

draft CCP and EIS (FWS 2000c). This phase of the 

project began in spring 2008, and public input ended 

in late fall 2008. Following input by the cooperating agencies and the public on the draft alternatives, 

detailed objectives and strategies for all the alternatives were developed in early 2009 with input by the 

cooperating agencies.

OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

In August 2008, the planning team presented four 

draft alternatives to the public including a no-action 

alternative. One alternative (D) was identified as the 

proposed action. The Service’s planning policy (FWS 

2000c) requires that one alternative be identified 

as the proposed action in an environmental analysis document per the National Environmental Policy Act. It is the alternative that the Service believes 

best fulfills the refuge purpose, mission, vision, and 

goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. At this 

stage, the alternatives were described as conceptual 

approaches or themes including the type of management actions that would occur under each approach. 

For a planning process such as for the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges, where an EIS is being 

prepared, the Service often solicits feedback on the 

draft alternatives before full development of them. 

While not required under the National Environmental Policy Act, this allows the public an opportunity 

to provide input earlier into the alternatives process. 

It also gives the refuge staff a chance to talk about 

what they would like to achieve. The Service does 

not select a preferred alternative until the preparation and publication of the final CCP and EIS.

Planning Updates

Planning Update, Issue 3, August 2008, was mailed 

or handed out in the refuge headquarters to over 720 

persons and businesses during the comment period 

with most of the updates mailed the week of August 

4, 2008 (FWS 2007a). This planning update outlined 

the initial draft alternatives developed by the planning team and provided the dates, times, and locations of the public workshops. The distribution list 

consisted of individuals, agencies, and organizations 

who had previously expressed an interest in refuge activities. In addition, the planning update was 

handed out at the meetings.

The Service followed up with another update 

(Planning Update, Issue 4, January 2009), which 

summarized what had been learned during the comment period. Both updates and a more detailed summary of comments were posted on the project Web 

site.

Press Release

On August 18, the Service issued a news release notifying the public of the schedule and location of the public 

meetings to nearly 270 media organizations throughout 

Montana including congressional offices, other Federal 

and State agency offices, and tribal agencies. Several 

news articles about the planning process appeared in 

newspapers, radio, TV, and online publications before 

the meetings.

Paid Advertisements

The Service placed paid advertisements in nine newspapers to announce the 2008 meetings. The advertisements, 3.75 inches by 6 inches, were placed in the 

Billings Gazette (August 21), Bozeman Daily Chronicle (August 21), Great Falls Tribune (August 18), 
376 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Circle Banner (August 21), Glasgow Courier, Glendive Ranger Review (August 20–21), Jordan Tribune 

(August 20–21), Lewiston News–Argus (August 20), 

and Phillips County News (August 20).

Public Workshops

One hundred and eighty-eight people attended one 

or more of the seven workshops from September 

2–17, 2008, in Lewistown, Jordan, Malta, Glasgow, 

Billings, Bozeman, and Great Falls.

Following a brief welcome and introduction, the 

project leader made a short presentation highlighting 

the following:

■ project schedule

■ mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and purposes of the refuge

■ process for alternatives development

■ definitions of reasonable alternatives, alternative 

concepts, objectives and strategies, and definition 

of proposed action versus preferred alternative 

(not until end of project)

■ overview of the alternatives

■ common issues

Following the presentation, the planning team used 

the remainder of the meeting to solicit feedback on 

the alternatives. For the first four meetings (Lewistown, Glasgow, Malta, and Jordan) participants 

broke into small working groups and rotated every 

20–25 minutes through a discussion specific to each 

alternative. During the second week of meetings, 

audiences were small (average 15–25 people), and 

the Service held the discussions as one group. For all 

meetings, refuge staff presented information about 

each of the alternatives, and participants were asked 

to provide feedback and ask questions.

The Service did not use a public hearing format 

for public testimony, as the intent of the workshop 

format was to facilitate smaller group discussions 

during this phase of the project. Many participants 

liked this format, but others raised concerns in their 

written comments about not having an opportunity 

to provide scoping comments in a legal hearing format. The Service appreciates any feedback including criticism about the format used for meetings. 

A hearing format was used for the meetings on the 

draft CCP and EIS. The Service has fully followed 

the requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act in addition to departmental and 

bureau policies during the scoping process.

Other Meetings with Individuals and Groups

When asked, refuge staff provided briefings and status updates to stakeholder groups including the Conservation Districts, the Wilderness Society, World 

Wildlife Fund, Ranchers Stewardship Alliance, Montana Association of State Grazing Districts, Kalispell 

Sportsmen group, Gallatin Wildlife Association, and 

others.

The Service held several seminars during the 

development of the draft CCP and EIS to provide 

information about the Service’s plans to use prescribed fire and grazing to meet the objectives of 

the draft CCP. These seminars included presentations by Dr. Sam Fuhlendorf and Dr. Cecil Frost, 

who helped the Service in developing information for 

the analysis in the draft CCP and EIS. Many Federal, State, and local agencies, conservation organizations, and members of the public attended one or 

more of these sessions.

Other one-on-one discussions, briefings, and field 

trips occurred throughout the planning process. Service representatives engaged in many conversations 

with individuals that called or stopped by the refuge 

offices.

B.4 COMMENT PERIOD

The Service accepted comments from early August 

2008 through October 31, 2008, but also informed 

the public that comments were welcome throughout the development and writing of the draft CCP 

and EIS until the formal comment period on the 

draft CCP and EIS ended. The Service established 

an ending date for comments on the draft alternatives to use the information learned to fully develop 

each alternative with detailed objectives and strategies that would form the basis of the environmental 

analysis. The Service received one written request 

from the Six County Fort Peck Road Group, a group 

formed earlier by the six counties next to the refuge, to extend the deadline for submitting comments 

on the draft alternatives. The Service denied the 

request and reiterated that comments were welcome 

past the October 31st deadline, but that the process 

needed to move forward, and sufficient time had 

been provided for review of the preliminary draft 

alternatives. The Service made all of its information 

available to the public in early August 2008, providing the public over 60 days to provide input. In addition, representatives of the cooperating agencies 

provided input into the alternatives concepts during several meetings held in April and June of 2008, 

and during the development of objectives and strategies in early 2009. Members of the Six County Fort 

Peck Road Group (a group of county commissioners 

that address roads) were also given an opportunity 

to take part in a meeting that specifically addressed 

roads in May 2009.
Appendix B—Public Involvement Summary 377

METHODS for COMMENT COLLECTION 

and ANALYSIS

The Service’s primary objective in providing the 

public an early opportunity to review the alternatives was to gather more input before writing the 

objectives and strategies and conducting the environmental analysis. The planning team made every 

effort to document all issues, questions, and concerns. Regardless of whether comments and questions were general in nature or about specific points 

of concern, they were identified.

All comments were considered to be of equal 

importance. While the planning team valued the 

comments made in support or opposition to a specific alternative or issue, the team also was seeking feedback on the range of alternatives, whether 

there were other reasonable alternatives that should 

be included in the analysis, and whether any of the 

alternatives should be changed in some way.

The comments, whether from written submissions or recorded at the public meetings, were organized by topic into a spreadsheet and coded for 

organizational purposes. Volume 2 of the final CCP 

and EIS contains the Service’s summarization and 

response to public comments and testimony received 

during the public review of the draft CCP and EIS.

NUMBER and SOURCE of 

COMMENTS RECEIVED

During the course of the comment period, the planning team received hundreds of questions and comments during the seven public meetings held across 

Montana and nearly 300 written responses in the 

form of letters, emails, and from the handout sheet 

provided at the public meetings. Twenty-six agencies and organizations submitted comments; the 

breakdown of type and number of comments follows.

Type of Comment Number of Comments

Public meetings hundreds

Form letters 123

Individuals letters, 

 emails, questionnaires 134

Agency, organizations 

 (included two legal 

 letters)

 27

There were two distinct form-type letters. While 

similar in content, one was generated from the Garfield County Conservation District and sent to livestock owners and published in at least some of the 

local papers. Nine people submitted a second formtype letter and, while the affiliation is not known, 

most came from the Glasgow area. The key issues 

identified in both form letters follow: 

■■ the importance of livestock grazing and general 

opposition to prescriptive grazing

■■ opposition to wildlife reintroduction

■■ opposition to removal of interior fences

■■ support for more water development in uplands 

and maintenance of current structures

■■ desire for access for recreation, fire suppression, 

and livestock management

■■ concern that Payment in Lieu of Tax payments 

are too low and do not represent fair market value

■■ desire for reevaluation of proposed wilderness 

units

■■ desire to keep wildlife on the refuge

■■ support for increased predator control

■■ concern that the refuge is the largest source of 

invasive plants

■■ desire for increased fire suppression and opposition to use of prescribed fire

An action alert by the Montana Wilderness Association generated many individual letters and emails 

containing the following key issues: 

■ support for alternative D

■ support for reducing the 700-mile road network 

or limiting off-road travel

■ support for wilderness values particularly the 

proposed wilderness units

■ support for prescriptive grazing and restricting 

livestock grazing where needed to maintain wildlife habitat

■ desire for removal of obsolete fencing and letting 

wildlife move more freely

■ desire for a ban on hot-season grazing in the river 

bottoms and limiting livestock grazing in riparian 

areas

In addition, many other individuals and organizations voiced their concerns about other topics. 

Examples included concerns about boat access and 

types of boats, and hunting and general recreational 

access or the type of expertise the Service was using 

in the preparation of the CCP and EIS.

SUMMARY of COMMENTS

Commenters expressed highly varied opinions in 

support of or opposition to a range of topics including alternative preferences, habitat and wildlife 

management, prescriptive livestock grazing, wilderness, wildlife reintroductions, public access, 

roads, commercial recreation, interior fencing, water 

development, and prescribed fire. A summary of the 

comments was posted on the project Web site, and 

another planning update (issue 4) was mailed to the 

mailing list (FWS 2007a).
378 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Volume 2 of the final CCP and EIS contains 

detailed descriptions of the public comments and the 

associated responses provided by the Service.

B.5 CHANGES to the DRAFT 

ALTERNATIVES

From a review of all of the comments, no new significant topics or issues were identified that had not 

been identified during scoping (refer to chapter 1). 

All of the action alternatives were clarified or refined 

in some way as a result of the comments. Suggestions for alternative approaches that were not carried forward in the analysis are discussed in chapter 3. 

B.6 RELEASE of the DRAFT 

CCP and EIS

The draft CCP and EIS was released to the public 

for a 60-day review and comment period on September 7, 2010 following publication of a notice of availability in the Federal Register (75 FR–54381). The 

comment period was extended through December 

10, 2010 following publication of a notice for extension in the Federal Register (75 FR–67095).

OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

A planning update (Issue 5, September 2010) was 

mailed to everyone on the project mailing list. The 

draft CCP and EIS was mailed to the entities identified under section B.8 and to others who requested 

one. Before publishing the draft CCP and EIS, the 

Service mailed out a postcard to the mailing list asking recipients to identify their needs for reviewing 

the document (compact disc, full document, or executive summary). Press releases, the project Web site, 

and paid newspaper advertising were also used to 

announce the availability of the document and the 

public hearing schedule.

The Service held public hearings in Montana in 

the following cities: Billings on September 28, 2010; 

Bozeman on September 29, 2010; Great Falls on September 30, 2010; Lewistown on October 12, 2010; Jordan on October 13, 2010; and Glasgow and Malta on 

October 14, 2010. The meetings were recorded by a 

court reporter and transcripts from those meetings 

are included in volume 2 of this final EIS and CCP. 

Three hundred twelve people attended the meetings 

with 39 at Billings, 51 at Bozeman, 37 at Great Falls, 

33 at Lewistown, 55 at Jordan, 51 at Glasgow, and 46 

at Malta. The public hearings began with a short presentation by the project leader, followed by an opportunity for all who wished offer public testimony 3 

minutes to speak. Comment sheets were available for 

anyone who preferred to submit comments in writing. 

On request, the Service briefed several agencies and 

stakeholder groups on the draft CCP and EIS.

Throughout the comment period, the Service 

received more than 1,700 comments from 919 individual submittal documents (primarily emails, letters, and verbal comments during public meetings), 

53 letters from Federal, State, or local government 

agencies and organizations, and 19,627 form letters. 

Refer to volume 2 of this final EIS and CCP.

B.7 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 

to the FINAL CCP and EIS

The following discussion summarizes significant 

changes that were made in the process of developing 

the final CCP and EIS.

WILDERNESS

Several changes were made to the wilderness inventory and review (appendix E). The acreage for the 

new wilderness study areas (alternatives B and D) 

was modified slightly due to a mapping error in the 

draft CCP and EIS (640 acres within East Seven 

Blackfoot were previously mislabeled as State 

lands). Under alternative D, Mickey Butte (550 

acres) was added (previously in alternative B only). 

As a result, 25,879 acres under alternative B and 

19,942 acres under alternative D were identified in 

the final CCP and EIS. No areas were added in alternative C. In consideration of significant public comment on the proposed wilderness areas and a review 

of the Service’s wilderness policy (FWS 2008c), the 

Service found that the wilderness characteristics of 

the 15 proposed wilderness areas have not declined 

in any measurable way since 1974 when they were 

originally proposed. There is not sufficient justification for recommending to Congress the removal of 

any of the existing proposed wilderness. As a result, 

this consideration was rejected for both alternatives 

C and D.

ACCESS ROADS

Several changes were made to alternative D, which 

included changing road 315 from closed to seasonally closed from its junction with road 838 to its end. 

About 13 miles of roads on the north side would be 

designated as game retrieval roads. These include 

roads 440, 331, 332, and 333. These roads would be 

open for retrieval of game for about 4 hours per 

day during hunting season. This would provide for 

greater wildlife security and as a result would likely 

enhance elk harvest in these areas. It would also pro-
Appendix B—Public Involvement Summary 379

vide greater accessibility particularly for hunters 

with disabilities to be able to retrieve game.

WILDLIFE OBJECTIVES

In response to public and agency comments on the 

draft CCP and EIS, the big game objectives were 

adjusted to clarify that big game management on 

the refuge would meet or exceeds the objectives in 

approved State conservation plans. In accordance 

with national policy striving to the extent practicable to achieve consistency with State management 

objectives and regulations, refuge-specific abundance and population composition objectives could 

be established through the habitat management 

plans and would be tailored to regional habitat conditions, productivity and other considerations. Those 

objectives would consider naturally functioning ecosystem processes, biological integrity, hunting opportunities and quality of recreational experiences.

Information on threatened and endangered species and species of concern was updated as a result 

of status changes of several species including northern gray wolf, Sprague’s pipit, mountain plover, and 

northern leopard frog.

HABITAT OBJECTIVES and STRATEGIES

Several organizational changes were made to clarify how the Service would achieve its habitat-based 

goals and objectives on the refuge. The definition 

of and use of prescription grazing as a management 

tool was clarified and expanded, and more details 

were provided. The Service has been transitioning away from annual grazing in favor of a habitatbased or prescriptive component for nearly 20 years 

and this would continue regardless of the alternative 

selected. Several alternatives (B and D) would carry 

out this transition more quickly to adhere to Service 

legal mandates and policies. The timeframe for moving toward implementing prescriptive grazing was 

moved from the objective level to the strategy level, 

which is more consistent with Service planning policy. 

The objectives identify the specific measurable objectives for enhancing the diversity, viability, and resiliency of plant species on the refuge.

FOCAL BIRD SPECIES

The Service added a discussion and several tables 

describing focal bird species and included a description in the glossary and in appendix F, plant and wildlife species. Previously, potential bird species were 

identified. These bird species represent a broader 

range of species with similar conservation needs and 

are often part of a larger landscape conservation effort 

(FWS 2011c; refer to chapter 1, section “1.4 Bird Conservation”). Greater connectivity between the focal 

bird species and the sentinel plant monitoring program was made, particularly in alternative D and to a 

lesser extent in alternative B. Focal birds were identified for each type of habitat: uplands, river bottoms, 

and riparian areas and wetlands. Focal birds were not 

identified for shoreline areas due to its highly dynamic 

nature.

RIPARIAN AREAS

The riparian area objectives were modified to better 

define the restoration goals and the measurements 

for achieving them within a 15-year timeframe based 

on emphasis of the alternative.

MINERALS

Several clarifications were made about mineral withdrawals on the refuge. The current mineral withdrawal applies to locatable minerals (diatremes or 

gems) and does not apply to leasable minerals (oil 

and gas). To date, no leasable minerals have been 

developed on the refuge. Currently, the Service is 

seeking an extension of the 20-year mineral withdrawal. Only Congress can designate a permanent 

withdrawal and the Service would seek this for protection of refuge habitat and wildlife values.

LAND ACQUISITION

Clarification was made that under all alternatives 

the Service would continue to acquire lands within 

its authorized boundary and in accordance with the 

Enhancement Act (refer to chapter 1, section 1.9) 

based on a willing seller and buyer relationship.

LEGAL MANDATES

Additional clarification and information was provided on the passage of the Improvement Act, Service policies, other legal mandates, and the refuge’s 

history.

WATER QUALITY and AIR MONITORING

Additional information and clarification were provided on water quality and air monitoring on the refuge. Other factual errors were corrected and updates 

were made where appropriate.

B.8 LIST OF ENTITIES 

RECEIVING the FINAL 

CCP and EIS

The following Federal and State agencies, along with 

nonprofit organizations, grazing or outfitting permittees, and other businesses received copies of the final 

CCP and EIS. All interested groups and the public 
380 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

on the project mailing list (more than 800 names) 

received a copy of Planning Update, Issue 6, which 

summarized the contents of the final CCP and EIS.

FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS

■■ U.S. House of Representatives, Montana Representative Dennis Rehberg

■■ U.S. Senate, Montana Senator Max Baucus

■■ U.S. Senate, Montana Senator Jon Tester

FEDERAL AGENCIES

■■ Bureau of Land Management: Field offices in 

Lewistown, Malta, and Miles City; Montana 

State Office in Billings

■■ Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, Bozeman, Montana; Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Ogden, Utah

■■ Environmental Protection Agency, Helena, Montana

■■ Federal Highways Administration, Western Lands

Office, Vancouver, Washington

■■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Peck

■■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: region 6 programs 

in Lakewood, Colorado; Invasive Strike Team in 

Great Falls, Montana; Ecological Services in Helena, Montana; region 9 in Washington, DC

■■ National Park Service, Lewis and Clark National 

Trail: Omaha, Nebraska; regional office in Lakewood, Colorado 

TRIBES and TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS

■■ Arapaho Business Council

■■ Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Tribes (Fort Belknap)

■■ Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes (Fort Peck)

■■ Chippewa Cree Tribe

■■ Northern Cheyenne Tribe

■■ Crow Tribe

MONTANA ELECTED OFFICIALS

■■ Governor Brian Schweitzer

■■ Representative Ed Butcher 

■■ Representative Dave Kastin

■■ Representative Wayne Stahl

■■ Senator Jim Peterson

■■ Senator John Brenden

■■ Senator Johnathan Windy Boy

MONTANA STATE AGENCIES

■■ Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks: director 

in Helena; region 4 in Great Falls; Lewistown Area 

Resource Office; region 6 in Glasgow; region 7 in 

Miles City; State Wildlife Grants in Great Falls

■■ Department of Natural Resources: director in Helena; Lewistown; Miles City

■■ Department of Transportation, Lewistown

■■ Montana Historical Society and Preservation Office

■■ Natural Heritage Program, Helena

COUNTY and LOCAL 

GOVERNMENTS and AGENCIES

■■ Fergus County Commissioners

■■ Garfield County Commissioners

■■ McCone County Commissioners

■■ Petroleum County Commissioners

■■ Phillip County Commissioners

■■ Valley County Commissioners

■■ Missouri River Council of Conservation Districts 

in Great Falls: Fergus County Conservation District, Garfield County Conservation District, 

McCone County Conservation District, Petroleum 

County Conservation District, Phillips County 

Conservation District, Valley County Conservation District

ORGANIZATIONS and 

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

■■ American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia

■■ American Prairie Reserve, Bozeman, Montana

■■ Defenders of Wildlife, Bozeman, Montana, Missoula, Montana, Washington, DC

■■ Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Curator 

of Vertebrate Paleontology, Denver, Colorado

■■ Department of Natural Resource Ecology and 

Management, Iowa State University, Iowa

■■ Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, Tennessee

■■ Environmental Defense Center for Conservation 

Incentives, Boulder, Colorado

■■ Fort Peck Lake Association, Fort Peck, Montana

■■ Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Cody, 

Wyoming

■■ Friends of the Missouri River Breaks, Lewistown, Montana

■■ Gallatin Wildlife Association, Bozeman, Montana

■■ Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, Missoula, Montana 

■■ Izaak Conservation League, Gaithersburg, Maryland

■■ Maryland Ornithological Society, Ellicott City, 

Maryland

■■ Missouri River County, Wolf Point, Montana

■■ Montana Audubon, Helena, Montana

■■ Montana Farm Bureau, Bozeman, Montana
Appendix B—Public Involvement Summary 381

■■ Montana Mountain Bike Alliance, Bozeman, Montana

■■ Montana Petroleum Association, Helena, Montana

■■ Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association, Great 

Falls, Montana

■■ Montana Trappers Association, Winnett, Montana

■■ Montana Wildlife Federation, Helena, Montana

■■ Montana Wilderness Association, Great Falls, 

Helena, Montana

■■ Montana Wildlands Association, Central and Eastern Association, Lewistown and Billings, Montana

■■ Mule Deer Foundation, Eastern, Bismarck, 

North Dakota

■■ Museum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana

■■ National Audubon Society: New York, Washington, DC 

■■ National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, West Virginia

■■ National Wildlife Federation: Reston, Virginia; 

Northern Rockies Project Office in Missoula, Montana

■■ National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC

■■ Nature Conservancy, Matador Ranch, Dodson, 

Montana

■■ Our Montana, Inc., Billings, Montana

■■ Ranchers Stewardship Alliance, Malta, Montana

■■ Sierra Club, San Francisco, California

■■ The Wilderness Society, Bozeman, Washington, DC

■■ University of Montana, Missoula, Montana

■■ Upper Missouri Breaks Audubon, Great Falls, 

Montana 

■■ U.S. Humane Society, Washington, DC

■■ Walleyes Unlimited of Montana, Big Sandy, Montana; Crooked Creek Chapter, Malta, Montana

■■ Western Watersheds Project, Inc., Mendon, Utah

■■ Wild Sheep Foundation, Montana Chapter

■■ Wildlife Conservation Society, Bozeman Montana

■■ World Wildlife Fund, Bozeman, Montana

■■ Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation, Bozeman, Montana

■■ Yellowstone Valley Audubon, Bozeman, Montana

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

■■ Colorado State University, Morgan Library, Fort 

Collins, Colorado

■■ Garfield County Library, Jordan Montana

■■ Glasgow Library, Glasgow, Montana

■■ Great Falls Public Library, Great Falls, Montana

■■ Lewistown Public Library, Lewistown, Montana

■■ McCone County Library, Circle, Montana

■■ Montana State University Libraries: Billings, 

Bozeman, Havre, Montana

■■ Phillips County Library, Malta, Montana

■■ Petroleum County Library, Winnett, Montana

■■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Conservation Training Center Library, Shepherdstown, 

West Virginia

Appendix C

Compatibility Determinations

C.1 USES ■■ Hunting

■■ Fishing

■■ Wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation

■■ Camping

■■ Geocaching

■■ Guided hunting (outfitting)

■■ All-terrain vehicle, bicycle, and snowmobile use

■■ Prescriptive grazing

■■ Research

C.2 REFUGE NAMES

■■ Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

■■ UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge

C.3 ESTABLISHING and

ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES

The following laws and Executive order established 

the refuges and authorized acquisition of refuge lands.

CHARLES M. RUSSELL 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

■■ Executive Order 7509, dated December 11, 1936

■■ Refuge Recreation Act

■■ Bankhead–Jones Farm Tenant Act

■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

■■ Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act

■■ Fish and Wildlife Act 1956

■■ Refuge Administration Act

■■ Wilderness Act legislation

C.4 REFUGE PURPOSES

Each refuge was established for specific purposes, as 

described below.

CHARLES M. RUSSELL 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

■ “For the conservation and development of natural wildlife resources and for the protection and 

improvement of public grazing lands and natural 

forage resources: Provided, That nothing herein 

contained shall restrict prospecting, locating, developing, mining, entering, leasing, or patenting the 

mineral resources of the lands under the applicable 

laws: ... Provided, however, That the natural forage 

resources therein shall be first utilized for the purpose of sustaining in a healthy condition a maximum 

of four hundred thousand (400,000) sharp-tailed 

grouse, and one thousand five hundred (1,500) antelope, the primary species, and such nonpredatory 

secondary species in such numbers as may be 

necessary to maintain a balanced wildlife population but, in no case, shall the consumption of forage 

by the combined population of the wildlife species 

be allowed to increase the burden of the range dedicated to the primary species: Provided further, That 

all the forage resources within this range or preserve shall be available, except as herein provided 

with respect to wildlife, for domestic livestock.” 

(Executive Order 7509, dated December 11, 1936)

■ “Shall be administered by him [Secretary of the 

Interior] directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements ... and in accordance with such 

rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources 

thereof, and its habitat thereon.” (16 U.S.C. 664, 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

■ “Suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation 

of endangered species or threatened species” (16 

U.S.C. 460k–1), “ the Secretary ... may accept 

and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may 

be accomplished under the terms and conditions 

of restrictive covenants imposed by donors.” (16 

U.S.C. 460k–2,Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 

460k–460k–4], as amended)
384 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

■■ “Purposes of a land-conservation and land-utilization program.” (7 U.S.C. 1011, Bankhead-Jones 

Farm Tenant Act)

■■ “Particular value in carrying out the national 

migratory bird management program.” (16 

U.S.C. 667b, An Act Authorizing the Transfer of 

Certain Real Property for Wildlife)

■■ “Conservation, management, and ... restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats ... for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” (16 U.S.C. 668dd [a] [2], 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

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

other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

(16 U.S.C. 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

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

other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

(16 U.S.C. § 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act), “reserved for the UL Bend National Wildlife 

Refuge” (Public Land Order 4588, dated March 

25, 1969), “for the protection of lands for migratory waterfowl management.” (Public Land Order 

4826, dated May 15, 1970)

■■ “Shall be administered by him [Secretary of the 

Interior] directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements ... and in accordance with such 

rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources 

thereof, and its habitat thereon.” (16 U.S.C. § 664, 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act)

■■ “Particular value in carrying out the national 

migratory bird management program.” (16 

U.S.C. § 667b, An Act Authorizing the Transfer 

of Certain Real Property for Wildlife)

■■ “For the development, advancement, management, 

conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources.” (16 U.S.C. § 742f [a] [4])

■■ “For the benefit of the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the 

terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, 

or condition of servitude.” (16 U.S.C. § 742f [b] 

[1], Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

■■ “Conservation, management, and ... restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats ... for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” (16 U.S.C. § 668dd [a] [2], 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

■■ “To secure for the American people of present 

and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness ... wilderness areas ... 

shall be administered for the use and enjoyment 

of the American people in such manner as would 

leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the 

protection of these areas, the preservation of 

their wilderness character, and for the gathering 

and dissemination of information about their use 

and enjoyment as wilderness.” (16 U.S.C. 1131, 

Wilderness Act)

NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

C.5 DESCRIPTION of USE:

Hunting

The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge 

hunting program allows for the take of elk, pronghorn, 

white-tailed deer and mule deer, waterfowl (ducks 

and geese), upland gamebirds (turkey, ring-necked 

pheasant, mourning dove, sage-grouse, sharp-tailed 

grouse, Hungarian partridge) and coyotes. Season 

dates, limits, and harvest methods are generally consistent with State regulations, with the exception 

of mule deer and coyotes. Both have refuge-specific 

restrictions at the time of publishing. Specific regulations are available to the public at the Web site at 

www.fws.gov/cmr or at any office of the refuge (Lewistown, Sand Creek, Jordan, and Fort Peck).

In 2009, there was an estimated 103,000 hunter 

visits on the refuge, which is about 41 percent of the 

annual visitation for the refuge (annual visitation is 

about 250,000). The refuge is one of the most notable 

areas in the State of Montana for big game hunting. 

The refuge staff observes a small number of waterfowl and upland bird hunters each year. Hunting is 

one of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

on the refuge. Managed hunting is a tool used by the 

Refuge System for control of wildlife populations to 

maintain biological diversity and mimic natural processes that are missing or diminished.

Hunting takes place refugewide with the exception of administrative areas, closed areas (Slippery 

Ann Elk View Area), and recreational areas. Dual 

collateral refuge officers and currently one full-time 

refuge officer monitor hunters and their take. Especially during the big game rifle season when use on 

the refuge reaches its peak, refuge officers work in 

coordination with other Federal officers and State 

game wardens to ensure the use of safe and legal 

hunting practices.
Appendix C—Compatibility Determinations 385

AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES

Adequate resources are available to manage the existing hunting program at the current level of participation. 

The current road system provides access for hunters 

onto the refuge for hunting. Most refuge roads become 

impassible with only a minimal amount of precipitation. 

During the hunting season, this may cause clustering of 

hunters in localized, accessible areas of the refuge.

Increased use of the river as a motorway for access 

has provided many the opportunity for solitude and a 

primitive and unconfined hunt. This allows for access 

to resources that cannot be attained via the road system or easily on foot. Several wilderness units are 

only accessible on foot or via the Missouri River.

Aerial big game surveys are used during the year 

to establish counts and population statistics on elk, 

mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn. These 

monitoring surveys help in managing the overall 

health of the populations, which could be used to 

establish limits or expand the hunting program. To 

help enforcement on the refuge, all four of the dualfunction officers participate in a weekend rotation 

conducting law enforcement duties. The refuge currently has only one full-time officer. Additional needs 

are addressed in the CCP.

A refuge hunting regulation brochure is available 

to inform the public of hunting opportunities, refuge 

regulations, and safety precautions. Maps are also 

available, which show the location of roads, recreation areas, and those areas closed to hunting.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE

Temporary disturbance would exist to wildlife near 

the activity. Animals surplus to populations would be 

removed by hunting. A temporary decrease in populations of wildlife might help ensure that carrying capacity (especially for big game species) is not 

exceeded. Closed areas would provide some sanctuary for game and nongame species, minimize conflicts 

between hunters and other visitors, and provide a 

safety zone around communities and administrative 

areas. The harvest of these species would be compensatory mortality, with minimal impact to the 

overall health of their populations.

Temporary negative effects on the habitat are 

expected due to the use of camping grounds, tree 

stands, and possible illegal off-road travel. To mitigate the possible impacts, the refuge has established 

camping areas providing parking and vault toilets. 

The Service also enforces a pack-in, pack-out policy 

encouraging folks to remove their trash.

PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT

Public review and comment was solicited through 

posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local 

newspapers and the Federal Register, public meetings held during the CCP process, and formal public 

review of this compatibility determination as part of 

the draft CCP and EIS for the refuge.

DETERMINATION

Public hunting is compatible.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure 

compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System, hunting can 

occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are 

met:

1. Hunting is prohibited in all administrative sites, 

closed areas, and recreational areas.

2. Target shooting with firearms is prohibited at all 

times on the refuge.

3. Collection of antlers, artifacts, and fossils is prohibited.

4. All boats, trailers, and ATVs must be properly 

licensed from the State of origin. In addition, all 

ATVs must be street-legal, which requires brake 

lights and rear mirror in addition to licensing.

5. All vehicles including ATVs are only allowed on 

open, numbered roads.

6. Nonmotorized game carriers are allowed on the 

refuge except on the UL Bend Wilderness.

7. The use of firewood is allowed for those dead and 

downed trees. No live cutting is permitted.

Justification. Public hunting is a historical wildlifedependent use of the refuge complex, and is designated as one of the priority public uses as specified 

in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Infrastructure is already in place to support hunting programs, 

and current personnel levels and money are adequate. Special regulations are in place to minimize 

negative effects on the refuges and associated wildlife. Montana State law further controls hunter activities. Hunting is a legitimate wildlife management 

tool that can be used to control wildlife populations. 

Hunting harvests a small percentage of the renewable resources, which is in accordance with wildlife 

management objectives and principals.

Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date: 2027.

C.6 DESCRIPTION of USE:

Fishing

The refuge allows public fishing in accordance with 

the State fishing regulations and seasons, and in 

coordination with refuge and USACE regulations. 

The uses covered in the determination would be 

fishing on refuge reservoirs, fishing on the Missouri 
386 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

River, and fishing on the Fort Peck Lake as well as 

the use of boat ramps, parking areas, fishing areas, 

and other structures maintained to facilitate the refuge’s fishing program.

During the months that ice fishing is available, 

icehouses are permitted on the Fort Peck Reservoir 

December 1 to March 31. The owner’s name and address 

must be attached to the outside wall of the structure.

In 2009, the refuge had more than 60,000 visitors 

for fishing. Lake trout, salmon, bass and upriver paddle fish are some of the more popular species sought 

after. Fishing is allowed throughout the year; however, 

access is variable based on road conditions. Licensed 

vehicles and licensed ATVs are allowed on refuge 

numbered routes and the ice surface of Fort Peck Lake. 

Snowmobiles are only allowed to travel on the surface 

of Fort Peck Lake. Travel off Fort Peck Lake and numbered routes is not allowed with any vehicle (i.e., travel 

along the shoreline).

AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES

Anglers use the existing network of roads to access 

the river, lake, and various reservoirs of the refuge 

for fishing. There are twelve locations for launching 

boats; however, with the water level fluctuation of 

the Fort Peck Reservoir some boat ramps may be 

inaccessible to the water. The refuge complex has 

adequate administrative and management staff to 

manage its fishing program.

Annual funding is needed for seasonal workforce 

salary and for supplies to maintain fishing facilities 

(including mowing, painting, and repairing facilities; litter pick up; restroom cleaning supplies; and 

periodic pumping costs of vaulted toilets). Money is 

needed for law enforcement staff salaries, fuel costs, 

repairs, maintenance of patrol vehicles, and associated costs to support the law enforcement program. 

Routine law enforcement patrols occur year-round. 

The refuge is currently hiring an additional law 

enforcement officer at the Fort Peck Field Station 

and part of their duties would be to patrol fishing on 

the refuge.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE

The anticipated impacts of fishing are considered 

minimal. Fishing is one of the six wildlife-dependent priority public uses identified by Service policy. These uses are encouraged when compatible 

with refuge purposes. The disturbance is expected 

to be limited in scope and duration. All motor vehicle use is restricted to numbered routes and parking areas, which reduces disturbance to wildlife. The 

vast size of the nearly 250,000-acre Fort Peck Reservoir allows for a large number of anglers and an 

opportunity for solitude.

The CCP’s preferred alternative (alternative D) 

recommends establishing clear access for ice fishing. 

This recommendation could help divert potential violators from disturbing shoreline and upland habitat 

to access the ice for fishing. Anglers occasionally violate regulations; however, these incidents usually 

have only minor negative effects on fish populations 

or refuge resources.

PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT

Public review and comment was solicited through 

posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspapers and the Federal Register, public meetings held 

during the CCP process, and formal public review of 

this compatibility determination as part of the draft 

CCP and EIS for the refuge.

DETERMINATION

Public fishing is compatible.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure

compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System, fishing can 

occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are 

met:

1. This use must be conducted in accordance with 

State and Federal regulations and applicable special refuge regulations published.

2. Travel is only permitted on numbered routes with 

licensed motor vehicles.

3. Travel is permitted on the surface of Fort Peck 

Reservoir with licensed motor vehicles and snowmobiles.

4. Shoreline travel is not permitted on the refuge.

Justification. Fishing is a historical wildlife-dependent 

use at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and 

is one of the priority public uses as specified in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Infrastructure is already 

in place to facilitate this activity. Current personnel levels and funding resources are adequate. Special refuge 

regulations are in place to minimize negative effects on 

refuge habitat and wildlife.

Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date: 2027.

C.7 DESCRIPTION of USE: 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Environmental Education, and 

Interpretation

The Service estimates the number of visitors who take 

part in nonconsumptive uses at about 87,100. Refer to 

table 28 in chapter 5. This includes participants in 
Appendix C—Compatibility Determinations 387

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation and other recreational participants. These activities may take place 

on foot, bicycle, automobile, motorized boat, canoe, 

horse, cross-county skis and snowshoes. The refuge 

complex is open from dawn to dusk, and entry into 

closed areas is allowed through a special use permit 

and special conditions that are evaluated on a caseby-case basis.

With four of the above accounted uses being one 

of the six priority public uses of the Refuge System, 

these uses are to be encouraged when found to be 

compatible with the refuge purpose.

Refuge staff would help with activities when 

available. Organized groups, such as schools, Scouts, 

and 4–H organizations, may have instructors or leaders who would use refuge habitat and facilities to 

conduct compatible programs. Ages of participants 

range from preschool to college and beyond.

AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES

The refuge provides outstanding opportunities for the 

above uses due to the abundance of deer, elk, eagles, 

prairie dogs, and other unique species that people find 

interesting. The opportunity for solitude and premier 

landscape views are numerous across the entire refuge.

The CCP’s preferred alternative (alternative D) 

recommends expanding interpretation and environmental education and maintaining wildlife observation programs and facilities. The interpretation and 

environmental education programs would emphasize 

the principles of natural plant and animal communities and ecological processes and restoration.

Implementing improvements or expanding public 

use opportunities would be addressed in future stepdown management plans and through future money 

requests. Program expansion would require increased 

money for operations and maintenance. When money 

is not adequate to run and maintain programs, they 

would be reduced in scope or discontinued. Information 

kiosks, interpretive signs, and other infrastructure are 

in place for the present level of public use activities.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE

The disturbance of wildlife is considered a minimal 

impact of public use. The disturbance is considered 

temporary and local, such as running off feeding deer 

and elk or the flushing of upland bird species. The 

benefits of educating the public and providing for a 

quality outdoor recreational experience are considered to outweigh the potential impacts of disturbing 

wildlife and the associated habitat.

PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT

Public review and comment was solicited through 

posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local 

newspapers and the Federal Register, public meetings held during the CCP process, and formal public 

review of this compatibility determination as part of 

the draft CCP and EIS for the refuge.

DETERMINATION

Wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation is compatible.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure 

compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation can occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are met:

1. Managers need to monitor use patterns and densities and make adjustments in timing, location, 

and duration as needed to limit disturbance.

2. Use should be directed to public use facilities (both 

existing and in the future) or those areas appropriate for the use, which would not be within 

sensitive areas.

3. Observation areas need to provide wildlife information and safe areas for the public to pull the 

main roadway for view and photography.

Justification. Public use for wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation is a historical wildlife-dependent use of the 

refuge. These activities are designated as priority public uses as specified in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Special regulations are in place to 

minimize negative effects on the refuges and associated wildlife. The preferred alternative (D) for the 

refuge CCP would support the addition of two outdoor recreation specialists to help in the area of public use. Disturbance to wildlife is limited by the size 

and remote nature of large parts of the refuge. Disturbance is also generally short-term and only temporarily displaces wildlife and the adjacent wildlife 

habitat.

Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date: 2027.

C.8 DESCRIPTION of USE: 

Camping

Camping is defined as erecting a tent or shelter, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for 

use, parking of a motor vehicle or camper trailer fit 

for occupancy. The use of camping on the refuge is 

not considered one of the wildlife-dependent uses 

established in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, but it facilitates the use 

of all six uses considered wildlife-dependent. Due to 
388 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

the remote location of the refuge, it is necessary for 

the health and safety of those who are recreating on 

the refuge to be allowed to establish a location to camp. 

This use is being proposed due to the remote location 

of the refuge and as a necessary convenience when 

taking into consideration the health and safety of the 

recreationists using the refuge.

The refuge currently has 21 established camping 

areas. While camping is allowed refuge wide, these 

areas contain facilities that are not available everywhere. Driving off-road to establish a campsite is only 

allowed within 100 yards of a numbered route. Driving 

off-road for all other purposes is prohibited. Camping is 

allowed to occur at all times on the refuge. Most of the 

camping occurs during open hunting seasons in August 

through most of November. Most camping takes place 

within 100 yards of a numbered route and ranges in 

facilities such as a tent of natural or synthetic material 

or a camper trailer with minimal modern conveniences.

AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES

Resources Involved in the Administration and Management 

of the Use: Resources involved in the use of camping 

on the refuge would include law enforcement officers to ensure compliance with refuge regulations, 

maintenance of facilities available for recreationists 

and camping, and funding to produce refuge brochures 

explaining refuge regulations and mapping locations.

Maintenance Costs, Special Equipment, Facilities, or 

Improvements Necessary to Support the Use: Maintenance of current vault toilets and hardened campsites is minimal and although funding is not optimum, 

personnel is available to allow this use at current levels.

Offsetting Revenues: The refuge does not currently 

charge a fee or require a permit for camping.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE

Short-Term Impacts: There would be localized disturbance of vegetation in the area where camping 

facilities are set up. Other uses such as setting up 

a campfire and general use of the area around the 

campsite would have an impact on the vegetation 

and cause a disturbance to wildlife in the area. Due 

to the refuge limit of camping for a maximum of 14 

days within any 30-day period, these effects would 

be short term, and areas are expected to recover 

back to a natural state with little to no restoration 

conducted by refuge staff.

Long-Term Impacts: Due to the high number of campers during the hunting season, certain locations on 

the refuge receive a higher concentration of users. 

These areas have consistent use and require longer to recover back to a natural state. In these areas, 

not only is the refuge vegetation and wildlife heavily 

impacted, but refuge regulation violations can be high

as well. During fishing and hunting season, it is more 

common to find violations due to dogs off leash, intoxication, illegal drugs, illegal firearm use, human waste, 

littering, disturbances to other users, and noise violations. This increase in refuge violations has become 

a recurring expense on the refuge law enforcement.

Cumulative Impacts: While certain times of year and 

locations receive a greater number of users and a 

higher potential for long-term impacts, the use of camping on the refuge is deemed to have a greater benefit 

to the public by supporting wildlife-dependent uses 

on the refuge.

PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT

Public review and comment was solicited through posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspapers and the Federal Register, public meetings held 

during the CCP process, and formal public review of 

this compatibility determination as part of the draft 

CCP and EIS for the refuge.

DETERMINATION

Camping is compatible.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure 

compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System, camping can 

occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are met:

1. Vehicle access to camping areas is allowed, by 

the shortest route, within 100 yards of numbered 

roads except where closed. Off-road vehicle access to camp sites is not allowed in proposed 

wilderness, wilderness study areas, designated 

wilderness where habitat impacts warrant closing a site with a “No Vehicle” sign, and administrative areas that are posted as closed. Backpack 

camping is allowed throughout the refuge unless 

specifically closed.

2. All camping is limited to 14 days within any 30-

day period. Any property including camping 

equipment, boats, trailers, and other personal 

property left unattended for a period in excess of 

72 hours is subject to removal.

3. Use of dead and downed wood for campfires is allowed on the refuge. Removal of live limbs and 

trees is prohibited.

4. The pack-in, pack-out policy will be promoted for 

trash removal and campsite restoration.

5. Public use regulations will be enforced to protect 

habitat and limit disturbance to other refuge visitors.

Justification. Currently, all six of the wildlife-dependent uses are used on the refuge. Due to the remote 
Appendix C—Compatibility Determinations 389

location of the refuge, lodging establishments are nonexistent. For the health and safety of those who are 

using the resources of the refuge and taking part in 

recreational activities, camping is necessary. The time 

at which camping on the refuge is at its peak is not 

considered to be a critical period for wildlife on the 

refuge. In the fall during hunting season, all wildlife 

has produced young of the year and migratory bird 

species have completed nesting. The size of the refuge 

and difficulty of public access to certain locations provides alternative areas for disturbed wildlife.

While regulation violations and disturbance to 

other visitors can locally be a problem, with the cooperation of State and local law enforcement the workload 

is minimized. Due to the primitive nature of camping 

sites throughout the refuge and the existence of very 

few facilities, maintenance needs are minimal.

Given the above, camping does not materially 

interfere with the purposes of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge System.

Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date: 2022.

C.9 DESCRIPTION of USE: 

Geocaching

Traditional geocaching (the burying, placement 

or removal of a physical cache) is generally not an 

appropriate use for national wildlife refuges in accordance with Service and Department of the Interior 

regulations and policies. However, other forms of 

geocaching have emerged that do not require burying, placing, or removing objects. Some of the most 

current types are Virtual Geocaching, Letterboxing, 

Earthcaching, Trail Link, and GPS Adventures. Geocaching is not a priority public use; however, certain 

types of geocaching may offer benefits to support the 

refuge’s educational and interpretive programs and 

to learn more about refuge visitors.

The use of geocaching would be allowed refuge 

wide with the exception of closed areas. Those participating in geocaching would be responsible for following all rules and regulations required of all refuge 

users. Geocaching would be allowed year-round with 

the understanding that access to the refuge during the winter months is highly variable and most 

likely very limited. Refuge roads are often impassible due to the drifting of snow, and most roads are 

not maintained in the winter season. The refuge 

would evaluate the type of geocaching requested and 

how it benefits environmental education and interpretation. In accordance with refuge policy, refuge 

users are prohibited from disturbing archaeological 

resources, removing refuge resources such as plants, 

artifacts, and sheds, and abandoning property.

Geocaching has become a rapidly growing outdoor recreational activity. While traditional geocaching, which consists of burying or placing of a physical 

cache, would cause damage to the wildlife habitat, 

other forms of geocaching facilitates environmental 

education and interpretation, which are both wildlife-dependent priority public uses. By allowing geocaching to take place on the refuge, the Service is 

providing the opportunity for those who take part 

in the recreational activity to view wildlife and wildlife habitat.

AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES

Resources Involved in the Administration and Management of the Use: The issuance of special use permits 

to those wanting to participate in geocaching on the 

refuge would be an additional administrative resource 

involved. The level of need for special use permits for 

geocaching is not known at this time. Depending on 

the number of user groups, it may be that the current 

level of refuge resources is sufficient, or it may show 

that there is a greater than anticipated interest and 

additional resources are necessary.

Special Equipment, Facilities, or Improvements Necessary to Support the Use: The refuge is not responsible 

for providing any additional equipment necessary 

to conduct this recreational use. The current refuge 

facilities that support refuge visitors are considered 

sufficient for the expected number of users.

Maintenance Costs: The maintenance of general recreational facilities is not expected to significantly 

increase due to the use of geocaching on the refuge.

Monitoring Costs: The increase in unfamiliar monitoring techniques using Web sites and additional 

monitoring methods with the frequently changing technological activities would require additional 

administrative resources. Web sites that track geocaches and allow for a central location for users to 

communicate can also be used if there is an unapproved cache or abuse of the use on the refuge by 

disabling the proposed activity from its Web pages 

and alerting its users of the inappropriate use.

Offsetting Revenues: None.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE

Short-Term Impacts: The disturbance of wildlife, trampling of vegetation, and potential littering are all considered to be a minimal impact of public use. The 

prohibited practice of removing or leaving a cache on 

the refuge would be considered to negatively affect 

the refuge resources, but by monitoring the use and 

communicating the rules and regulations, the benefits of educating the public and providing for a qual-
390 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

ity outdoor recreational experience are considered 

to outweigh the potential impacts.

Long-Term Impacts: There are no long-term impacts 

foreseen with the use of geocaching. By complying 

with refuge rules and regulations for this use, the 

long-term impacts are considered minimal to nonexistent.

Cumulative Impacts: The potential short-term and 

long-term impacts are considered to be minimal the 

use of geocaching on the refuge is considered to have 

a positive effect by facilitating environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife observation.

PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT

Public review and comment was solicited through posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspapers and the Federal Register, public meetings held 

during the CCP process, and formal public review 

of this compatibility determination as part of the draft 

CCP and EIS for the refuge.

DETERMINATION

Geocaching is compatible.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure 

compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, geocaching can 

occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are met:

1. All refuge recreationists are responsible for knowing and following all refuge regulations.

2. The removal of refuge resources is prohibited. 

That includes, but is not limited to, the illegal take 

of wildlife, vegetation, archaeological resources, 

antler sheds, and geological resources.

3. The burial of caches on the refuge is prohibited.

4. The abandonment or leaving of a cache on the 

refuge is prohibited.

5. Caches that deface public or private property, 

whether a natural or constructed object, to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method are 

prohibited.

Justification. The use of geocaching on the refuge is 

determined to be compatible with the refuge purpose 

and the mission of the Service. It allows an opportunity for the public to take part in wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation, which are all considered priority 

public uses. With recreationists adhering to refuge 

regulations, it would minimize the negative effects 

on wildlife and wildlife habitat. By allowing the use 

of this rapidly growing activity, the refuge is providing the opportunity for the American public, not 

currently aware of the Refuge System’s conservation mission, to be environmentally educated and 

involved in conservation.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date. 2022.

C.10 DESCRIPTION of USE: 

Guided Hunting (Outfitting)

The refuge would authorize commercial hunting 

guide operations within the refuge, and regulate 

such use through the implementation of a hunting 

guide program and issuance of special use permits 

with conditions. This activity provides recreational 

opportunity for hunters who desire a successful, 

quality experience, but who may lack the necessary 

equipment, skills, or knowledge to hunt within the 

expansive Missouri River, Missouri River Breaks, 

and the rugged country the refuge encompasses. 

While guided hunts are not specifically identified as 

a priority public use, hunting is a priority public use.

Guided hunting operates under the same regulations as the public hunting. The use is allowed refuge 

wide with the exception of closed areas, recreational 

areas, and administrative sites. There are currently 

11 special use permits issued to outfitters on the refuge to conduct guided hunts. These 11 are spread 

throughout the entire refuge. Guided hunts are 

under the same Federal and State regulations and 

must adhere to the same limits, season dates, and 

wildlife-specific regulations. All guided hunts take 

place during the big game hunting seasons starting 

with bow season in late August through the general 

rifle season in November.

The refuge has consistently issued special use 

permits and established special conditions in addition to the Service’s general conditions for special use 

permits. Refuge law enforcement would be responsible for regulating the use and any compliance issues 

that arise. Each outfitter would receive an outfitter 

identification card for operations on the refuge. The 

permits are valid only within the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National 

Wildlife Refuge Executive order boundaries. Including Service lands and USACE lands. All refuge outfitters must keep a log of use, and when requested by 

a refuge officer, State warden, or special agent, shall 

provide for inspection, current outfitter records as 

specified by 8.39.703 (Outfitters Records) of “Chapter 39—Montana Administrative Rules.”

Based on the existing client demand for guide 

services, a significant number of the hunting public is 

willing to pay for the expertise and local knowledge 

provided by guides. To increase the chance of the 

public having a successful and quality hunting experience, the use of guides is a necessary approach due 

to the remote location and vast area of land.
Appendix C—Compatibility Determinations 391

AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES

Resources Involved in the Administration and Management of the Use: The use of refuge law enforcement in 

cooperation with other Federal, State, and local officers during the hunting season is no greater due to 

guided hunts than with the public hunters. The issuance of special use permits takes the time and effort 

of refuge staff with costs for printing the permits, 

issuing identification cards, and keeping records. 

The current staff is capable of issuing permits and 

managing the guided hunting program on the refuge.

Special Equipment, Facilities, or Improvements Necessary 

to Support the Use: The current equipment and facilities are adequate to meet the needs of the guided 

hunting program and the current participation levels.

Maintenance Costs: As with the public hunting program, 

maintenance of vault toilets and camping facilities is 

necessary during peak recreation times of the year. 

Starting in August with big game bow hunting through 

the end of the big game rifle season in November, 

maintenance of recreation areas, vault toilets, camping areas, and general use of the refuge is necessary.

Monitoring Costs: The cost of law enforcement, both 

full-time, dual collateral, other Federal, State, and 

local officers, is at its highest during the fall hunting 

season. The addition of a full-time refuge officer on 

the east end of the refuge would help with the heavy 

burden during this time of year. All other needs are 

addressed in the comprehensive conservation plan.

Offsetting Revenues: The current fee for an outfitting 

permit on the refuge is $250. This fee is kept by the 

refuge to use as discretionary funding whether to 

provide overtime for employees or to maintain and 

enhance current refuge facilities.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE

Short-Term Impacts: It is anticipated that the disturbance of guided hunting would not be measurably 

greater than the disturbance from the general hunting public.

Temporary disturbance would exist to wildlife near the activity. Animals surplus to populations would be removed by hunting. A temporary 

decrease in populations of wildlife might help ensure 

that carrying capacity (especially for big game species) is not exceeded. Closed areas would provide 

some sanctuary for game and nongame species, 

minimize conflicts between hunters and other visitors, and provide a safety zone around communities 

and administrative areas. The harvest of these species would be compensatory mortality, with minimal 

impact to the overall health of their populations.

Temporary negative effects on habitat are 

expected due to the use of camping grounds, tree 

stands, and possible illegal off-road travel. To mitigate the possible impacts, the refuge has established 

camping areas providing parking and vault toilets. 

The Service also enforces a pack-in, pack-out policy 

encouraging folks to remove their trash.

Long-Term Impacts: The primary concern about commercial guided hunting activities is the potential for 

conflict between guided activities and other refuge 

users, particularly unguided hunters. Based on experiences on this refuge and on other national wildlife 

refuges, commercial guiding operations can increase 

user conflicts. An important part of this issue is public 

perception that hunting guides and clients have an 

advantage of equipment and technique and are taking game that would otherwise be available to regular hunters. Guides, because they are running a 

business, may also be viewed as more aggressive when 

compared to unguided hunters. The State and refuge 

regulations should help ease the tensions between 

guided hunters and the public hunters. However, 

this conflict between hunters could be considered a 

potential long-term impact.

Cumulative Impacts: Guide operations may increase 

use of some refuge facilities such as boat ramps, 

campsites, and other facilities frequented by general 

user groups. With the dispersal of outfitters throughout the entire refuge from one end to the other, this 

increase would not be significant compared to the 

overall use.

PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT

Public review and comment was solicited through posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspapers and the Federal Register, public meetings held 

during the CCP process, and formal public review 

of this compatibility determination as part of the draft 

CCP and EIS for the refuge.

DETERMINATION

Guided hunting (outfitting) is compatible.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure 

compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System, guided hunting (outfitting) can occur on the refuge if the following 

stipulations are met:

1. Regulations for recreational users apply. See refuge guide map and information (revised 2004).

2. Outfitters and their licensed guides must have in 

their possession an outfitter identification card 

for the Charles M. Russell Refuge while operating on the refuge.

3. Charles M. Russell Refuge outfitter permits are 

valid only on lands administered by the Service 

within the boundary of the Charles M. Russell 
392 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

and UL Bend Refuges (including USACE lands 

within the refuge).

4. Charles M. Russell Refuge outfitter permits do 

not give exclusive use of any area.

5. All violations of refuge regulations, special conditions of an outfitter permit, MFWP statutes, or 

Board of Outfitters Rules by a Charles M. Russell 

Refuge outfitter, licensed guide, client, or a violation occurring in the presence of an outfitter or 

guide must be reported to the proper official immediately. Failure to report violations would be 

grounds for cancellation of the permit.

6. Permitted outfitters may not use licensed outfitters as guides.

7. Outfitters must meet State of Montana minimum 

insurance requirements. In addition, the policy 

shall (1) name the United States Government as 

coinsured, (2) specify that the insurance company 

shall have no right of subrogation against the 

United States of America, and (3) the permittee shall indemnify the United States. A current 

certificate of insurance must be provided to the 

refuge’s Lewistown office.

8. All refuge outfitters on request of a refuge officer, 

State warden or special agent, shall provide for 

inspection, current outfitter records as specified 

by 8.39.703 (Outfitters Records) of “Chapter 39—

Montana Administrative Rules.”

9. Refuge outfitters are not allowed to use aircraft 

for locating game on the refuge.

10. Outfitter logs, along with hunter-use days are 

required to be turned into Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 110, Lewistown, Montana 59457, by December 31 of each 

year. Failure to submit logs would be grounds for 

cancellation of the following year's permit.

11.Violation of any permit special conditions may be 

grounds for cancellation.

12. Outfitters who wish to keep their refuge permit 

and remain inactive with the State of Montana 

license requirements, must pay the $250 permit 

fee. Outfitters would be allowed to renew their 

permit with the Charles M. Russell Refuge for 2 

years while remaining inactive with the State. If 

at the beginning of a third year, an outfitter is still 

inactive with the State, he or she would not be 

offered an opportunity to renew with the refuge.

Justification. With the current regulations specific 

to guided hunting, and the spatial distribution of the 

outfitters, allowing guided hunting on the refuge 

would not materially interfere with or detract from 

the purposes of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge System. By allowing guided hunts on the refuge, 

it would provide an opportunity for those hunters 

looking to have a quality hunting experience and 

a greater chance of a successful hunt by using the 

knowledge, skills and abilities of those with local 

experience and the necessary equipment.

Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date. 2022.

C.11 DESCRIPTION of USE: 

All-Terrain Vehicles, Bicycles, and 

Snowmobiles

This applies to the proposed use and the restriction 

of use on the refuge uplands, Fort Peck Lake, and 

the Missouri River. Snowmobile use occurs during 

the winter season and is only allowed across the Fort 

Peck Lake. It is prohibited along the Missouri River 

and across the refuge uplands including all roads. 

ATV use occurs year-round and is allowed over the 

Fort Peck Lake during the winter season and on refuge numbered roads. ATV use is prohibited off-road 

on the refuge uplands and along the Missouri River. 

Bicycles are currently allowed on numbered roads 

including seasonally closed roads. These uses are not 

priority public uses according to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1997.

As the list below shows, ATV use would be 

allowed on refuge numbered routes and the Fort 

Peck Lake. Snowmobile access is only allowed over 

the Fort Peck Lake. Neither use is allowed along the 

Missouri River nor can either use take place off-road 

over the refuge uplands.

 Vehicle

 Type

 Fort Peck

 Lake

 Missouri

 River Refuge Roads

 ATV Allowed Prohibited Allowed

 Bicycle Prohibited Prohibited Allowed

 Snowmobile Allowed Prohibited Prohibited

Use locations that are both allowed or prohibited by 

the use of snowmobiles and ATVs.

ATV use occurs year-round on refuge numbered 

routes and during the winter months over the Fort 

Peck Lake. Snowmobile use is only allowed over 

the Fort Peck Lake during the winter season when 

ice and snow are present. ATVs are required to use 

refuge roads, the Fort Peck Lake ice during winter months, and all must be street-legal. Montana 

residents must have a metal license plate and all 

operators must possess the proper driver’s license. 

Nonresident operators who wish to operate their 

ATVs on the refuge should contact the refuge office 

about proper licensing requirements. Snowmobiles 

and their operators need to comply with State licensing requirements.
Appendix C—Compatibility Determinations 393

Due to the remote area in and around the refuge, 

the use of smaller and more navigable motorized 

vehicles is necessary to access or disperse access 

for wildlife dependent recreation. Snowmobiles and 

ATVs are both used to access the large Fort Peck 

Lake for ice-fishing opportunities away from the 

main access points. ATVs and, occasionally, bicycles 

are used on the refuge during hunting season and for 

general access year-round.

AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES

Resources Involved in the Administration and Management of the Use: The main cost of these uses is going 

to be the time and effort of regulating the use. With 

one full-time law enforcement officer and four dualcollateral officers to cover the 1.1 million-acre refuge are considered a marginal number of resources 

at best given the sheer size of the refuge and the 

number of users. Other Federal, State, and local law 

enforcement officers may help, as they are available.

Special Equipment, Facilities, or Improvements Necessary 

to Support the Use: Additional equipment and facilities 

are not necessary to monitor the use within the refuge and Fort Peck Lake.

Maintenance Costs: The most obvious maintenance 

cost is to the road system and to the vehicles used 

by refuge staff for patrolling the uses on the refuge.

Monitoring Costs: Monitoring use is the most expensive cost for the refuge. Either by plane or by vehicle, the cost of gas and staff time is significant. Due 

to the remote location and inaccessibility of certain 

areas, traversing the refuge is extremely time-consuming and a fast reaction to a refuge violation could 

take hours.

Offsetting Revenues: The refuge does not currently 

charge a fee for the use of the road system, or for access.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE

Short-Term Impacts: Snowmobiling has little to no 

resource impact given the season of use and regulation confining snowmobiles to ice covered waters. 

Snowmobiles do generate noise that may disturb 

other users in the area. ATV and bicycle use have little to no resource impacts as they are restricted to 

refuge numbered routes and to ice covered waters. 

As with snowmobiles, ATVs generate a disturbance 

due to noise that may disturb wildlife as well as 

other users within the area. Neither is considered 

to have an impact on the refuge habitat, as both are 

restricted to roads and the ice.

Long-Term Impacts: There are no long-term impacts 

associated with the use of ATVs, bicycles, and snowmobiles due to the use restrictions. The refuge roads 

are already disturbed areas of the refuge, and the longterm negative effects on the Fort Peck Lake are considered nonexistent.

Cumulative Impacts: The greatest impact overall would 

be the disturbance to other users in the area with the 

use of ATVs, bicycles and snowmobiles. The noise 

generated from both snowmobiles and ATVs could 

disturb those who are viewing wildlife, hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, fishing, and hunters 

pursuing game.

PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT

Public review and comment was solicited through 

posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspapers and the Federal Register, public meetings held 

during the CCP process, and formal public review 

of this compatibility determination as part of the draft 

CCP and EIS for the refuge.

DETERMINATION

The use of ATVs, bicycles, and snowmobiles is compatible.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure 

compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, the use of ATVs 

and snowmobiles can occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are met:

1. All appropriate State and Federal regulations for 

ATVs and snowmobiles apply.

2. ATVs belonging to Montana residents must be 

street-legal and have a metal license plate. Operators must also possess the proper driver’s license. 

Nonresident ATV owners who wish to operate 

their ATVs on the refuge should contact the refuge staff about licensing requirements. Anyone 

intending to operate an ATV on the refuge should 

contact the refuge staff to ensure the ATV meets 

the necessary requirements for legal use.

3. ATVs are required to stay on refuge-numbered 

routes or over the ice on Fort Peck Lake. Bicycles 

are required to stay on refuge-numbered roads 

including seasonally closed roads. ATVs are not 

allowed on roads when they are seasonally closed.

4. Snowmobiles are only allowed use on the Fort 

Peck Lake.

5. Off-road operation of ATVs or bicycles, as well as 

all motor vehicles, is illegal.

Justification. Although there is a minor disturbance to 

wildlife and other refuge users, the use of snowmobiles, bicycles, and ATVs allows for greater access 

and more dispersed access benefiting wildlife-dependent public uses. It increases access into areas that 

may not be accessible with traditional motor vehicles 

or on foot. While snowmobiles and ATVs generate a 
394 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

noise disturbance, those who are looking for a solitude and quiet recreational experience have many 

opportunities elsewhere on the refuge. Disturbed 

wildlife also has many opportunities to retreat to a 

less disturbed area.

With stipulations in place, recreational snowmobiling, bicycling and ATV use, given the location and 

season of most use and the physical nature and size 

of the refuge, do not materially interfere with or detract from the conservation purposes of the refuge.

Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date: 2022.

C.12 DESCRIPTION of USE: 

Prescriptive Grazing

Prescribed grazing is the planned application of livestock grazing at a specified season, duration and 

intensity to accomplish specific vegetation management objectives. The objectives are designed 

to achieve the broader habitat and wildlife goals. 

Rather than managing refuge resources to support livestock grazing or other economic uses, livestock grazing is used as a habitat management tool 

to achieve wildlife habitat goals and objectives. The 

Service employs the strategy of adaptive management in the development of habitat management 

plans. Adaptive management is defined as a process 

that uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of management actions to 

support or change objectives and strategies at all 

planning levels.

Prescriptive grazing is used to improve or maintain the health and vigor of selected plants and to 

maintain a stable and desired plant community, provide or maintain food, cover, and shelter for animals 

of concern, maintain or improve water quality and 

quantity and reduce accelerated soil erosion and 

maintain or improve soil condition.

Prescriptive grazing will be carried out across 

the refuge to meet wildlife and habitat objectives 

as identified in various management plans. The Service has been gradually making the transition to 

prescribed grazing for over 20 years as a result of 

the 1986 EIS and existing Service policies, and has 

carried out prescriptive grazing on about 34 percent of the refuge. Most habitat units with annual 

grazing programs are not meeting residual grass 

cover for priority species. The use would be implemented across the refuges where the Service has 

control over the use. For example, habitat units 

that are fenced from common pastures would be the 

first units enrolled into prescriptive grazing. Habitat units that are not fenced from private or other 

government-owned lands would be managed under 

existing management plans.

The use would be conducted according to 

approved habitat management plans to meet specific wildlife and habitat objectives. Use could occur 

during any season depending on the specific objectives to be achieved. Prescriptive grazing would be 

administered through issuance of a special use permit. Permittees would be selected using the criteria 

identified in the Refuge Manual. Habitat management plans would identify season of use, number of 

animals and length of time to achieve the management objectives.

A critical step in developing an effective and 

ecologically sound prescriptive grazing program 

is establishing criteria by which the prescription’s 

implementation and effectiveness will be measured. 

By collecting quantitative data over time, one is better equipped to detect trends toward or away from 

the desired effects of grazing treatments. Furthermore, monitoring during grazing treatments will 

help to determine whether grazing treatments are 

applied at the appropriate season, duration, frequency, and intensity to meet specific wildlife and 

habitat objectives.

This use would move from an annual grazing program to a prescriptive gazing program to meet specific wildlife and habitat management objectives. 

Currently, habitat surveys show that most grazed 

habitat units are not meeting the 70 percent residual grass cover as specified in the 1986 EIS. Residual 

grass cover is important for several grassland-nesting birds. In addition to the grass cover, new monitoring for highly palatable, first-to-decline forbs and 

shrubs (sentinel plants) are declining and being eliminated due to overuse and lack of natural ecological 

processes. These plants are extremely important to 

numerous wildlife species, especially birds and pollinators. The Great Plains have evolved over time 

through ecological disturbances like fire and grazing. 

These disturbances can be described as “pulse” and 

“press.” A pulse occurrence occurs sporadically but 

still occurs, whereas a press disturbance is constant 

(Frost 2008). Like fire, originally, ungulate grazing 

(herbivory) was a pulse disturbance. Before 1882, 

there were many years with periods of abandonment 

by wild ungulates where less grazing took place due 

to its interaction with fire. Since 1882, it has become 

a press (constant) disturbance because of fences and 

fire control. As a result, highly palatable species 

(particularly shrubs and forbs such as chokecherry 

and white prairieclover) have dramatically declined. 

These species evolved with, and are highly adapted 

to, grazing when combined with several-year periods of abandonment for recovery. Palatable shrubs 

require several years to grow from seed to seedbearing maturity and are alive above ground (or vulnerable to damage from grazing) 12 months of the 

year. Present-day livestock grazing systems typi-
Appendix C—Compatibility Determinations 395

cally only rest pastures for 1 entire year or less from 

livestock use (with no rest from wild ungulate use). 

A prescriptive grazing program would allow the refuge to fulfill the intent of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES

Resources Involved in the Administration and Management of the Use: Refuge staff would continue to monitor permittees for violations of permit conditions 

and trespass. Biologists and station managers would 

monitor habitat conditions using current HDP and 

sentinel plant species.

Special Equipment, Facilities, or Improvements Necessary to Support the Use: The refuge would continue to 

monitor grazing activities using ground surveys and 

aerial counts. New permanent or temporary fences 

would need to be constructed to apply prescriptive grazing on common pastures. Temporary water 

developments may be necessary to facilitate prescriptive grazing in some habitat units to meet habitat objectives.

Maintenance Costs: Maintenance costs could be 

reduced due to the reduction in interior fences necessary to manage prescriptive grazing program 

according to CCP alternatives. There may be additional costs with the construction and maintenance 

of boundary fences, which would be constructed anyway to manage livestock in common pastures.

Monitoring Costs: Refuge personnel who are involved 

in administering the grazing program spend approximately 25–35 percent of their time issuing permits, 

monitoring for trespass livestock and habitat conditions, and communicating with permittees. The refuge 

monitors livestock trespass via fixed wing aircraft that 

costs $140 per hour with a monthly fixed cost of $770.

Offsetting Revenues: The refuge receives approximately $60,000 in 6860 (grazing) funds per year; however, these funds are being reduced each year due to 

the increase in oil and gas development on other refuges. Refuges receive a percentage of the amount of 

revenue that is generated from commercial activities 

on refuges. It is expected the revenue generated by 

grazing on the refuge would continue to decline over 

the years. These funds do not cover current expenses 

incurred managing current grazing program and probably would not cover the costs of implementing the 

prescriptive grazing program.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE

Short-Term Impacts: Short-term impacts would 

include loss of vegetative cover, which could result 

in increased soil erosion. Highly palatable forbs and 

shrubs would be heavily impacted by grazing affecting a large number of wildlife species from pollinators to big game. However, the benefit would be to 

the wildlife species that require short cover such as 

prairie dogs, mountain plovers, and McCown’s longspur and grazing ungulates (elk and deer) that would 

graze the fresh growth of grasses. Prescriptive grazing can reduce invasive species and reduce fuel in 

sage-grouse habitat. In weed-infested areas, grazing must be carefully managed to reduce rather than 

increase invasive plant establishment and spread. 

Ecologically based grazing prescriptions pay careful attention to positively directing plant community 

change, not just removing the weedy species (Sheley 

et al. 1996). Moving from annual grazing to prescriptive grazing could have an impact on some current 

permittees from an economic standpoint. Prescriptive grazing would be carried out over time and 

with input from current permittees to lessen potential financial impacts. Permittees that are able to 

meet refuge needs may benefit financially by taking 

advantage of increased grazing opportunities.

Long-Term Impacts: The habitats of the refuge evolved 

with a pulse fire–grazing interaction (pyric herbivory). As fires burned across the landscape, grazing 

ungulates grazed less selectively on all plant species 

and thus highly palatable shrubs and forbs benefited 

from less grazing pressure. This interaction resulted 

in highly resilient systems that have a great diversity of species that promote heterogeneity and ecological integrity. Restoring this historical process 

would promote healthy habitats that promote biodiversity and resiliency to climate change.

Cumulative Impacts: Changes in grazing management 

would likely reduce the availability of grazing land in 

the region. However, because the refuge supplies less 

than 1 percent of all AUMs in the region, the cumulative effect of implementing prescriptive grazing, when 

combined with other land management changes 

would be negligible.

PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT

Public review and comment was solicited through posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspapers 

and the Federal Register, public meetings held during 

the CCP process, and formal public review of this 

compatibility determination as part of the draft CCP 

and EIS for the refuge.

DETERMINATION

Prescriptive grazing is compatible.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure 

compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System, prescriptive 

grazing can occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are met:
396 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

1. Habitat management plans would be developed 

with specific wildlife and habitat objectives.

2. Prescriptive grazing is one of the tools used to 

meet these objectives.

Justification. Sharp-tailed grouse, pronghorn, sagegrouse, large ungulates, and other wildlife species 

need a diversity of and abundant group of plants for 

food and cover all year. Refuge monitoring has shown 

that several highly palatable forbs and shrubs are 

declining due to the natural fire–grazing interaction 

being out of balance. Prescriptive grazing and other 

adaptive management strategies would permit flexibility necessary for the restoration of these important plant species. Prescriptive grazing is a valuable 

management tool that supports refuge objectives.

Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date: 2022.

C.13 DESCRIPTION of USE: 

Research

The refuge allows research on a variety of biological, physical, archaeological, and social issues and 

concerns to address refuge management information 

needs or other issues not related to refuge management. Studies are conducted by Federal, State, and 

private entities including the U.S. Geological Survey, State agencies, State and private universities, 

and independent researchers and contractors.

Research is allowed refugewide and is addressed on 

a case-by-case basis for the need and potential impacts. 

The exact locations of the studies would be determined 

by the focus of the study. Research requests would be 

considered during all times of the year and on a caseby-case basis. Due to the difficulty in accessing the refuge lands during the winter months, studies at that 

time may be more heavily scrutinized as to their biological need and benefit. The location of the study may 

have an impact on when the use would be conducted, 

especially if it is during a specific hunting season.

Researchers would be required to submit a written 

proposal that outlines the methods, materials, timing, 

and justification for proposed projects. These proposals would be reviewed by refuge staff to assess the 

appropriateness of the research for the refuge, environmental impacts, assure that the projects do not 

interfere with the other resource operations, and provide suggested modifications to the project to avoid 

disruptions to refuge wildlife and operations. A special use permit is issued to those whose requests are 

deemed valid and necessary. The refuge staff would 

be responsible for monitoring their use and that it is 

appropriate and consistent with the terms and conditions in their special use permit.

Research on the refuge is allowed as a symbiotic

relationship between the refuge research needs and the 

need for the requesting agency and individual to complete the research. The Service encourages and supports research and management studies on refuge lands 

that would improve and strengthen decisions on managing natural resources. All research requests would be 

evaluated on the refuge need and be in the best interest 

of wildlife and sound biological information.

AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES

Resources Involved in the Administration and Management of the Use: The refuge currently uses the existing staff to issue special use permits and to monitor 

researchers. Current staff resources are deemed 

adequate to manage issuing permits and monitoring 

the researchers for compliance at the existing levels.

Special Equipment, Facilities, or Improvements Necessary 

to Support the Use: The research group or individual 

would be responsible for supplying their own equipment necessary to complete the study.

Maintenance Costs: There are no foreseen maintenance 

costs with allowing research studies on the refuge.

Monitoring Costs: The current refuge staff is adequate 

to monitor the research completed by non-Service 

personnel. Research studies in access of available 

refuge resources would not be allowed.

Offsetting Revenues: The refuge does not charge a fee 

to conduct research studies on the refuge.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE

Short-Term Impacts: Research activities have the potential to impact and disturb wildlife through observation,

capture and release techniques, and banding or marking. The access of multiple research sites several times 

in a short period may noticeably disturb vegetation 

either by walking, trampling, or by the use of a motor 

vehicle. Efforts to capture wildlife may cause not only 

disturbance, but also injury or even death. The energy 

costs of disturbance may be appreciable in terms of 

disruption of feeding, displacement from preferred 

habitat, and the added energy expended to avoid the 

disturbance of the research being conducted.

Long-Term Impacts: None are anticipated for the 

approval of research studies on the refuge.

Cumulative Impacts: With most research taking place 

on the refuge during the summer, the compilation of 

several studies may be excessive disturbance on refuge resources. Even with this, no cumulative impacts 

are expected due to the ability of the refuge manager to control the location and timing of all research 

studies conducted. The size of the refuge is also con-
Appendix C—Compatibility Determinations 397

sidered to be such that the tolerance of several studies on the wildlife and habitat is high.

PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT

Public review and comment was solicited through posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspapers 

and the Federal Register, public meetings held during the CCP process, and formal public review of this 

compatibility determination as part of the draft CCP 

and EIS for the refuge.

DETERMINATION

Research is compatible.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure 

compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System, research can 

occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are met:

1. Before conducting investigations, researchers 

must obtain special use permits from the refuge 

that make specific stipulations related to when, 

where, and how the research would be conducted. 

Managers have the option to prohibit research on 

the refuge that does not contribute to the purpose 

of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge System.

2. Researchers must possess all applicable State 

and Federal permits for the capture and possession of protected species, and for conducting all 

other regulated activities.

3. Research activities will be monitored for compliance with permit conditions and impacts.

4. If proposed research methods would impact or 

potentially impact refuge complex resources 

(habitat or wildlife), it must be shown that the 

research is necessary (i.e., critical to survival of 

a species, would enhance restoration activities of 

native species, would help in control of invasive 

species or provide valuable information that would 

guide future complex activities), and the researcher

must identify the issues in advance of the impact.

5. Researchers must clearly mark posts, equipment 

platforms, fencing material, and other equipment 

left unattended so it does not pose a hazard. Such 

items shall be removed as soon as practicable on 

completion of the research.

6. Cultural and archaeological surveys would be 

coordinated with the Regional Historical Preservation Officer and the appropriate State Historic 

Preservation Officer to assure compliance with 

the Archaeological Resource Protection Act.

7. All research activities would be performed in accordance with stipulations in this determination 

and in specific special use permits.

8. Researchers would submit a final report concerning refuge research to the refuge manager.

Justification. Research is compatible with the mission of

the Service and the purpose of the refuge. Research studies on the refuge can be used to manage trust resource 

responsibilities of the Service by providing information on a sound scientific basis. Research conducted on 

biological, physical, archaeological and social components of the refuge provide a means to analyze management actions, impacts from internal and outside forces, 

and ongoing natural processes within the refuge ecosystems. Research provides scientific evidence used to 

make management decisions and ensure the refuge is 

managed as intended during establishment by Congress.

Negative short-term impacts caused during the 

research activities would be minimized with the stipulations above and are not considered significant in 

nature. Conducting research studies on the refuge 

would not materially interfere with or detract from 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

or the purpose for which the refuge was established.

Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date: 2022.

SIGNATURE

______________________________________________

Richard Potts Date

Project Leader

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Lewistown, Montana

CONCURRENCE

______________________________________________

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date

Assistant Regional Director

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mountain–Prairie Region

Lakewood, Colorado

Appendix D

Key Legislation and Policy

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and other policies 

and key legislation that guide the management of 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

D.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 public use of the Refuge System established by 

Executive Order 12996 (1996):

■■ Public Use—The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation.

■■ Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper without quality habitat, and without fish and wildlife, 

traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. 

The Refuge System will continue to conserve and 

enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within refuges.

■■ Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and women 

were the first partners who insisted on protecting 

valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. 

Conservation partnerships with other Federal 

agencies, State agencies, tribes, organizations, 

industry, and the 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 about acquisition and management of 

national wildlife refuges.

D.2 OTHER LEGAL and POLICY 

GUIDANCE

Management actions on national wildlife refuges are 

constrained by many mandates including laws and 

Executive orders. The more common regulations 

that affect refuge management are listed below.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Directs 

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): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes 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): 

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects.
400 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as 

amended: Protects 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): Requires federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to 

be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940): Provides for 

the protection of the bald eagle (the national emblem) 

and the golden eagle by prohibiting, except under 

certain specified conditions, the taking, possession 

and commerce of such birds.

Bankhead–Jones Farm Tenant Act (1937): Some early refuges and hatcheries were established under the authority of this Act that required the Secretary of Agriculture 

to develop a program of land conservation and use.

Clean Air Act (1970, amended 1990): Restricts the amount 

of pollutants that can be emitted into the air. Designated wilderness areas including UL Bend National 

Wildlife Refuge have the highest standards (class I) 

for pollution and visibility and air quality is monitored at the refuge.

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for 

major wetland modifications.

Data Quality Act (2001): Requires Government agencies 

to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, 

and dissemination of information by Federal agencies.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): Promotes 

wetland conservation for the public benefit to help 

fulfill international obligations in various migratory 

bird treaties and conventions. The act authorizes 

buying wetlands with Land and Water Conservation 

Fund monies.

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species.

Enhancement Act (2000): Public Law 106–54 authorized 

the Secretary of Army, working with the Secretary 

of Interior, to identify cabin sites suitable for conveyance to current lessees. The funds received will be 

used for acquiring other lands with greater wildlife 

and other public value for the refuge.

Executive Order 7509 (1936): Establishes the Fort Peck 

Game Range for the conservation and development 

of natural wildlife resources and for the protection 

and improvement of public grazing lands and natural forage resources. In 1963, it was renamed the 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range (Public 

Land Order 2951).

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Requires 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.

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public 

Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996): Defines 

the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. It also presents four 

principles to guide management of the Refuge System.

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs 

Federal land management and other 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 13352, Cooperative Conservation (2004): 

Directs Federal agencies to implement laws relating 

to the environment and natural resources in a manner that promotes cooperative conservation with an 

emphasis on appropriate inclusion of local participation in Federal decisionmaking in accordance with 

respective agency missions and policies.

Executive Order 13443, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and 

Wildlife Conservation (2007): Directs Federal land management and other agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and 

the management of game species and their habitat.

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires 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): Requires the preservation 

of evidence of the Government’s organization, functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, 

as well as basic historical and other information.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements with private landowners for wildlife management purposes.

Game Range Act (1976): Public Law 94–223 transferred 

the management of all game ranges to the sole 

authority of National Wildlife Refuge System. This 

included Charles M. Russell Game Range and in 

1978, the refuge was renamed Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge (Public Land Order 5635).

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gifts 

of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.
Appendix D —Key Legislation and Policy 401

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): 

Authorizes the opening of part of a refuge to waterfowl hunting.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility, 

and enables the setting of seasons and other regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or nonFederal, to the hunting of migratory birds.

Native American Policy (1994): Articulates the general 

principles that guide the Service’s governmentto-government relationship to Native American 

governments in the conservation of fish and wildlife 

resources.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires 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. 

Federal agencies must integrate this act with other 

planning requirements, and prepare appropriate 

documents to facilitate better environmental decisionmaking. [From the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), 40 CFR 1500]

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended: 

Establishes as policy that the Federal Government 

is to provide leadership in the preservation of the 

Nation’s prehistoric and historical resources.

National Trails System Act (1968): Established a national 

trails system including provisions for national 

historic trails that follow as closely as possible the 

original trails or routes of travel of national historic 

significance.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966): 

Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

authorizes 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: 

Sets the mission and administrative policy for all 

refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

mandates comprehensive conservation planning for 

all units of the Refuge System.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(1990): Requires Federal agencies and museums to 

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession.

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009: 

Requires the Secretary of Interior and Agriculture 

to manage and protect paleontological resources on 

Federal land using scientific principles and expertise.

Public Land Order (4588): Establishment of UL Bend 

National Wildlife Refuge and revocation of Executive Order 7509 on these lands.

Public Law (94–557) of 1976: Designation of wilderness 

areas within the National Wildlife Refuge System 

including parts of UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge.

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges 

for recreation when such uses are compatible with 

the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient 

funds are available to manage the uses.

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires 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.

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899): Section 10 of this act 

requires the authorization of U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers before any work in, on, over, or under 

navigable waters of the United States.

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act 

(1998): Encourages the use of volunteers to help in 

the management of refuges within the Refuge System; facilitates 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 encourages donations and other contributions.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968): Set aside certain rivers in the Nation to be preserved in free-flowing 

condition among other provisions. This included 

portions along the western boundary of the Refuge, 

which is part of the Upper Missouri National Wild 

and Scenic River most of which flows through the 

Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument (BLM). 

The act was modified in 1976 by Public Law 94–486 

to apply the scenic designation to the river and its 

bed for the part that flows through the refuge.

Wilderness Act (1964): The act (Public Law 88–577) [16 

U.S.C. 1131–36]) defines wilderness as “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his 

works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized 

as an area where the earth and its community of life 

are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a 

visitor who does not remain.” Approximately 20,819 

acres within UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge 

are designated as wilderness, and approximately 

176,140 acres within Charles M. Russell Refuge are 

proposed for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, and is managed as if were designated wilderness.

Appendix E

Wilderness Review and Summary

The Service has reviewed and updated existing

lands within Charles M. Russell National Wildlife

Refuge for current wilderness potential, as guided 

by the Wilderness Stewardship Policy (FWS 2008c), 

which provides an overview and foundation for

implementing the Wilderness Act and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 

as amended by the Improvement Act. 

E.1 HISTORY of WILDERNESS 

at CHARLES M. RUSSELL 

REFUGE 

With the passage of The Wilderness Act of September 

3, 1964, (Public Law 88–577), the Secretary of Interior was required to review every roadless area of 

5,000 acres or more and every roadless island, regardless of size, within the National Wildlife Refuge System within 10 years after the effective date of the act, 

and report to the President of the United States his 

recommendations as to the suitability or unsuitability of each such area or island for preservation as wilderness. Refer to table A for a timeline of wilderness 

decisions and actions that affected the refuge.

On May 3, 1974, the Directors of the Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (the Service) and BLM 

released a draft environmental impact Statement for 

13 proposed wilderness units within Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Five separate public 

hearings were then held on the proposals in Malta, 

Miles City, Billings, Denver, and Jordan between 

May 20 and May 29, 1974. The comment period was 

extended until June 28, 1974, to allow for more written comments on the proposed wilderness units. A 

total of 283 individuals attended the five hearings 

with 101 statements read into the record. The public 

hearings resulted in the addition of two more Charles 

M. Russell Refuge units as viable wilderness, bringing the total recommended wilderness areas to 15 

with a combined acreage of 155,288 acres. 

On December 4, 1974, President Gerald Ford, 

via House Document No. 93–403 recommended that 

the selected 155,288 acres of the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge retain their pristine character through protection as proposed wilderness 

units (Note: The proposal that went to Congress 

identified 155,388 acres, but the actual acreage was 

155,288 acres and is considered to be legal acreage). 

The 155,288 acres was divided among 15 units (identified in table B in section “E.3 Wilderness Inventory”).

With advances in technology, the Service has 

since refined all of the proposed wilderness units and 

entered them into GIS. Through the minimization 

of errors and correction of boundaries, the acreage 

the Service recognizes today as proposed wilderness 

units is closer to 158,619 acres.

Section E.2 provides a complete description 

of each area currently managed as proposed wilderness. As directed by Congress, the Service is 

required to manage all proposed wilderness units to 

maintain their wilderness character based on these 

qualities: an untrammeled and natural state, a lack of 

development, and the capacity for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.

Table A. Timeline for wilderness on the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Date Action

September 13, 1964 The Wilderness Act of 1964 enacted 

and all agencies are given 10 years to 

provide recommendations for wilderness designations. (Public Law 88–577)

May 3, 1974 Directors of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and BLM release a 

draft environmental impact statement 

for 13 proposed wilderness units within 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge.

May 20–29, 1974 Public hearings held in four Montana 

locations (Malta, Miles City, Billings, 

and Jordan) and Denver, Colorado, to 

ascertain public views on the desirability to include Charles M. Russell Refuge 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Public hearings results 

in the removal of three previously recommended units (Lost Creek, Sage 

Creek, and Snow Creek) and the addition of four (East Beauchamp, East Hell 

Creek, Wagon Coulee, and West Beauchamp) bringing the total number of 

recommended wilderness units to 15.
404 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table A. Timeline for wilderness on the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Date Action

August 28, 1974 Assistant Secretary of the Interior 

officially forwards Charles M. Russell 

Refuge wilderness recommendations 

to the President of the United States.

December 4, 1974 President Gerald R. Ford transmits proposals for 37 additions to the 

National Wilderness Preservation System (including Charles M. Russell Refuge’s 15 units) to Congress. This act 

transitions the 15 Charles M. Russell 

Refuge units from wilderness study 

areas (WSA) to “proposed wilderness.” 

From this point forward, all 15 units 

are to be managed as wilderness, per 

the tenets of The Wilderness Act of 

1964. (House Document 94–403)

October 19, 1976 UL Bend Wilderness designated in 

part of UL Bend National Wildlife 

Refuge with wilderness areas totaling 

20,890 acres. (Public Law 94–557)

October 31, 1983 28 acres of designated wilderness 

within UL Bend Refuge removed 

from the National Wilderness Preservation System to allow for fishing 

access. (Public Law 98–140)

July 29, 2002 All refuge roads on proposed wilderness 

areas closed per US DOI memo entitled, 

“Charles M. Russell Road Policy Challenged.”

E.2 CURRENT PROPOSED 

WILDERNESS 

1. East Seven Blackfoot—11,744 acres

The map for alternative A (figure 7) in chapter 3 and 

the wilderness map (figure A) in this appendix show 

the locations of the proposed wilderness units. The wilderness character of all designated and proposed wilderness areas within Charles M. Russell Refuge will be 

reevaluated through the creation of a wilderness stewardship plan following finalization of the CCP. 

The next section describes the basic geography 

and topography of the 15 existing proposed wilderness units.

BLM’s wilderness study area surrounds the southern boundary of East Seven Blackfoot. This unit, 

like the Billy Creek Unit and West Seven Blackfoot Unit, is extremely rugged with high ridges and 

numerous side drainages and coulees. Slaymaker 

Ridge is the most notable physical feature, running 

north and south in the middle of the proposed wilderness unit. Vegetation types include limited forested 

areas, grassy benches, and sagebrush and greasewood flats. Much of the land is barren due to the 

soils, slope, and topography.

2. Mickey Butte—16,893 acres

Mickey Butte is situated on the east side of the UL 

Bend Refuge, contiguous with the UL Bend Wilderness. This unit is characterized by high bluffs on 

the northwest side yielding to steep, rugged coulees 

draining the area to the east and southeast. The coulees are relatively short as they rise to the bluffs. 

Forested areas become more sparse in this area, 

compared to the western part of the refuge, with 

grasses, sagebrush, and greasewood increasing in 

percentage of ground cover.

3. Burnt Lodge—21,576 acres

Burnt Lodge is one of the most rugged and scenic 

areas within the Missouri River Breaks. The area 

varies from rolling Bear Paw shale hills in the west 

to the extremely rugged eastern part, which is an 

extension of the Larb Hills. Scattered patches of 

ponderosa pine and juniper dominate the north 

slopes and high bench lands. Grasses, sagebrush, and 

greasewood predominate in the area west of Killed 

Woman Creek. The northern boundary of this unit 

abuts a BLM wilderness study area.

4. Billy Creek—10,916 acres

Billy Creek is extremely rugged with short, steepsided drainages. Much of the area is inaccessible 

to livestock with dominant grass, sagebrush, and 

greasewood vegetation. Forested areas are isolated 

and occur only where soil, slope, and aspects are conducive to their growth.

5. West Seven Blackfoot—6,456 acres

A BLM wilderness study area surrounds the southern boundary of West Seven Blackfoot. The unit 

is similar to the East Seven Blackfoot. A long, high 

ridge running west to east and paralleling the reservoir dominates the unit. Vegetation is similar to adjacent proposed wilderness units, with increased forest 

cover.

6. Antelope Creek—5,062 acres

Antelope Creek is forested with long and geologically well-developed drainages. The bordering ridges 

are steep and relatively narrow-crested. It is located 

in the very northwest corner of the refuge contiguous to the Upper Missouri River National Monument WSA administered by BLM. 
Appendix E—Wilderness Review and Summary 405

Figure A. Map of the wilderness review areas for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges. Figure A (wilderness)

Appendix E—Wilderness Review and Summary 407

7. West Hell Creek—11,896 acres

West Hell Creek provides a physical transition 

between the badlands to the east and the Missouri 

River Breaks to the west. Forest cover is more plentiful in this unit than in the area east of Hell Creek, 

but the landscape is still dominated by grass, sagebrush, and other shrubs.

8. Fort Musselshell Unit—8,303 acres

Fort Musselshell contains major drainages that run 

parallel to Fort Peck Reservoir, in contrast to the 

perpendicular drainages in most areas. The slopes 

are well vegetated with conifers, grass, sagebrush, 

and other shrubs.

9. Sheep Creek—11,784 acres

Sheep Creek is situated between Cracker Creek Bay 

and Gilbert Creek Bay west of the Sage Creek Proposed Wilderness. The topography reflects inconsistent erosion. Grass with some sagebrush and other 

shrubs dominate the landscape. Trees are virtually 

absent.

10. West Beauchamp Creek—6,736 acres

West Beauchamp Creek comprises three short coulees between ridges that start from CK Ridge and 

proceed in a southeasterly direction, ending at the 

Missouri River. These coulees are characterized by 

scattered stands of ponderosa pine and juniper, and 

ridge tops of sagebrush shrub mixed with western 

and bluebunch–wheatgrass grassland.

11. Wagon Coulee—10,480 acres

Wagon Coulee contains the most rugged portions of 

the south-facing aspect of Harper’s Ridge. It includes 

the lower 2 miles of the Cabin Coulee drainage and an 

approximately 2-mile section of the middle reaches of 

Carpenter Creek. The coulees within the unit contain 

healthy stands of ponderosa pine with ridge tops consisting of primarily grass and scattered sage.

12. Alkali Creek—6,592 acres

Alkali Creek is characterized by short drainages, 

which produce a jumbled appearance. Slopes are forested and, due to the northern exposure, well vegetated with grasses, sagebrush, and other shrubs.

13. Crooked Creek—6,842 acres

Crooked Creek drainages are relatively short with 

well-forested side slopes. Away from the reservoir, 

the forest is interspersed with small grassy parklands.

14. East Hell Creek—14,744 acres

East Hell Creek is physically similar to the West 

Hell Creek proposed wilderness unit. Landscapes 

include grassy, flat ridge tops or mesas, gentle rolling breaks, and numerous steep drainages and canyons nearer the lake. Vegetation is typical of the 

Missouri River Breaks with a mix of forested areas 

and juniper patches, grasslands, and sagebrush flats.

15. East Beauchamp Creek—5,264 acres

East Beauchamp Creek comprises the lower reaches 

of the Beauchamp Creek drainage, which is a 20-milelong watershed. A wide, intermittent drainage within 

the East Beauchamp unit has the potential for excellent riparian habitat. Secondary side coulees are characterized by ponderosa pine and juniper.

E.3 WILDERNESS INVENTORY

There are three phases to the wilderness review 

process: (1) inventory, (2) study, and (3) recommendation. Areas that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness are identified in the inventory phase. These 

areas are called wilderness study areas (WSAs). 

These areas must be roadless and meet one of the 

following size criteria:

■ greater than 5,000 acres

■ a roadless island of any size

■ less than 5,000 acres but of sufficient size to be 

practicably managed as wilderness

A wilderness study area must also be natural and 

provide opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. 

Table B reflects the evaluation of existing wilderness and nonwilderness units within Charles M. Russell Refuge against the criteria for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System.
408 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments)

QUALIFIES

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 

1, 2, and 3a or 3b)

(1) 

At least 5,000 acres 

of land

(2)

Affected primarily by 

forces of nature, with the 

imprint of human work 

substantially unnoticeable

(3a)

Outstanding opportunities 

for solitude

(3b)

Outstanding opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined recreation

(4)

Ecological, geological, 

or other features of 

scientific, educational, 

or historical value

AREA 1 • NORTH: Antelope Creek proposed wilderness • SOUTH, WEST: Missouri River 

 (see “A” in figures 8 and 10)

(1) No

1,836 acres

(2) Yes

No bisecting roads. 

Part of refuge road 

306 is recommended 

for closure in alternative B to increase 

connectivity with 

Antelope Creek proposed wilderness.

(3a) Yes, (3b) Yes

Bounded by the Missouri River and Antelope Creek proposed 

wilderness, connecting to BLM Upper 

Missouri River 

Breaks National Monument WSA. 

Opportunities for land 

and water recreation 

(Missouri River).

(4) Yes

River edge is important habitat for spiny 

softshell turtle and 

the American white 

pelican.

YES

Addition to Antelope 

Creek proposed wilderness unit in alternatives B and D.

AREA 2 • NORTH, WEST: Antelope Creek proposed wilderness, inventory unit 1 • SOUTH: Missouri River • EAST: Highway 191

(1) No

4,606 acres

(2) No

Eastern boundary is 

Highway 191 along 

with State-maintained 

power lines. 

Refuge road 305 

within this unit. 

(3a) No, (3b) Yes

Proximity to State 

highway, auto tour 

route, and developed 

Kipp Recreation Area 

reduces solitude.

Opportunities for land 

and water recreation 

(Missouri River).

(4) No NO

AREA 3 • NORTH: Refuge boundary • SOUTH: Missouri River • WEST: Highway 191 • EAST: Refuge boundary, State section, 

 refuge road 201, West Beauchamp proposed wilderness

(1) Yes

108,397 acres

(2) No

Contains the auto 

tour route visited by 

10,000 vehicles each 

year and the Slippery 

Ann elk-viewing area.

Portions of road 201, 

the main artery on 

the north side of the 

refuge, pass through 

this unit. 

Contains four State 

sections and three privately owned tracts.

(3a) No, (3b) No

Auto tour route and 

Slippery Ann viewing 

area results in significant vehicular traffic. 

Recreation opportunities are disrupted by 

roads and year-round 

closure of the Slippery Ann area.

(4) Yes

Important elk breeding habitat.

NO
Appendix E—Wilderness Review and Summary 409

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments)

QUALIFIES

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 

1, 2, and 3a or 3b)

(1) 

At least 5,000 acres 

of land

(2)

Affected primarily by 

forces of nature, with the 

imprint of human work 

substantially unnoticeable

(3a)

Outstanding opportunities 

for solitude

(3b)

Outstanding opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined recreation

(4)

Ecological, geological, 

or other features of 

scientific, educational, 

or historical value

AREA 4 • NORTH, EAST: West Beauchamp Creek proposed wilderness; WEST: Refuge roads 201 and 302 • SOUTH: Missouri River

 (see “B” in figure 8)

(1) No

359 acres

(2) Yes

Bordered by roads 

201 and 302, but 

does not contain any 

bisecting roads. 

Road 302 recommended for closure in 

alternative B.

(3a) No, (3b) Yes

Too small to offer solitude. 

Adjacency to Missouri 

River provides water 

recreation access.

(4) No YES

Addition to West 

Beauchamp Creek 

proposed wilderness 

in alternative B.

AREA 5 • NORTH, EAST: Refuge boundary • WEST: East Beauchamp proposed wilderness • SOUTH: State section

(1) No

1,348 acres

(2) No

No roads present, 

but provides vehicular access to the State 

lease south of unit.

(3a) No, (3b) No

Unit dominated by a 

steep, eroded coulee.

(4) No NO

AREA 6 • NORTH, WEST: Refuge boundary • SOUTH: UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Missouri River • EAST: Burnt Lodge 

 proposed wilderness

(1) Yes

21,061 acres

(2) No

Contains the Fourchette Creek Recreation Area. 

Unit is intersected by 

five refuge roads and 

contains three State 

parcels.

(3a) No, (3b) No

Recreation area visited by hunters and 

recreationists yearround. 

Installations and 

development at recreation areas preclude 

primitive recreation.

(4) No NO

AREA 7 • NORTH: Refuge boundary • WEST: Burnt Lodge proposed wilderness • SOUTH, EAST: Timber Creek, Missouri River

(1) No

833 acres

(2) No

Road 339 bisects the 

northern half of the 

unit and provides 

access to Timber 

Creek Bay. 

(3a) No, (3b) No

A road disrupts solitude, and the small 

size limits recreation 

opportunities.

(4) No NO
410 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments)

QUALIFIES

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 

1, 2, and 3a or 3b)

(1) 

At least 5,000 acres 

of land

(2)

Affected primarily by 

forces of nature, with the 

imprint of human work 

substantially unnoticeable

(3a)

Outstanding opportunities 

for solitude

(3b)

Outstanding opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined recreation

(4)

Ecological, geological, 

or other features of 

scientific, educational, 

or historical value

AREA 8 • NORTH: Missouri River • WEST , SOUTH: Refuge boundary • EAST: Highway 191

(1) Yes

18,913 acres

(2) No

Contains privately 

owned land, two State 

sections, and four refuge roads. 

Along the Highway 

191 corridor.

 (3a) No, (3b) No

Private inholdings 

and trafficked roads 

preclude solitude. 

Mosaic of roads and 

inholdings disrupt 

opportunities for 

unconfined recreation.

(4) No NO

AREA 9 • NORTH: Missouri River West, Highway 191 • SOUTH: Refuge boundary • EAST: Fort Musselshell proposed wilderness

(1) Yes

32,929 acres

(2) No

Along the Highway 

191 corridor. 

Also contains Sand 

Creek Field Station 

and administrative 

area, multiple privately owned tracts, 

and three State sections.

(3a) No, (3b) No

Contains the major 

east–west refuge road 

on the southern side 

of the Missouri River 

and the Sand Creek 

Field Station. 

Contains significantly 

developed areas such 

as the Sand Creek 

Field Station.

(4) No NO

AREA 10 • NORTH, EAST: Missouri River • SOUTH: Refuge road 315, Wilderness Inventory Unit C • WEST, SOUTH: Refuge 

 boundary

(1) Yes

12,560 acres

(2) No

Contains two private 

inholdings, two State 

sections, and several 

refuge roads that provide important BLM 

access. 

 (3a) No, (3b) No

Contains two important roads, 311 and 

315, that cross adjacent BLM land. 

Several roads and the 

narrow refuge property along the Missouri River in this 

unit confines recreation.

(4) No NO
Appendix E—Wilderness Review and Summary 411

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments)

QUALIFIES

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 

1, 2, and 3a or 3b)

(1) 

At least 5,000 acres 

of land

(2)

Affected primarily by 

forces of nature, with the 

imprint of human work 

substantially unnoticeable

(3a)

Outstanding opportunities 

for solitude

(3b)

Outstanding opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined recreation

(4)

Ecological, geological, 

or other features of 

scientific, educational, 

or historical value

AREA 11 • NORTH, EAST: Refuge road 315, Missouri River • WEST: Refuge road 838 • SOUTH: Crooked Creek proposed wilderness 

 (see “C” in figure 8)

(1) Yes

5,568 acres

(2) Yes

No interior roads and 

bordered by refuge 

roads 315, 838, and 

311. 

Alternative B closes 

all or parts of roads 

311, 838, and 315.

Alternative D closes 

road 838.

(3a) Yes, (3b) Yes

Closure of roads 

under certain alternatives increases solitude. 

Bordering roads allow 

for hunting access.

(4) Yes

Important sagegrouse habitat.

YES (alternative B)

NO (alternative D)

AREA 12 • NORTH: Refuge road 311 • SOUTH: Refuge road 411, Missouri River • EAST: Crooked Creek proposed wilderness • 

 WEST: Refuge boundary (see “D” in figures 8 and 10)

(1) No

2,826 acres

(2) Yes

No interior roads and 

bordered by roads 

311, 377, and 411.

(3a) No, (3b) Yes

Surrounded by refuge 

roads on two sides 

and close to Crooked 

Creek Recreation 

Area. 

Bordering roads allow 

for hunting access.

(4) No YES

Addition to Crooked 

Creek proposed wilderness in alternatives B and D.

AREA 13 • NORTH: Crooked Creek drainage, refuge road 411 • WEST: Refuge boundary • SOUTH: Refuge road 103 to intersection 

 with Crooked Creek

(1) No

4,046 acres

(2) No

Contains the Crooked 

Creek Recreation 

Area managed by 

USACE. 

(3a) No, (3b) No

Contains USACE 

facilities. 

Development at 

Crooked Creek Recreation Area precludes primitive 

recreation.

(4) No NO

AREA 14 • NORTH: County road, Crooked Creek Road • SOUTH, EAST: Alkali Creek proposed wilderness • WEST: Refuge boundary

 (see “E” in figures 8 and 10)

(1) No

640 acres

(2) Yes

Contains no roads and 

is bordered on the 

north by refuge road 

103.

(3a) No, (3b) No

Traffic on Crooked 

Creek Road is visible 

from the unit. 

(4) No YES

Addition to Alkali 

Creek proposed wilderness in alternatives B and D.
412 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments)

QUALIFIES

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 

1, 2, and 3a or 3b)

(1) 

At least 5,000 acres 

of land

(2)

Affected primarily by 

forces of nature, with the 

imprint of human work 

substantially unnoticeable

(3a)

Outstanding opportunities 

for solitude

(3b)

Outstanding opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined recreation

(4)

Ecological, geological, 

or other features of 

scientific, educational, 

or historical value

AREA 15 • NORTH: Alkali Creek proposed wilderness • SOUTH, WEST: Refuge boundary 

 (see “F” in figures 8 and 10)

(1) No

2,240 acres

(2) Yes

No established roads 

in or next to the unit.

(3a) Yes, (3b) Yes

Only accessible via 

foot.

(4) No YES

Addition to Alkali 

Creek proposed wilderness in alternatives B and D.

AREA 16 • NORTH: Missouri River • SOUTH, WEST: Refuge boundary • EAST: West Seven Blackfoot proposed wilderness

(1) No

50,074 acres

(2) No

Multiple, privately 

owned parcels, roads 

(refuge and county), 

and the Devils Creek 

Recreation Area.

(3a) No, (3b) No

Substantial private 

traffic and public traffic on county route 

245. 

Unit is a mosaic broken up by refuge and 

county roads. 

Significant private and 

refuge installations 

and development.

(4) Yes

Pronghorn migration 

route across Missouri 

River.

NO

AREA 17 • NORTH, EAST, WEST: East Seven Blackfoot proposed wilderness • SOUTH: Refuge boundary 

 (see “G” in figures 8 and 10)

(1) No

640 acres

(2) Yes

No established roads.

(3a) Yes, (3b) Yes

Surrounded on all 

sides by East Seven 

Blackfoot proposed 

wilderness and BLM 

Seven Blackfoot WSA. 

(4) No YES

Addition to East 

Seven Blackfoot proposed wilderness in 

alternatives B and D.

AREA 18 • NORTH: Missouri River, West Hell Creek proposed wilderness, Hell Creek Bay, East Hell Creek proposed wilderness • 

 SOUTH, EAST: Refuge boundary • WEST: Billy Creek proposed wilderness

(1) Yes

32,359 acres

(2) No

Contains the Hell 

Creek Recreation 

Area, which has a 

campground, marina, 

boat ramp, and multiple private inholdings.

(3a) No, (3b) No

County road provides public access to 

the Hell Creek Recreation area and near 

Round Butte. 

A mosaic of private 

and refuge lands. 

Contains refuge 

developments at Hell 

Creek Recreation 

Area.

(4) No NO
Appendix E—Wilderness Review and Summary 413

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments)

QUALIFIES

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 

1, 2, and 3a or 3b)

(1) 

At least 5,000 acres 

of land

(2)

Affected primarily by 

forces of nature, with the 

imprint of human work 

substantially unnoticeable

(3a)

Outstanding opportunities 

for solitude

(3b)

Outstanding opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined recreation

(4)

Ecological, geological, 

or other features of 

scientific, educational, 

or historical value

AREA 19 • NORTH, WEST: West Hell Creek proposed wilderness • EAST: State section 

 (see “H” in figures 8 and 10)

(1) Yes

641 acres

(2) Yes

No established roads.

(3a) Yes, (3b) Yes

Contiguous on two 

sides with West Hell 

Creek proposed wilderness.

(4) No YES

Addition to West Hell 

Creek proposed wilderness in alternatives B and D.

AREA 20 • NORTH: Fort Peck Reservoir, Sheep Creek proposed wilderness, refuge road 357 • EAST: Refuge road 357 • 

 SOUTH: Refuge boundary; West: Township line R38E

(1) Yes

8,225 acres

(2) No

Contains two private 

inholdings, one State 

section, and five refuge roads. 

(3a) No, (3b) No

Mosaic of roads and 

private and State 

lands with associated 

traffic.

(4) No NO

AREA 21 • NORTH: Sheep Creek proposed wilderness • SOUTH, EAST: Refuge boundary • WEST: Refuge roads 356 and 357 

 (see “I” in figures 8 and 10)

(1) Yes

5,726 acres

(2) Yes

Only one adjacent 

road: refuge road 

356/357.

(3a) Yes, (3b) Yes

Adjacent roads provide hunting access 

and water recreation 

access via Gilbert 

Creek Bay.

(4) No YES

Addition to Sheep 

Creek proposed wilderness in alternatives B and D.

AREA 22 • NORTH: Fort Peck Reservoir, Big Dry Arm • WEST: West Gilbert Creek drainage • SOUTH: Refuge boundary • 

 EAST: Fort Peck Reservoir, Big Dry Arm, Big Dry Creek

(1) Yes

48,835 acres

(2) No

Contains multiple 

roads and private 

inholdings. Inholdings and roads break 

up the unit, so there is 

not a single, contiguous 5,000-acre block. 

The Rock Creek Recreation Area is within 

the unit. It consists 

of multiple, privately 

owned cabin sites.

(3a) No, (3b) No

Primitive nature of 

unit is broken up by 

numerous transecting 

roads.

(4) Yes

Area contains significant paleontological 

resources.

NO
414 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments)

QUALIFIES

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 

1, 2, and 3a or 3b)

(1) 

At least 5,000 acres 

of land

(2)

Affected primarily by 

forces of nature, with the 

imprint of human work 

substantially unnoticeable

(3a)

Outstanding opportunities 

for solitude

(3b)

Outstanding opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined recreation

(4)

Ecological, geological, 

or other features of 

scientific, educational, 

or historical value

AREA 23 • NORTH, SOUTH, EAST: Refuge boundary • WEST: Big Dry Arm of the Fort Peck Reservoir

(1) Yes

57,446 acres

(2) No

Several USACE recreation areas and multiple State sections. 

Includes more than a 

dozen refuge roads. 

Contains Fort Peck 

Dam spillway.

(3a) No, (3b) No

Includes three recreation areas with 

developed structures. 

Area is riddled with 

roads and developed 

structures.

(4) No NO

AREA 24 • NORTH: Refuge boundary, refuge road 331 • SOUTH: Fort Peck Reservoir • WEST: Refuge road 327, Wagon Coulee 

 proposed wilderness • EAST: Duck Creek Road

(1) Yes

82,160 acres

(2) No

Contains four partial 

or full State sections, 

multiple private inholdings, and refuge 

roads. 

Includes the Pine 

Recreation Area.

(3a) No, (3b) No

Many refuge roads 

and structures.

(4) No NO

AREA 25 • NORTH: Refuge road 327 • SOUTH, EAST: Missouri River • WEST: Wagon Coulee proposed wilderness 

 (see “J” in figures 8 and 10)

(1) No

4,843 acres

(2) Yes

No interior roads or 

installed structures 

other than a navigational marker on the 

shoreline.

(3a) Yes, (3b) Yes

Limited access on 

adjacent refuge road 

327. 

(4) No YES

Addition to Wagon 

Coulee proposed wilderness in alternatives B and D.

AREA 26 • NORTH: Refuge boundary • EAST: Wagon Coulee proposed wilderness • SOUTH: Fort Peck Reservoir • 

 WEST: Timber Creek Bay

(1) Yes

23,560 acres

(2) No

Contains the Bone 

Trail Boat Ramp and 

multiple private inholdings.

(3a) No, (3b) No

Provides vehicular 

access to Fort Peck 

Reservoir.

(4) No NO

AREA 27 • NORTH, EAST: Fort Peck Lake • SOUTH: Mickey Butte proposed wilderness 

 (see “K” in figures 8 and 10)

(1) No

550 acres

(2) Yes

No roads adjacent or 

within area.

(3a) Yes, (3b) Yes

No roads adjacent or 

within area. 

(4) No YES

Addition to Mickey 

Butte proposed wilderness in alternatives B and D.
Appendix E—Wilderness Review and Summary 415

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments)

(1) (2) (3a) (4)

At least 5,000 acres Affected primarily by Outstanding opportunities Ecological, geological, QUALIFIES 

of land forces of nature, with the for solitude or other features of as a wilderness 

imprint of human work (3b) scientific, educational, study area substantially unnoticeable Outstanding opportunities or historical value (meets criteria for primitive and 1, 2, and 3a or 3b) unconfined recreation

AREA 28 • UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: all land currently not part of the UL Bend Wilderness

(1) (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) Yes NO

Not known A network of roads Popular access to fish- Habitat for the endancrosses the center of ing and hunting. gered black-footed 

UL Bend Refuge. ferret and associated Roads disrupt oppor- black-tailed prairie tunities for unconfined dog. recreation.

*Wilderness inventory numbers in this table reference labeled areas in figure A.

E.4 WILDERNESS STUDY

The wilderness inventory identified 11 areas within 

Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges that possess the required wilderness character for potential 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System as defined by The Wilderness Act of 1964. 

All areas are next to existing proposed wilderness 

areas on the refuge. Each of these areas was further 

evaluated through the refuge planning process to 

determine their suitability for designation, management, and preservation as wilderness. This evaluation considered the following:

■■ quality of wilderness values

■■ evaluation of resource values, public uses, and 

associated management concerns

■■ capability for management as wilderness

All recommended wilderness study areas resulting from this review assume the name of the adjacent proposed wilderness area. For example, the 

area abutting Antelope Creek proposed wilderness 

is known as the Antelope Creek WSA (identified as 

A in figures 8 and 10).

Evaluation of Wilderness Values

BLM currently manages several wilderness study 

areas next to the refuge (see figure 7, map of the noaction alternative A, in chapter 3). These areas were 

taken into consideration in reviewing refuge lands 

that contain wilderness character and potential 

areas that could be suited for wilderness proposal 

and designation. In three general areas along the 

refuge boundary, there are either BLM wilderness 

study areas or the Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument. These protected areas provide 

crucial unobstructed corridors for wildlife migration 

in central Montana. 

Naturalness. All of the recommended wilderness 

study areas generally appear to have been affected 

primarily by nature, with the imprint of human uses 

and activities substantially unnoticeable. The 11 recommended wilderness study areas are free from private inholdings and interior roads and are next to 

existing, proposed Charles M. Russell Refuge wilderness areas.

To improve the naturalness of the following wilderness study areas, this CCP and EIS’s alternative 

B recommends the closure of refuge roads next to 

the following units: Antelope Creek WSA, Crooked 

Creek WSA, and Wagon Coulee WSA. 

Several of the recommended wilderness study 

areas exhibit excellent, natural, active, riparian systems such as Antelope Creek WSA and West Beauchamp Creek WSA. 

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive Recreation. All of the recommended, wilderness study 

areas offer outstanding opportunities for both solitude and primitive recreation. Although several are 

less than 5,000 acres, all wilderness study areas are 

contiguous with already existing proposed wilderness areas in Charles M. Russell Refuge and serve 

to further enhance the size of existing areas available for solitude and primitive recreation.

The following areas are not bounded by refuge 

roads or the refuge boundary and, therefore, will 

provide particularly quality opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation: East Seven Blackfoot 

WSA, Mickey Butte WSA, West Beauchamp Creek 

WSA, and West Hell Creek WSA.
416 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Quality of Supplemental Values. Some of the recommended wilderness study areas provide important 

habitat for federally warranted and State-listed plant 

and animal species such as greater sage-grouse, ferruginous hawk, American white pelican, spiny softshell turtle, and northern leopard frog.

Evaluation of Manageability and Other Resource Values 

and Uses. Each of the 11 recommended wilderness 

study areas on the refuge can be managed to preserve their wilderness character in perpetuity, recognizing that a “minimum requirement” approach is 

required. There are no valid, existing private rights 

included in any recommended wilderness study 

areas. 

Currently, game carts are allowed in existing proposed Charles M. Russell Refuge wilderness units, 

and this provision would be common to all newly recommended wilderness study areas. The UL Bend 

Wilderness will still prohibit the use of game carts.

None of the current or expected refuge management activities and public uses would diminish the 

wilderness character. These include hunting, scientific research, resource monitoring, commercial services such as guided wildlife hunting, environmental 

education, and low-impact recreational activities. 

There are no plans to construct permanent facilities 

or structures to accommodate these uses.

In summary, wilderness designation and management of all 11 wilderness study areas would be fully 

compatible with current and proposed refuge management, and none of the resource values identified 

above would be foregone or adversely affected as a 

result of designation.

E.5 DEVELOPMENT of CCP an

EIS ALTERNATIVES

d

The Service has evaluated four alternatives in this 

CCP and EIS for managing wilderness on the refuge 

(refer to table C and to the wilderness analysis under 

section 5.7 in chapter 5 for a full discussion of the 

effects). All CCP and EIS wilderness recommendations are described below and all adhere to the overarching CCP goal for wilderness: 

Conserve, improve, and promote the wilderness quality and associated natural processes 

of designated, proposed, and wilderness study 

areas within Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge for all generations.

Alternative A

Alternative A is the no-action alternative, and there 

would be no modifications to existing wilderness 

acreage (see figure 7, map of alternative A, in chapter 3 and figure A).

Alternative B

Alternative B emphasizes management that improves 

the abundance of wildlife populations. To achieve this 

goal the Service is recommending 11 additions or 

adjustments to current wilderness units for alternative B. These additions all are denoted by a “Yes” in 

the “Qualifies as a wilderness study area” column in 

table C. These additions to current, proposed wilderness would improve landscape scale habitat conserTable C. Summary of wilderness study areas (WSAs) recommended in the CCP alternatives for the Charles M. 

Russell and UL Bend Refuges.

 Recommended in alternatives 

WSA unit1 Unit name Acres A B C D

1(A) Antelope Creek 1,836 No Yes No Yes

4 (B) West Beauchamp Creek 359 No Yes No No

11(C) Crooked Creek 1 5,568 No Yes No No

12 (D) Crooked Creek 2 2,826 No Yes No Yes

14 (E) Alkali Creek 1 640 No Yes No Yes

15 (F) Alkali Creek 2 2,240 No Yes No Yes

17(G)2 East Seven Blackfoot 640 No Yes No Yes

19 (H) West Hell Creek 641 No Yes No Yes

21 (I) Sheep Creek 5,726 No Yes No Yes

25 (J) Wagon Coulee 4,843 No Yes No Yes

 27(K)2 Mickey Butte 550 No Yes No Yes

 Total acres by alternative 0 25,869 0 19,942

1 Wilderness study area unit numbers in this table reference labeled areas in figure A and figures 8 and 10.

2 Wilderness study area Unit 17 (G) was not included in alternatives B and D and wilderness study area Unit 27 was not included in 

 alternative D (K) in the released draft CCP and EIS due to discrepancies in map review.
Appendix E—Wilderness Review and Summary 417

vation capabilities. The total net wilderness acreage 

increase would be 25,869 acres. The additions are 

shown in figure 8 (map of alternative B) in chapter 3. 

Alternative B also recommends the closure of refuge roads next to the following recommended wilderness study areas to improve naturalness: Antelope 

Creek WSA, Crooked Creek WSA, and Wagon Coulee WSA.

Alternative C

Alternative C aims to expand wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities and economic uses while 

protecting wildlife populations and their habitat. To 

maintain maximum, mechanized access for recreation this alternative does not propose any wilderness study areas be recommended for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. Like 

alternative A, this alternative would result in no modifications to existing wilderness acreage (see figure 7, 

map of alternative A, in chapter 3 and figure A).

Alternative D 

This alternative has an emphasis on promoting natural ecological processes with minimal management to 

promote biological diversity, biological integrity, and 

environmental health. Through this alternative the 

Service would expand or adjust nine proposed wilderness units by recommending adjacent wilderness 

study areas be considered for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. This would allow 

more efficient management of large landscapes. 

The nine wilderness study areas that are recommended in alternative D follow: Alkali Creek 1 WSA, 

Alkali Creek 2 WSA, Antelope Creek WSA, Crooked 

Creek WSA, Mickey Butte WSA, Seven Blackfoot 

WSA, Sheep Creek WSA, Wagon Coulee WSA, and 

West Hell Creek WSA. This alternative would result 

in a net gain of 19,942 acres (see figure 10, map of 

alternative D, in chapter 3).

Two wilderness study areas are not recommended 

in alternative D. Crooked Creek 1 WSA is not recommended to allow the most management options 

for wildlife-dependent recreational use and the use 

of prescribed fire and livestock grazing in this area’s 

habitat unit. West Beauchamp Creek WSA is bordered by the heavily recreated refuge road 302. To 

maintain access for wildlife-dependent recreation, 

this area is excluded from alternative D.

In summary, alternatives B and D would result 

in the establishment of new wilderness study areas. 

These areas would become proposed wilderness following transmission to the United States President 

per 610 FW 4.23. An act of Congress is required for 

all proposed wilderness units to then become designated wilderness.

E.6 DEFINITIONS 

Several definitions are used in this wilderness review.

Wilderness Definition and Criteria. The definition of wilderness is in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act: 

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas 

where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where 

the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor 

who does not remain. An area of wilderness 

is further defined to mean in this Act an area 

of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, 

which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by 

the forces of nature, with the imprint of man 

substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at 

least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) 

may also contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value.”

Designated Wilderness. An area designated in legislation and administered as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Proposed Wilderness. An area of the Refuge System that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 

has recommended to the President for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. The 

President then transmits the wilderness proposal to 

Congress. Once the Secretary transmits the recommendation to the President, the Service considers 

the area proposed wilderness and will manage it as 

designated wilderness.

Recommended Wilderness. An area of the Refuge 

System that the Director of the Service has recommended to the Secretary through the Assistant 

Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Wilderness Review. The inventory, study, and decisionmaking process the Service uses to determine 

whether to recommend Refuge System lands and 

waters for wilderness designation.
418 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Wilderness Study Area. A wilderness study area is an 

area the Service is considering for wilderness designation. The Service identifies and establishes wilderness study areas through the inventory component 

of a wilderness review. The study areas include all 

areas that are still undergoing the review process, 

areas for which a final determination of suitability 

and recommendation for wilderness designation in 

the record of decision for the CCP and EIS is pending, and areas recommended for wilderness designation in a final CCP and awaiting approval by the 

Director. The Service considers areas recommended 

by the Director “recommended wilderness.” 

Wilderness Values. Wilderness values are biophysical 

(ecosystems, scenery, and natural processes), psychological (opportunity for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation), symbolic (national and natural remnants of American cultural and evolutionary heritage), and spiritual (sense of connection with 

nature and values beyond one’s self).
Appendix F

List of Plant and Animal Species

This appendix contains the common and scientific 

names of plants, amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, and 

mammals of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge and the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge.

SENTINEL PLANT SPECIES

Sentinel plants are those species that vanish first 

when the ecological processes that occur within an 

ecosystem are out of balance. The following sentinel 

plant species occur on the upland plains and draws 

and north slopes on the Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. The list is not inclusive of all possible species, 

or custom to a specific locale, and are intended to be 

adaptive to new information obtained through management or research.

The “fire sentinel” plants listed below are fireintolerant species. Unlike the sentinel shrubs, trees, 

and warm-season forbs that are currently declining, 

the fire sentinels are abundant on the refuge. However, fire sentinels are important species to monitor 

because of their significance to wildlife and ecological processes.

SHRUBS and TREES

rubber rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus nauseosus 

 spp. nauseosus

green rubber rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus 

 nauseosus spp. graveolens

saltbush, Atriplex aptera

winterfat, Krascheninnikovia lanata

silver buffaloberry, Shepherdia argentea

chokecherry, Prunus virginiana

boxelder, Acer negundo

green ash, Fraxinus pennsylvanica

plains cottonwood, Populus deltoides

redosier dogwood, Cornus stolonifera

golden current, Ribes aureum

quaking aspen, Populus tremuloides

peachleaf willow, Salix amydaloides

WARM-SEASON FORBS

purple coneflower, Echinacea angustifolia

stiff sunflower, Helianthus pauciflorus

dotted gayfeather, Liatris punctata

white prairieclover, Dalea candida

purple prairieclover, Dalea purpurea

Maximilian sunflower, Helianthus maximiliani 

FIRE SENTINELS

big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata tridentata

Rocky Mountain juniper, Juniperus scopulorum

ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa

Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga toxifolia

FOCAL BIRD SPECIES

On the refuge, the following focal bird species are 

considered most sensitive to or limited by certain 

ecological processes (such as fire or nest predation) 

or habitat attributes (such as patch size or snags). 

Some of the sentinel species listed above are important for focal birds and are being used to help guide 

management activities.

UPLAND

long-billed curlew, Numenius americanus

Sprague’s pipit, Antus spragueii

Baird’s sparrow, Ammodramus bairdii

brown creeper, Certhia americana

sharp-tailed grouse, Tympanuchus phasianellus

greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus

RIVER BOTTOM

ovenbird, Seiurus aurocapillus

Cordilleran flycatcher, Empidonax occidentalis

black-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus erythropthalmus

western wood-pewee, Contopus sordidulus

RIPARIAN AREA and WETLAND

red-eyed vireo, Vireo olivaceus

Brewer’s blackbird, Euphagus cyanocephalus

veery, Catharus fuscescens
420 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

PLANT LIST

Scientific name Common name

Aceraceae Maple family

Acer negundo boxelder

Agavaceae Century-plant family

Yucca glauca soapweed yucca

Alismataceae Water plantain family

Alisma gramineum narrowleaf water plantain

A. triviale northern water plantain

Sagittaria cuneata arumleaf arrowhead

S. latifola bulltongue arrowhead

Amaranthaceae Amaranth family

Amaranthus albus prostrate pigweed

A. arenicola sandhill amaranth

A. blitoides mat amaranth

A. californicus California amaranth

A. retroflexus redroot amaranth

Anacardiaceae Sumac family

Rhus trilobata skunkbush

Toxicodendron rydbergii western poision ivy

Apaceae Carrot family

Cymopterus acaulis plains spring parsley

Heracleum sphondylium eltrot

Lomatium foeniculaceum dessert biscuitroot

Musineon divaricatum wild parsley

Osmorhiza longistylis longstyle sweetroot

Sium suave hemlock waterparsnip

Apocynaceae Dogbane family

Apocynum cannabinum Indianhemp

Asclepiadaceae Milkweed family

Asclepias speciosa showy milkweed

A. verticillata whorled milkweed

Asteraceae Aster family

Achillea millefolium common yarrow

Acroptilon repens hardheads

Agoseris glauca pale agoseris

Ambrosia artemisifolia annual ragweed

Antennaria dimorpha low pussytoes

A. microphylla littleleaf pussytoes

A. neglecta field pussytoes

A. parvifolia small-leaf pussytoes

A. rosea rosy pussytoes

Arctium lappa greater burdock

Arnica sororia twin arnica

Artemisia absinthium absinthium

A. biennis biennial wormwood

A. campestris field sagewort

A. cana silver sagebrush

A. dracunculus tarragon

A. frigida prairie sagewort

A. longifolia longleaf wormwood

A. ludoviciana white sagebrush

A. tridentate tridentata big sagebrush

Aster brachyactis aster brachyactis

A. falcatus white prairie aster
Appendix F— List of Plant and Animal Species 421

Scientific name Common name

Bidens cernua nodding beggartick

B. frondosa devil’s beggartick

Brickellia eupatoroides false boneset

Centaurea stoebe spotted knapweed

Chaenactis douglasii Douglas’ dustymaiden

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus yellow rabbitbrush

Cirsium arvense Canadian thistle

C. flodmanii Flodman‘s thistle

C. undulatum wavyleaf thistle

C. vulgare bull thistle

Conzya canadensis Canadian horseweed

Crepis atribarba largeflower hawksweed

C. occidentalis largeflower hawksweed

C. runcinata fiddleleaf hawksweed

Cyclachaena xanthifolia giant sumpweed

Dyssodia papposa field marigold

Echinacea angustifolia blacksamson echinaceae

Ericameria nauseosa ssp. nauseosa var. glabrata rubber rabbitbrush

E. nauseosa ssp. nauseosa var. nauseosa rubber rabbitbrush

Erigeron caespitosus tufted fleabane

E. compositus cutleaf daisy

E. corymbosus longleaf fleabane

E. ochroleucus buff fleabane

E. pumilus shaggy fleabane

E. strigosus prairie fleabane

Gallardia aristata common gallardia

Gnaphalium palustre western marsh cudweed

Grindelia squarrosa curlycup gumweed

Gutierrezia sarothrae broom snakeweed

Helenium autunmale common sneezeweed

Helianthus annuus common sunflower

H. maximiliani Maximilian sunflower

H. pauciflorous stiff sunflower

H. petiolaris prairie sunflower

Heterotheca villosa hairy false golden aster

Hieracium umbllatum narrowleaf hawkweed

Hymenopappus polycephalus manyhead hymenopappus

Hymenoxys richardsonii pingue rubberweed

Iva axillaris poverty weed

Lactuca tatarica blue lettuce

Latuca punctata dotted blazing star

Lygodesmia juncea rush skeletonplant

Machaeranthera canescens hoary tansyaster

M.grindelioides rayless tansyaster

M. pinnatifida lacy tansyaster

M. tanacetifolia tansyleaf tansyaster

Microseris nutans nodding microceris

Nothocalais cuspidata sharppoint prairie-dandelion

Packera cana wolly groundsel

Picradeniopsis oppositifolia opposite leaf bahia

Ratibida columnifera upright prairie coneflower

Senecio integerrimus lambstongue ragwort

S. serra tall ragwort

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod

S. missouriensis Missouri goldenrod
422 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name

S. mollis velvety goldenrod

S. rigida stiff goldenrod

Sonchus arvensis spp. uliginosus moist sowthistle

S. oleraceus common sawthistle

Stenotus acaulis stemless mock goldenweed

Stephanomeria runcinata desert wirelettuce

Symphyotrichum ericoides var. pansum manyflowered aster

S. laeve smooth blue aster

Taraxacum laevigatum rock dandelion

T. officinale common dandelion

Townsedia exscupa stemless Townsend daisy

Townsendia hookeri Hooker’s Townsend daisy

Tragopogon dubius yellow salsify

Xanthium strumarium rough cocklebur

Boraginaceae Borage family

Cryptantha celosioides buttecandle

Cryptantha spiculifera Snake River cryptantha

Hackelia deflexa nodding stickseed

Lappula redowskii flatspine stickseed

L. squarrosa European stickseed

Lithospermum incisum narrowleaf stoneseed

Plagiobothrys leptocladus finebranched popcorn flower

Brassicaceae Mustard family

Alyssum desertorum desert madwort

Arabis hirsuta hairy rockcress

A. holboellii Holboell’s rockcress

Armoracia rusticans horseradish

Camelina microcarpa littlepod false flax

Cardaria draba whitetop

Chorispora tenella crossflower

Conringia orientalis hare’s ear mustard

Descurainia richardsonii mountain tansy mustard

Draba albertina slender draba

D. nemorosa woodland draba

D. reptans Carolina draba

Erysimum asperum western wallflower

E. inconspicuum shy wallflower

E. cheiranthoides L. wormseed wallflower

Hesperis matronalis dames rocket

Lepidium densiflorum common pepperweed

L. perfoliatum clasping pepperweed

Lesquerella alpina alpine bladderpod

L. ludoviciana foothill bladderpod

Physaria didymocarpa common twinpod

Rorippa sinuata spreading yellowcress

Sisymbrium altissimum tall tumbleweed mustard

Thelypodium paniculatum northweastern thelypody

Thlaspi arvense field pennycress

Callitrichareae Water-starwort family

Callitriche hermaphroditica northern water-starwort

Campanulaceae Bellflower family

Campanula rotundifolia bluebell bellflower

Triodanis leptocarpa slimpod Venus looking glass

Capparidaceae Caper family

Cleome serrulata Rocky Mountain beeplant
Appendix F— List of Plant and Animal Species 423

Scientific name Common name

Polanisia dodecandra spp. trachysperma sandyseed clammyweed

Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle family

Symphoricarpos albus common snowberry

S. occidentalis western snowberry

Caryophyllaceae Pink family

Arenaria lateriflora bluntleaf sandwort

Cerastium arvense field chickweed

C. nutans nodding chickweed

Paronychia sessiliflora creeping nailwort

Silene latifolia bladder campion

S. menziesii Menzies’ campion

S. oregana Oregon silene

Cactaceae Cactus family

Coryphantha missouriensis Missouri pincushion

C. vivipara purple pincushion

Opuntia fragilis brittle prickly pear

O. poluacantha plains prickly pear

Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot family

Atriplex argentea silverscale saltbush

A. canescens fourwing saltbush

A. confertifolia shadescale saltbush

A. gardneri Gardner’s saltbush

A. patula spear saltbush

A. powellii Powell’s saltbush

A. rosea tumbling saltbush

Bassia scoparia burning bush

Chenopodium album lambsquarter

C. atrovirens pinyon goosefoot

C. desiccatum aridland goosefoot

C. fremontii Fremont’s goosefoot

C. glaucum oakleaf goosefoot

C. leptophyllum narrowleaf goosefoot

C. pratericola desert goosefoot

C. rubrum red goosefoot

C. subglabrum smooth goosefoot

Endolepis diocicia Suckley’s endolepis

Krascheninnikovia lanata winterfat

Monolepis nuttalliana Nuttall’s povertyweed

Salicornia rubra red swapfire

Salsola tragus prickly Russian thistle

Sarcobatus vermiculatus greasewood

Suaeda calceoliformis Pursh seepweed

Suaeda moquinii Mojave seablite

Commelinaceae Spiderwort family

Tradescantia occidentalis prairie spiderwort

Convolvulaceae Morning glory family

Calystegia sepium hedge false bindweed

Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed

Cornaceae dogwood

Cornus siricea spp. siricea redosier dogwood

Cupressaceae Cypress family

Juniperus communis common juniper

J. horizontalis creeping juniper

J. scopulorum Rocky Mountain juniper

J. scopulorum × horizontalis hybrid of creeping and Rocky Mountain junipers
424 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name

Cyperaceae Sedge family

Carex brevior shortbreak sedge

C. douglasii Douglas sedge

C. duriusula needleleaf

C. filifolia threadleaf sedge

C. hoodii Hood’s sedge

C. lanuginosa American willyfruit sedge

C. pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge

C. rossii Boott. Ross’ sedge

C. sprengelii Sprengel’s sedge

C. vulpinoidea fox sedge

C. xerantica whitescale sedge

Eleocharis acicularis needle spikerush

E. palustris common spikerush

Schoenoplectus acutus hardstem bulrush

S. americanus chairmaker’s bulrush

S. maritimus cosmopolitan bulrush

S. tabernaemontani softstem bulrush

Dryopteridaceae Wood fern family

Cystopteris fragilis brittle bladder fern

Woodsia oregana Oregon cliff fern

Elaeagnaceae Oleaster family

Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive

E. communtata silverberry

Shepherdia argentea silver buffaloberry

Elatinaceae Waterwort family

Elatine triandra threestamen waterwort

Equisetaceae Horsetail family

Equisetum arvense field horsetails

E. hyemale scouringrush horsetails

E. laevigatum smooth horsetail

E. variegatum variegated scouringrush

Euphorbiaceae Spurge family

Euphorbia brachycera horned spurge

Euphorbia esula leafy spurge

Euphorbia glyptosperma ribseed sandmat

Euphorbia serpyllifolia thymeleaf sandmat

Euphorbia spathulata water spurge

Fabaceae Legume family

Astragalus agrestis purple vetch

A. bisulcatus two grooved milkvetch

A. canadensis Candian milkvetch

A. crassicarpus groundplum milkvetch

A. flexuosus flexile milkvetch

A. geyeri Geyer’s milkvetch

A. gilviflorus plains milkvetch

A. gracilis slender milkvetch

A. grummondii Drummonds milkvetch

A. kentrophyta spiny milkvetch

A. laxmanni var. robustior prairie milkvetch

A. lentiginosus freckled milkvetch

A. lotiflorus lotus milkvetch

A. purshii woolypod milkvetch

A. spatulatus tufted milkvetch

Caragana arborescens Siberian peashrub
Appendix F— List of Plant and Animal Species 425

Scientific name Common name

Dalea candida white prairie clover

D. purpurea purple prairie clover

Glycyrrhiza lepidota American licorice

Lupinus argenteus silvery lupine

L. pusillus rusty lupine

Medicago lupulina black medrich

M. sativa alfalfa

Melilotus officinalis yellow sweetclover

Oxytropis besseyi Bessey’s locoweed

O. lambertii purple locoweed

O. monticola yellow flower locoweed

O. sericea white locoweed

Pediomelum argophyllum silverleaf breadroot

P. esculentum large indian breadroot

P. lanceolatum lemon scurfpea

P. tenuiflorum slimflower scurfpea

Thermopsis rhombifolia prairie thermopsis

Trifolium hybridum alsike hybridum

Trifolium repens white clover

Vicia americana American vetch

Geraniaceae Geranium family

Geranium carolinianum Carolina geranium

Grossulariaceae Currant family

Ribes americanum American black currant

R. aureum golden currant

R. cereum wax currant

R. setosum inland gooseberry

R. viscosissimum sticky currant

Haloragidaceae Water milfoil family

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian water milfoil

Hydrophyllaceae waterleaf

Ellisia nyctelea Aunt Lucy

Nemophila breviflora basin nemophila

Phacelia linearis threadleaf phacelia

P. thermalis heated phacelic

Iridaceae Iris family

Sisyrinchium montanum strict blue-eyed grass

Juncaceae Rush family

Juncus balticus Baltic rush

J. bufonius toad rush

J. interior inland rush

J. tenuis Poverty rush

J. torreyi Torrey’s rush

Juncaginaceae Arrowgrass family

Triglochin concinnum slender arrowgrass

Lamiaceae Mint family

Dracocephalum parviflorum American dragonhead

Hedeona drummondii Drummond’s false pennyroyal

Hedeona hispida false penny royal

Lycopus asper rough bungleweed

Mentha arvensis wild mint

Monarda fistulosa wild bermont (beebulm)

Nepeta cataria catnip

Lemnaceae Duckweed family

Lemna minor common duckweed
426 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name

Liliaceae Lily family

Allium textile textile onion

Asparagus officinalis garden asparagus

Calochortus nuttallii sego lily

Fritillaria pudica yellow fritillary

Maianthemum stellatum starry false lily of the valley

Prosartes trachycarpa rough fruit fairybells

Smilax herbacea smooth carrionflower

Zigadenus venenosus meadow deathcamas

Linaceae Flax family

Linum lewisii Lewis flax

L. rigidum stiffstem flax

Loasaceae Loasa family

Mentzelia albicaulis whitestem blazingstar

M. decapetala ten petal blazingstar

M. laevicaulis smooth stemmed blazingstar

Malvaceae Mallow family

Malva parviflora cheeseweed mallow

Sphaeralcea coccinea scarlet gold mallow

Najadaceae Waternymph family

Najas guadalupensis southern waternymph

Nyctaginaceae Four o‘clock family

Mirabilis linearis narrowleaf four o‘clock

Oleaceae Olive family

Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash

Onagraceae Evening primrose family

Calylophus serrulatus yellow sundrops

Epilobium angustifolium fireweed

E. ciliatum fringed willow herb

E. pbrachycarpum tall annual willowherb

E. pygmaeum smooth spike primrose

Gaura coccineae scarlet beeblossom

Oenothera albicaulis whitest evening primrose

O. biennis common evening primrose

O. cespitosa gumbo evening primrose

O. flava yellow evening primrose

O. nuttllii Nuttall’s evening primrose

O. villosa hairy evening primrose

Orbanchaceae Broomrape family

Orobanche fasciculata clustered broomrape

O. ludoviciana Louisiana broomrape

Pinaceae Pine family

Pinus flexis limber pine

Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir

Plantaginaceae Plantain family

Plantago aristata largebracted plantain

P. elongata prairie plantain

P. lanceolata narrow leaf plantain

P. major common plantain

P. patagonica hairy plantain (Indian wheat)

Poaceae Grass family

Achnatherum hymenoides indian ricegrass

Agropyron cristatum crested wheatgrass

Agrostis sabra rough bentgrass
Appendix F— List of Plant and Animal Species 427

Scientific name Common name

Agrostit stolonifera creeping bentgrass

Andropogon hallii sand bluestem

Avena sativa common oat

Beckmannia syzigachne American sloughgrass

Bouteloua dactyloides buffalo grass

B. gracilis blue grama

Bromus arvensis field brome (Japanese brome)

B. carinatus California brome

B. ciliatus fringed brome

B. commutatus bald brome

B. inermis smooth brome

B. inermis spp. pumpellianus Pumpelly’s brome

B. tectorum cheatgrass

Calamagrostis canadensis bluejoint

C. montanensis plains reedgrass

Calamovilfa longifolia prairie sandreed

Dactylis glomerata orchardgrass

Danthonia unispicata onespike danthonia

Distichlis stricta saltgrass

Echinochloa crus-galli barnyard grass

Elymus canadensis Canada wildrye

E. elymoides squirreltail

E. lanceolatus thickspike wheatgrass

E. repens quackgrass

E. trachycaulum slender wheatgrass

Eragrostis cilianensis stinkgrass

E. pectinacea tufted lovegrass

Festuca rubra red fescue

Glyceria striata fowl mannagrass

Hesperostipa comatga needle and thread

Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley

H. pusillum little barley

Koeleria macrantha prairie Junegrass

Leymus triticoides heartless wildrye

Muhlenbergia asperifolia scratchgrass

M. cuspidata plains muhly

Munroa squarrosa false buffalo grass

Nassella viridula green needlegrass

Panicum cappillare witchgrass

Pascopyrum smithii western wheatgrass

Phalaris arundinaceae reed canarygrass

Phleum pratense timothy

Piptatherum micrantha littleseed ricegrass

Poa annua annual bluegrass

P. arida plains bluegrass

P. bulbosa bulbous bluegrass

P. compressa Canada bluegrass

P. cusickii Cusick’s bluegrass

P. palustris fowl bluegrass

P. pratensis Kentucky bluegrass

P. secunda Sandberg bluegrass

Polypogon monspeliensis annual rabbit’s foot grass

Pseudoroegneria spicata bluebunch wheatgrass

Puccinellia nuttalliana Nuttall’s alkali grass

Schedonnardus paniculatus tumble grass
428 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name

Schizachyrium scoparium little bluestem

Setaria viridis green bristlegrass

Spartina gracilis alkali cordgrass

Sporobolus airoides alkali sacaton

S. cryptandrus sand dropseed

Thinopyrum intermedium intermediate wheatgrass

Torreyochloa pallida pale false mannagrass

Triticum aestivum common wheat

Vulpia octoflora sixweeks fescue

Polemoniaceae Phlox family

Collomia linearis tiny trumpet

Microsteris gracilis slender phlox

Phlox alyssifolia alyssumleaf phlox

P. hoodii spiny phlox

Polygalaceae Milkwort family

Polygala alba white milkwort

P. verticillata whorled milkwort

Polygonaceae buckwheat

Eriogonum annuum annual buckwheat

E. cernuum nodding buckwheat

E. flavum alpine golden buckwheat

E. ovalifolium cusion buckwheat

E. pauciflorum few flower buckwheat

Polygonum aviculare prostate knotweed

P. convolvulus black bindweed

P. erectum erect knotweed

P. lapathifolium curlytop knotweed

P. punctatum dotted smartweed

P. ramossissimum bushy knotweed

Rumex acetosella common sheep sorrel

R. aquaticus western dock

R. crispus curly dock

R. maritimus golden dock

R. salicifolius willow dock

R. venosus veiny dock

Portulaceae Purslane family

Claytonia perfoliata miner’s lettuce

Portulaca oleracea little hogweed

Potamagetonaceae Pondweed family

Potamogeton diversifolius waterthread pondweed

P. foliosus leafy pondweed

P. praelongus whitesteam pondweed

P. pusillus small pondweed

Stuckenia pectinat sago pondweed

Primulaceae Primrose family

Androsace filiformis filiformis rockjasmine

A. occidentalis western rockjasmine

Ranunculaceae Buttercup family

Anemone cylindrica candle anemone

A. multifida Pacific anemone

Clematis ligusticifolia western white clematis

Delphinium bicolor little larkspur 

Pulsatilla patenes cutleaf anemone

Ranunculus aquatilis white water crowfoot

R. cymbalaria alkali buttercup
Appendix F— List of Plant and Animal Species 429

Scientific name Common name

R. glaberrimus sagebrush buttercup

R. macounii Macoun’s buttercup

R. sceleratus cursed buttercup

Thalictrum venulosum veiny meadow-rue

Rosaceae Rose family

Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry

Crataegus chrysocarpa fineberry hawthorn

Fragaria virginiana Virginia strawberry

Geum aleppicum yellow avens

G. triflorum prairie smoke

Potentilla anserina silverweed cinquefoil

P. arguta tall cinquefoil

P. biennis biennial cinquefoil

P. gracilis slender cinquefoil

P. paradoxa paradox cinquefoil

P. pensylvanica Pennsylvania cinquefoil

Prunus virginiana chokecherry

Rosa acicularis spp. sayi prickly rose

R. arkansana prairie rose

R. woodsii Woods’ rose

Rubiaceae Bedstraw family

Galium aparine stickywilly (catchweed bedstraw)

G. boreale northern bedstraw

G. trifidum threepetal bedstraw

Salicaeae Willow family

Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood

P. tremuloides quaking aspen

P. balsamifera balsam poplar

Salix amygdaloides peachleaf willow

S. bebbiana Bebb willow

S. exigua narrowleaf willow

S. fragilis crack willow

S. lasiandra Pacific willow

S. lutea yellow willow

Santalaceae Sandalwood family

Comandra umbellata bastard toadflax

Saxifragaceae Saxifrag family

Heuchera parvifolia littleleaf alumroot

Scrophulariaceae Figwort family

Bacopa rotundifolia disk waterhyssop

Besseya wyomingensis Wyoming besseya

Castilleja sessiliflora downy paintedcup

Collinsia parviflora maiden blue eyed Mary

Limosella aquatica water mudwort

Orthocarpus leteus yellow owl’s clover

Penstemon albidus white penstemon

P. nitidus waxleaf penstemon

Veronica anagallis-aquatica water speedwell

V. pergrina neckweed

Selaginellaceae Spikemoss family

Selafinella densa lesser spikemoss

Solanaceae Potato family

Solanum rostratum buffalo nightshade

S. triflorum cutleaf nightshade
430 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name

Tamaricaceae Tamarisk family

Tamarix chinensis five stamen tamarisk (saltcedar)

Typhaceae Cattail family

Typha latifolia broadleaf cattail

Urticeae Nettle family

Parietaria pensylvanica Pennsylvania

Urtica dioica stinging nettle

Verbenaceae Verbena family

Verbena bracteata bigbract verbena

Violaceae Violet family

Viola adunca hookedsur violet

V. canadensis Canadian white violet

V. nephrophylla northern bog violet

V. nuttallii smooth stemmed blazing star

Vitaceae Grape family

Parthenocissus inserta Virginia creeper

Zannichelliaceae horned pondweed family

Zigadenus venenosus meadow deathcamas

ANIMAL LIST

BUTTERFLIES 

Source: Butterflies and Moths of North America (2011).

Scientific name Common name

Nymphalidae Brush-footed butterflies

Limenitidinae Admirals and relatives

Limenitis arthemis red-spotted purple

L. archippus viceroy

L. weidemeyerii Weidemeyer’s admiral

L. arthemis arthemis white admiral

Heliconiinae Longwings

Speyeria aphrodite Aphrodite fritillary

S. callippe callippe fritillary

S. coronis coronis fritillary

S. edwardsii Edwards’ fritillary

S. egleis great basin fritillary

S. cybele great spangled fritillary

S. hydaspe hydaspe fritillary

S. mormonia Mormon fritillary

S. hesperis northwestern fritillary

S. zerene Zerene fritillary

Boloria bellona meadow fritillary

B. selene silver-bordered fritillary

Euptoieta claudia variegated fritillary

Nymphalinae True brush-foots

Nymphalis vaualbum Compton tortoiseshell 

N. antiopa mourning cloak

Euphydryas editha Edith’s checkerspot

E. gillettii Gillette’s checkerspot

E. chalcedona variable checkerspot

Phycoides pulchellus field crescent

P. cocyta northern crescent
Appendix F— List of Plant and Animal Species 431

Scientific name Common name

P. pallid pale crescent

P. tharos pearl crescent

P. batesii tawny crescent

Chlosyne gorgone Gorgone checkerspot

C. palla northern checkerspot

C. acastus sagebrush checkerspot

Polygonia progne gray comma

P. faunus green comma

P. gracilis hoary comma

P. satyrus satyr comma

Aglais milberti Milbert’s tortoiseshell

Vanessa cardui painted lady

V. atalanta red admiral

V. annabella west coast lady

Riodinidae Metalmarks

Apodemia mormo Mormon metalmark

Parnassiinae Parnassians

Parnassian smintheus Rocky Mountain parnassian

Papilioninae Swallowtails

Papilio zelicaon anise swallowtail

P. canadensis Canadian tiger swallowtail

P. machaon Old World swallowtail

P. eurymedon pale swallowtail

P. multicaudata two-tailed swallowtail

P. rutulus western tiger swallowtail

AMPHIBIANS and REPTILES

Ambystomatidae Mole salamanders

 Ambistoma tigrinum tiger salamander

Hylidae Chorus frogs

Pseudacris triseriata western chorus frog 

Ranidae True frogs

Rana pipiens northern leopard frog

Bufonidae True toads

Bufo woodhousei Woodhouse’s toad

B. cognatus Great Plains toad

Scaphiopodidae Spadefoots

Scaphiopus bombifrons plains spadefoot

Chelydridae Snapping turtles

Chelydra serpentin snapping turtle

Emydidae Pond turtles

Chrysemys picta painted turtle

Trionychidae Softshell turtles

Trionyx spiniferus spiny softshell

Colubridae Colubrid snakes

Coluber constrictor racer

Thamnophis elegans terrestrial garter snake

T. radix plains garter snake

T. sirtalis common garter snake

Lampropeltis triangulum milk snake

Pituophis catenifer gopher snake or bullsnake

Heterodon nasicus western hog-nosed snake

Viperidae Vipers

Crotalus viridus prairie rattlesnake
432 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name

FISHES

Sources: Bramblett and Zale (1999).

Acipenseridae Sturgeons

Scaphirhynchus albus (N) pallid sturgeon

S. platorynchus (N) shovelnose sturgeon 

Polyodontidae Paddlefishes

Polyodon spathula paddlefish 

Lepisosteidae Gars

Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar

Hiodontidae Mooneyes

Hiodon alosoides goldeneye

Salmonidae Trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss rainbow trout

Salmo trutta brown trout

Salvelinus namaycush lake trout

Coregonus artedi cisco

Cyprinidae Minnows

Hybognathus hankinsoni brassy minnow

H. placitus plains minnow

H. argyritis western silvery minnow

Cyprinus carpio common carp

Notropis atherinoides emerald shiner

Pimephales promelas fathead minnow

Hybopsis gracilis flathead chub

Couesius plumbeus lake chub

Rhynichthys cataractae longnose dace

Phoxinus eos northern redbelly dace

P. eos × P. neogaeus northern redbelly dace × finescale dace

Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner

N. ludibundus sand shiner

Semotilus atromaculatus creek chub

Macrhybobsis gelida sturgeon chub

M. meeki sicklefin chub

Castostomidae Suckers

Catostomus catostomus longnose sucker

C. commersoni white sucker

Carpoides carpio river carpsucker

Cycleptus elongate blue sucker

Ictiobus bubalus smallmouth buffalo

I. cyprinellus bigmouth buffalo

Moxostoma macrolepidotum shorthead redhorse

Ictaluridae Bullheads and catfishes

Ictalurus melas black bullhead

I. punctatus channel catfish

Noturus flavus stonecat

Esocidae Pikes and pickerels

Esox lucius northern pike

Gadidae Burbot

Lota lota burbot

Gasterosteidae Sticklebacks

Culaea inconstans brook stickleback

Centrarchidae Sunfishes

Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie

P. annularis white crappie
Appendix F— List of Plant and Animal Species 433

Scientific name Common name

Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish

L. macrochirus bluegill

Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass

Percidae Perches

Etheostoma exile Iowa darter

Stizostedion canadense sauger

S. vitreum walleye

Perca flavenscens yellow perch

Sciaenidae Drums

Aplodinotus grunniens freshwater drum

Fundulidae Killfishes

Fundulus zebrinus plains killfish

BIRDS 

Of the bird species recorded, there are the following: 

■ 5 introduced species

■ 1 extinct species

■ 2 extirpated species

■ 125 breeding species

■ 2 federally endangered species

■ 2 federally threatened species

The order of birds below follows the American Ornithologists’ Union checklist of Northern American birds (2000).

* indicates a documented breeding record

# indicates a migratory nongamebird species of management concern in the United States 

(FWS 1995)

Gaviidae Loons

Gavia immer common loon#

G. stellata red-throated loon

G. pacifica Pacific loon

G. adamsii yellow-billed loon

Podicipedidae Grebes

Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe*

Podiceps auritus horned grebe*

P. grisegena red-necked grebe

P. nigricollis eared grebe*

Aechmophorus occidentalis western grebe*

A. clarkia Clark’s grebe*

Pelicanidae Pelicans

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican*

Phalacrocoracidae Cormorants

Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant*

Ardeidae Bitterns, herons, and egrets

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern*#

Ardea herodias great blue heron*

A. alba great egret

Egretta thula snowy egret

Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night-heron

Threskiornithidae Ibises and spoonbills

Plegadis chihi white-faced ibis

Cathartidae New World vultures

Cathartes aura turkey vulture

Anatidae Swans, geese, and ducks

Anser albifrons greater white-fronted goose

Chen caerulescens snow goose

C. rossii Ross’ goose
434 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name

Branta canadensis Canada goose*

Cygnus columbianus tundra swan

Aix sponsa wood duck

Anas strepera gadwall*

A. americana American wigeon*

A. rubripes American black duck

A. platyrhynchos mallard*

A. discors blue-winged teal*

A. cyanoptera cinnamon teal*

A. clypeata northern shoveler*

A. acuta northern pintail*

A. crecca green-winged teal*

Aythya valisineria canvasback*

A. americana redhead*

A. collaris ring-necked duck*

A. affinis lesser scaup*

Melanitta fusca white-winged scoter

Clangula hyemalis long-tailed duck

Bucephala albeola bufflehead*

B. clangula common goldeneye

B. islandica Barrow’s goldeneye

Lophodytes cucullatus hooded merganser

Mergus merganser common merganser

M. serrator red-breasted merganser

Oxyura jamaicensis ruddy duck*

Accipitridae Osprey, kites, hawks, and eagles

Pandion halliaetus osprey

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle (threatened)

Circus cyaneus northern harrier

Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk

A. cooperii Cooper’s hawk

A. gentilis northern goshawk

Buteo platypterus broad-winged hawk

B. swainsoni Swainson’s hawk

B. jamaicensis red-tailed hawk*

B. regalis ferruginous hawk

B. lagopus rough-legged hawk

Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle*

Falconidae Falcons and caracaras

Falco sparverius American kestrel

F. columbarius merlin

F. rusticolus gyrfalcon

F. peregrinus peregrine falcon

F. mexicanus prairie falcon

Phasianidae Gallinaceous birds

Perdix perdix gray partridge (introduced)

Phasianus colchicus ring-necked pheasant (introduced)

Centrocercus urophasianus greater sage-grouse

Tympanuchus phasianellus sharp-tailed grouse

Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey

Rallidae Rails

Rallus limicola Virginia rail

Porzana carolina sora

Fulica americana American coot
Appendix F— List of Plant and Animal Species 435

Scientific name Common name

Gruidae Cranes

Grus canadensis sandhill crane

Charadriidae Plovers

Pluvialis squatarola black-bellied plover

P. dominica American golden-plover

Charadrius semipalmatus semipalmated plover

C. melodus piping plover (threatened)

C. vociferous killdeer

C. montanus mountain plover

Recurvirostridae Stilts and avocets

Himantopus mexicanus black-necked stilt

Recurvirostra americana American avocet

Scolopacidae Sandpipers and phalaropes

Tringa melanoleuca greater yellowlegs

T. flavipes lesser yellowlegs

T. solitaria solitary sandpiper

Actitus macularius spotted sandpiper

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus willet

Artramia longicauda upland sandpiper

Numenius borealis Eskimo curlew (extirpated)

N. phaeopus whimbrel

N. americanus long-billed curlew

Limosa fedoa marbled godwit

Arenaria interpres ruddy turnstone

Calidris alba sanderling

C. pusilla semipalmated sandpiper

C. mauri western sandpiper

C. minutilla least sandpiper

C. fuscicollis white-rumped sandpiper

C. bairdii Baird’s sandpiper

C. melanotos pectoral sandpiper

C. alpine dunlin

C. himantopus stilt sandpiper

Limnodromus scolopaceus long-billed dowitcher

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s phalarope

P. lobatus red-necked phalarope

Tryngites subruficollis buff-breasted sandpiper

Gallinago delicate Wilson’s snipe

Laridae Gulls, terns, and jaegers

Larus pipixcan Franklin’s gull

L. philadelphia Bonaparte’s gull

L. delawarensis ring-billed gull

L. californicus California gull

L. thayeri Thayer’s gull

L. hyperboreus glaucous gull

L. canus mew gull

L. argentatus herring gull

L. glaucescens glaucous-winged gull

L. marinus great black-backed gull

Sterna caspia Caspian tern

S. hirundo common tern

S. forsteri Forster’s tern

S. antillarum least tern (endangered)

Chlidonias niger black tern

Xema sabini Sabine’s gull
436 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name

Rissa tridactyla black-legged kittiwake

Stercorarius pomarinus pomarine jaeger

Columbidae Pigeons and doves

Columba livia rock dove (introduced)

C. fasciata band-tailed pigeon

Zenaida macroura mourning dove

Ectopistes migratorius passenger pigeon (extinct)

Cuculidae Cuckoos and anis

Coccyzus erythropthalmus black-billed cuckoo

Strigidae Owls

Bubo virginianus great horned owl

Nyctea scandiaca snowy owl

Surnia ulula northern hawk-owl

Athene cunicularia burrowing owl

Asio otus long-eared owl

A. flammeus short-eared owl

Glaucidium gnoma northern pygmy-owl

Aegolius acadicus northern saw-whet owl

Caprimulgidae Goatsuckers and allies

Chordeiles minor common nighthawk

Phalaenoptilus nuttallii common poorwill

Apodidae Swifts

Chaetura pelagica chimney swift

Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift

Trochilidae Hummingbirds

Archilochus colubris ruby-throated hummingbird

Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird

Alcedinidae Kingfishers

Ceryle alcyon belted kingfisher

Picidae Woodpeckers

Melanerpes erythrocephalus red-headed woodpecker

Picoides pubescens downy woodpecker

P. villosus hairy woodpecker

Colaptes auratus northern flicker

Sphyrapicus nuchalis red-naped sapsucker

Tyrannidae New World flycatchers

Contopus sordidulus western wood-pewee

Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher

E. minimus least flycatcher

E. oberholseri dusky flycatcher

E. occidentalis Cordilleran flycatcher

Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe

Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird

T. tyrannus eastern kingbird

T. vociderans Cassin’s kingbird

Laniidae Shrikes

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike

L. excubitor northern shrike

Vireonidae Vireos

Vireo gilvus warbling vireo

V. philadelphicus Philadelphia vireo

V. olivaceus red-eyed vireo

Corvidae Crows, jays, and magpies

Cyanocitta cristata blue jay

Pica hudsonia black-billed magpie
Appendix F— List of Plant and Animal Species 437

Scientific name Common name

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow

C. corax common raven

Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus pinyon jay

Nucifraga columbiana Clark’s nutcracker

Alaudidae Larks

Eremophila alpestris horned lark

Hirundinidae Swallows

Tachycineta bicolor tree swallow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged swallow

Riparia riparia bank swallow

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow

Hirundo rustica barn swallow

Tachycineta thalassina violet-green swallow

Paridae Chickadees and titmice

Poecile atricapilla black-capped chickadee*

P. gambeli mountain chickadee

Sittidae Nuthatches

Sitta canadensis red-breasted nuthatch

S. carolinensis white-breasted nuthatch

Certhiidae Creepers

Certhia americana brown creeper

Troglodytidae Wrens

Troglodytes aedon house wren

Cistothorus palustris marsh wren

Salpinctes obsoletus rock wren

Cinclidae Dippers

Cinclus mexicanus American dipper

Regulidae Kinglets

Regulus satrapa golden-crowned kinglet

R. calendula ruby-crowned kinglet

Turdidae Thrushes

Sialia sialis eastern bluebird

S. currocoides mountain bluebird

Myadestes townsendi Townsend’s solitaire

Catharus fuscescens veery

C. minimus gray-cheeked thrush

C. ustulatus Swainson’s thrush

C. guttatus hermit thrush

Turdus migratorius American robin

Mimidae Mockingbirds, thrashers, and allies

Dumetella carolinensis gray catbird

Toxostoma rufum brown thrasher

Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird

Oreoscoptes montanus sage thrasher

Sturnidae Starlings

Sturnus vulgaris European starling (introduced)

Motacillidae Wagtails and pipits

Anthus ruescens American (water) pipit

A. spragueii Sprague’s pipit

Bombycillidae Waxwings

Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian waxwing

B. cedrorum cedar waxwing

Parulidae New World warblers

Vermivora peregrina Tennessee warbler

V. celata orange-crowned warbler
438 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name

Dendroica petechia yellow warbler

D. magnolia magnolia warbler

D. tigrina Cape May warbler

D. coronata yellow-rumped warbler

D. townsendi Townsend’s warbler

D. palmarum palm warbler

D. striata blackpoll warbler

Mniotilta varia black-and-white warbler

Setophaga ruticilla American redstart

Seiurus aurocapillus ovenbird

S. noveboracensis northern waterthrush

Oporornis tolmiei MacGillivray’s warbler

Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’s warbler

W. canadensis Canada warbler

Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat

Thraupidae Tanagers

Piranga ludoviciana western tanager

Emberizidae Buntings and seedeaters

Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee

Spizella arborea American tree sparrow

S. passerina chipping sparrow

S. pallida clay-colored sparrow

S. breweri Brewer’s sparrow

S. pusilla field sparrow

Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow

Chondestes grammacus lark sparrow

Calamospiza melanocorys lark bunting

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow

Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow

A. bairdii Baird’s sparrow

Melospiza melodia song sparrow

M. lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow

Zonotrichia alicollis white-throated sparrow

Z. querula Harris’ sparrow

Z. leucophrys white-crowned sparrow

Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco

Calcarius mccownii McCown’s longspur

C. lapponicus Lapland longspur

C. ornatus chestnut-collared longspur

Plectrophenax nivalis snow bunting

Pipilo chlorurus green-tailed towhee

Melospiza georiana swamp sparrow

Zonotrichia atricapilla golden-crowned sparrow

Cardinalidae Saltators, cardinals, and allies

Pheucticus ludovicianus rose-breasted grosbeak

P. melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak

Passerina amoena lazuli bunting

Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal

Passerina cyanea indigo bunting

Icteridae Blackbirds and orioles

Dolichonyx oryzivorus bobolink*

Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird*

Surnella neglecta western meadowlark*

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird*
Appendix F— List of Plant and Animal Species 439

Scientific name Common name

Euphagus carolinus rusty blackbird

E. cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird*

Quiscalus quiscula common grackle*

Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird*

Icterus spurius orchard oriole*

I. galbula Baltimore oriole*

I. bullockii Bullock’s oriole

Fringillidae Finches and crossbills

Pinicola enucleator pine grosbeak

Carduelis flammea common redpoll

C. hornemanni hoary redpoll

C. pinus pine siskin

C. tristis American goldfinch

Leucosticte tephrocotis gray-crowned rosy-finch

Pinicola enucleator pine grosbeak

Loxia curvirostra red crossbill

L. leucoptera white-winged crossbill

Coccothraustes vespertinus evening grosbeak

Passeridae Old World sparrows

Passer domesticus house sparrow (introduced)

MAMMALS

Sources: Burt and Grossenheider (1980), Hoffman and Pattie (1968), Foresman (2001), and Montana Natural Heritage Program.

Soricidae Shrews

Sorex cinereus cinereus (masked) shrew*

S. merriami Merriam’s shrew

S. haydeni Hayden’s shrew (R)

S. monticolus montane shrew

Vespertilionidae Vesper bats

Myotis evotis long-eared myotis

M. lucifugus little brown myotis*

M. ciliolabrum western small-footed myotis

M. thysanodes fringed myotis

M. volans long-legged myotis

Lasiurus borealis eastern red bat

L. cinereus hoary bat

Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat

Eptesicus fuscus big brown bat

Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat

Leporidae Hares and rabbits

Sylvilagus nuttalli mountain cottontail

S. audubonii desert cottontail

Lepus townsendii white-tailed jackrabbit*#

Sciuridae Squirrels

Tamias minimus least chipmunk

T. amoenus yellow-pine chipmunk

T. ruficaudus red-tailed chipmunk

Spermophilus richardsonii Richardson’s ground squirrel*#

S. tridecemlineatus thirteen-lined ground squirrel*#

Cynomys ludovicianus black-tailed prairie dog

Marmota flaviventris yellowbelly marmot (R)

Geomyidae Pocket gophers

Thomomys talpoides northern pocket gopher*#

Heteromyidae Pocket mice and kangaroo rats

Perognathus fasciatus olive-backed pocket mouse*#
440 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name

Dipodomys ordii Ord’s kangaroo rat

Castoridae Beavers

Castor canadensis American beaver*

Muridae Mice, voles, rats, and lemmings

Reithrodontomys megalotis western harvest mouse

Peromyscus leucopus white-footed mouse

P. maniculatus deer mouse*#

Onychomys leucogaster northern grasshopper mouse*#

Neotoma cinerea bushy-tailed woodrat

Mus musculus house mouse*

Microtus ochrogaster prairie vole*

Lemmiscus curtatus sagebrush vole*

Ondatra zibethicus common muskrat*#

Microtus longicaudus long-tailed vole

Dipodidae Jumping mice

Zapus princeps western jumping mouse(#?)

Erethizontidae New World porcupines

Erethizon dorsatum common porcupine*

Canidae Wolves, coyotes, and foxes

Canis latrans coyote*#

C. lupus gray wolf*# (extirpated)

Vulpes velox swift fox*#

V. vulpes red fox*

Ursidae Bears

Ursus americanus black bear*

U. arctos grizzly (brown) bear* (extirpated)

Procyonidae Raccoons

Procyon lotor raccoon*

Mustelidae Weasels

Mustela frenata long-tailed weasel*#

M. nigripes black-footed ferret

M. nivalis least weasel*

M. vison American mink*

M. ermine short-tailed weasel

Gulo gulo wolverine*

Taxidea taxus American badger*#

Lontra canadensis northern river otter

Mephitidae Skunks

Mephitis mephitis striped skunk*#

Felidae Cats

Felis catus feral cat* (introduced)

Lynx rufus bobcat*

Puma concolor mountain lion

Cervidae Deer, moose, and elk

Cervus elephus Wapiti (elk)*

Odocoileus hemionus mule deer*

O. virginianus white-tailed deer*

Alces alces moose

Antilocapridae Pronghorn

Antilocapra americana pronghorn*#

Bovidae Bison, goats, and sheep

Bos bison American bison (extirpated)

B. taurus domestic cattle

Ovis canadensis bighorn sheep
Bibliography

Adams, S.M.; Dood, A.R. 2011. Background information on issues of concern for Montana: plains bison 

ecology, management, and conservation. Bozeman, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks. 16 p.

Alfonso, James M. 1991. South fork of Rock Creek 

riparian habitat. Rehabilitation project summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service internal 

memo. Unpublished. On file at Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. 7 p.

American Bird Conservancy. 2009. Threats to birds—

introduced species. <www.abcbirds.org/conservation

issues/threats/invasives.html> accessed February 

2010.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 2000. American 

Ornithologists’ Union checklist of Northern 

American birds. 7th edition (1998), 42nd supplement (2000). [Pages unknown].

American Prairie Foundation. 2011. American Prairie Foundation annual report. <www.american

prairie.org/projectprogress/land/land-acquisition> 

accessed December 30, 2011.

Ames, Charles R. 1977. Wildlife conflicts in riparian 

management—grazing. In: Proceedings; Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat—a symposium; [Date of symposium 

unknown]; Tucson, Arizona. General Technical 

Report RM–43. Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA 

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 49–51.

Anderson, R.C. 1990. The historic role of fire in 

the North American grassland. In: Collins, S.L.; 

Wallace, L.L.; editors. Fire in North American 

tallgrass prairies. Norman, OK: University of 

Oklahoma Press. 8–18.

Anderson, Stanley H. 1985. Managing our wildlife resources. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill 

Publishing Company. 156 p.

Atkinson, Shirley J.; Dood, Arnold R. 2006a. Montana interior least tern management plan. Bozeman, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks. 47 p.

———. 2006b. Montana piping plover management 

plan. Bozeman, MT: Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks. 78 p.

Auble, G.T.; Scott, M.L. 1998. Fluvial disturbance 

patches and cottonwood recruitment along the 

upper Missouri River, Montana. Wetlands 18:546–

56. 

Auble, G.T.; Scott, M.L.; Frazier, J.; Krause, C.; 

Merigliano, M. 2005. Cottonwood in the Missouri 

Breaks National Monument. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Fact Sheet 

2005–3132. 4 p.

Bailey, Joseph K.; Schweitzer, Jennifer A.; Whitham, 

Thomas G. 2001. Salt cedar negatively affects biodiversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Wetlands 21(3):442–47. 

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. 

Battazzo, A.M. 2007. Winter survival and habitat 

use by female greater sage-grouse in South Phillips County, Montana 2004–2006 [master’s thesis]. 

Missoula, MT: The University of Montana. 71 p.

Belsky, A.J.; Matzke, A.; Uselman, S. 1999. Survey 

of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of 

Soil and Water Conservation 54:419–31. 

Bender-Keigley, Janet. 2008. Landowners’ guide 

to eastern Montana wetlands and grasslands. 

Montana Watercourse. <www.mtwatercourse.

org/publications/Publications.htm> [access date 

unknown].

Bengston, David N. 1994. Changing forest values 

and ecosystem management. Society and Natural 

Resources 7:515–33. 

Biggins, Dean E.; Godbey, Jerry L.; Gage, Kenneth 

L.; Carter, Leon G.; Montenieri, John A. 2010. 

Vector control improves survival of three species of prairie dogs (Cynomys): evidence for enzootic plague? Vector-borne and Zoonotic Diseases 

10(1):17–26.

Black, Scott Hoffman; Hodges, Nathan; Vaughan, 

Mace; Shepherd, Matthew. 2007. Pollinators in natural areas: a primer on habitat management. The 

Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 8 p.

Bock, Carl E. 1993. Birds and bovines: effects of 

livestock grazing on birds in the West. <www

.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_birds_

bovines/htm> accessed August 31, 2009. 4 p.

Bock, Carl E.; Saab, V.A.; Rich, T.D.; Dobkin, D.S. 

1993. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical 

migratory landbirds in western North America. 

Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

[Pages unknown].

Boughton, John; Peteson, Lynelle. 2007. Fort Peck: 

National Register eligibility of 13 archaeological 

sites in Phillips County, Montana. Report for the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, by Ethnoscience, Incorporated, Billings, Montana. Contract number W(9128F–06–0185). 370 p.
442 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Bovee, K.; Scott, M.L. 2002. Implications of flood 

pulse restoration for Populus regeneration on the 

upper Missouri River. River Research and Applications 18:287–98.

Bragg, T.B.; Steuter, A.A. 1995. Mixed prairie of the 

North American Great Plains. In: Transactions, 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resource 

Conference, [Date of conference unknown], [City 

and State of conference unknown]. [City and 

State published unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

60:335–48.

Bramblett, Robert G.; Jones-Wuellner, Melissa A.; 

Guy, Christopher S.; Zale, Alexander V. 2004. 

Annual report 2004: Montana prairie riparian 

native species study. Bozeman, MT: Montana 

Cooperative Fisheries Unit, Montana State University. 50 p.

Bramblett, Robert G.; Zale, Alexander V. 1999. Fishery survey of the streams of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Bozeman, 

MT: Montana Cooperative Fishery Research 

Unit, USGS, Montana State University. 40 p.

———. 2000. The ichthyofauna of small streams on 

the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 

6(2):57–67.

Brennan, Leonard A.; Kuvlesky, William P., Jr. 2005. 

North American grassland birds: an unfolding 

conservation crisis? Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1):1–13. 

Briske, D.D.; Derner, J.D.; Brown, J.R. [and others]. 

2008. Rotational grazing on rangelands: reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence. 

Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:3–17.

Briske, D.D.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Smeins, F.E. 2005. 

State-and-transition models, thresholds, and 

rangeland health: a synthesis of ecological concepts and perspectives. Rangeland Ecology and 

Management 58:1–10.

Brooks, Matthew L.; D’Antonio, Carla D.; Richardson, David M. [and others]. 2004. Effects of 

invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 

54(7):677–88.

Brown, Mike; Dinsmore, James J. 1986. Implications 

of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. The Journal of Range Management. 

50(3):392–97.

Brown, Stephen; Hickey, C.; Harrington, B.; Gill, B. 

2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 2nd 

edition. Manomet, MA: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 64 p.

Brumley, John. 2006. Nemont Telephone Cooperatives; 2006 Dagmar, Glentanna and Larslan Exchanges: cultural resources inventory. Prepared 

for Nemont Telephone Cooperative by Ethos Consultants. On file at the Montana Archaeological 

Society, Helena. [Pages unknown].

Brunson, Mark; Gilbert, Lael. 2003. Recreationist 

responses to livestock grazing in a new national 

monument. Journal of Range Management. 56:

570–76.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2008. U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Regional Economic Information 

System. <www.bea.gov> accessed December 2009.

———. 2009. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Regional Economic Information System. <www.

bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?selTable=CA25> 

accessed December 2009.

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Bureau 

of Land Management national sage-grouse habitat conservation strategy. <www.blm.gov/pgdata/

etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_

Resources/fish__wildlife_and.Par.9151.File.dat/

Sage-Grouse_Strategy.pdf> accessed February 

2012. 25 p.

———. 2008a. Fact sheet on the BLM’s management of livestock grazing. <www.blm.gov/wo/st/

en/prog/grazing.html> accessed December 2011.

———. 2008b. Proposed resource management plan 

and final environmental impact statement. Upper 

Missouri River Breaks National Monument. On file 

at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lewistown, MT. 1,466 p.

———. 2008c. Record of decision and approved resource management plan: Upper Missouri River 

Breaks National Monument. On file at Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. 

[Pages unknown].

Burt, William H.; Grossenheider, Richard; Peterson, 

P. 1980. A field guide to mammals: North America north of Mexico. Peterson Field Guide Series 

5; renewed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 289 p. 

Butterflies and Moths of North America. 2011. 

Regional checklist for Montana: Butterflies. <www

.butterfliesandmoths.org> accessed December 2011.

Callaway, Ragan M.; Walker, Lawrence R. 1997. 

Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach 

to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 

78(7):1,958–65.

Candelaria, Linda M.; Wood, M. Karl. 1981. Wildlife use of stockwatering facilities. Rangelands 

3(5):194–96. 

Carlson, Charles. 1993. Second survey of birdlife in 

two coulees near Bobcat Creek on the C.M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. 

3 p.

Carver, Erin; Caudill, James. 2007. Banking on 

nature 2006: the economic benefits to local communities of national wildlife refuge visitation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics. 382 p. 
Bibliography 443

Chaikina, Natalia A.; Ruckstuhl, Kathreen, E. 2006. 

The effect of cattle grazing on native ungulates: 

the good, the bad, and the ugly. Rangelands 

28(3):8–14.

Chapman, Erik W.; Ribic, Christine A. 2002. The 

impact of buffer strips and stream-side grazing on 

small mammals in southwestern Wisconsin. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88(1):49–59.

Churchwell, Roy T.; Davis, Craig A.; Fuhlendorf, 

Samuel D.; Engle, David M. 2007. Effects of patchburn management on dickcissel nest success in a 

tallgrass prairie. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72(7):1,596–603.

Cid, Silvia M.; Detling, James K.; Whicker, April D.; 

Brizuela, Miguel A. 1991. Vegetational responses 

of a mixed-grass prairie site following exclusion of 

prairie dogs and bison. Journal of Range Management 44(2):100–105.

Coe, Priscilla K.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Kern, John W.; 

Findholt, Scott L.; Kie, John G.; Wisdom, Michael 

J. March 2001. Responses of elk and mule deer to 

cattle in summer. Journal of Range Management. 

54:A51–A76.

Cole, David N.; Landers, Peter B. 1996. Threats to 

wilderness ecosystems: impacts and research 

needs. Ecological Applications 6(1):168–84.

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2007. A guide to wildlife viewing and photography blinds: creating facilities to connect people with nature featuring 

blinds from the western United States. Denver, 

CO. 43 p. 

Colorado State Parks. 1998. Native plant revegetation guide for Colorado. Caring for the Land Series, 

volume 3. <http://parks.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/

00A97125-2219-4E68-A28F-6CC62300D43A/0/

revegetation.pdf> accessed February 9, 2010. 269 p.

Connelly, J.W.; Gratson, M.W.; Reese, K.P. 1998. 

Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus). In: Poole, A.; editor. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

<http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/354> 

accessed October 11, 2011.

Connelly, J.W.; Schroeder, M.A.; Sands, A.R.; Braun, 

C.E. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28(4):967–85.

Cook, Bradley J.; Ehrhart, R.C.; Hansen, Paul L.; 

Parker, Tom; Thompson, Bill. 1996. Riparian and 

wetland ecological health: evaluation of selected 

streams on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and 

Conservation Experiment Station, Riparian and 

Wetland Research Program. 38 p.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2010. Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory bird data, 2009–2010. <http://bna

.birds.cornell.edu/bna> accessed October 3, 2011.

Cousins, Sara A.O.; Lindborg, Regina. 2004. Assessing changes in plant distribution patterns: indicator species versus plant functional types. 

Ecological Indicators. 4:17–27.

Cunningham, Mary Ann; Johnson, Douglas H. 2006. 

Proximate and landscape factors influence grassland bird distributions. Ecological Applications 

16(3):1,062–75.

Cushman, Samuel A.; McKelvey, Kevin S.; Flather, 

Curtis H.; McGarigal, Kevin. 2008. Do forest community types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate 

biological diversity? Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 6(1):13–17.

Davis, Les; Stallcop, Emmett. 1965. The Keaster site 

(24PH401): a stratified bison kill occupation in the 

Missouri Breaks area of north central Montana. 

Memoir Number 2. Report produced by the Montana Archaeological Society. [City and State published unknown]. 27 p.

Davis, Stephen K; Dunan, David C. 1999. Grassland song bird abundance in native and crested 

wheatgrass pastures of southern Saskatchewan. 

In: Ecology and conservation of grassland birds 

of the Western Hemisphere: proceedings of a 

conference; October 1995; Tulsa, OK. [City and 

State published unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

19:211–18.

Davy, Douglas. 1992. Historic properties survey 

of selected areas at Fort Peck Lake, Montana. 

Report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by EBASCO Environmental, Sacramento, 

California. On file at the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska. [Pages unknown].

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; Euliss, B.R. 

1998 (revised 2003). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: mountain plover. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center. 15 p.

Defenders of Wildlife. 2008. Keeping every cog and 

wheel: reforming and improving the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Washington D.C. 30 p.

DeLuca, T.H.; MacKenzie, M.D.; Gundale, M.J.; 

Holben, W.E. 2006. Wildfire-produced charcoal 

directly influences nitrogen cycling in ponderosa 

pine forests. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70:448–53.

DeLuca, T.H.; Nilsson, M.C.; Zackrisson, O. 2002. 

Nitrogen mineralization and phenol accumulation 

along a fire chronosequence in northern Sweden. 

Oecologia 133(2):206–14.

DeLuca, Thomas H; Aplet, Gregory H. 2008. Charcoal 

and carbon storage in forest soils of the Rocky 

Mountain West. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 6(1):18–24.

DeLuca, Thomas H.; Sala, Anna. 2006. Frequent 

fire alters nitrogen transformations in ponderosa 
444 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

pine stands of the inland Northwest. Ecology 

87(10).

Destination Lewistown, Montana. 2009. Welcome 

to Lewistown, Montana. <www.destinationlewis

townmontana.com/wp/community-resources/economic-development-opportunities/> accessed 

December 2009. 

Dhol, Sukvinder; Horton, Jean; Jones, Robert E. 

1994. 1994 Non-waterfowl evaluation of Manitoba’s North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan. [City and State published unknown]: Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife 

Branch. 12 p.

Dickson, Tom. 2008. Drawing a line—club members 

participating in the sportsman user value mapping project are saying “Don’t develop where we 

hunt and fish.” Montana Outdoors. September–

October 2008:28–31.

DiTomaso, Joseph M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed 

Science 48:255–65.

Dixon, M.D.; Johnson, W.C.; Scott, M.L.; Bowen, D. 

2009. Annual report—Missouri River cottonwood 

study. USACE internal report. [City, State, and 

office on file unknown]. [Pages unknown].

Doherty, Kevin E.; Tack, Jason D.; Evans, Jeffrey S.; Naugle, David E. 2010. Mapping breeding densities of greater sage-grouse: a tool for 

range-wide conservation planning. Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management. <www.blm.gov/

pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_

Directorate/public_affairs.Par.46599.File.tmp/

GRSG%20Rangewide%20Breeding%20Density.

pdf> accessed October 2011. 30 p.

Donaldson, G.M.; Hyslop, C.; Morrison, R.I.G.; Dickson, H.L.; Davidson, I. 2000. Canadian shorebird 

conservation plan. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Wildlife 

Service. 34 p.

Douglass, K.S.; Hamann, S.J.; Joslin, G. 1999. Vegetation, soils, and water. Pages 9.1–9.11 In: Joslin, 

G.; Youmans, H.; coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for 

Montana. [City and State published unknown]: 

Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. 307 p.

Douglass, Richard J. 1984. The use of rodents in 

monitoring ecological impacts of oil shale development in the Piceance Basin, Colorado. In: Comer, 

R.L.; editor. Issues and technology in the management of impacted western wildlife. Boulder, CO: 

Thorne Ecological Institute. 70–75.

Douglass, Rick; Hughes, Kevin. 2003. Montana Tech 

2002 Hantavirus longitudinal study: summary 

of data collected from the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge. Montana Tech University. On file at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge, Butte, MT. 13 p. 

Dryer, Mark P.; Sandvol, Alan J. 1993. Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) recovery plan. Prepared for Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 6, by the Pallid Sturgeon 

Recovery Team. On file at Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, CO. 64 p.

Duff, D. A. 1983. Livestock grazing impacts on 

aquatic habitat in Big Creek, Utah. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Livestock and Wildlife—

Fisheries Relationships in the Great Basin; [Date 

of workshop unknown]; Sparks, Nevada. Special Publication 33901. Berkeley, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 129–42.

Duffield, J.; Neher, C. 2002. The Prairie Foundation: socioeconomic impacts on Valley and Phillips 

Counties. Prepared for The Prairie Foundation by 

Bioeconomics, Inc. [City, State, and office on file 

unknown]. [Pages unknown].

Duffy, A.M., Jr. 2000. Cowbird brood parasitism on a 

little-used host, the yellow-headed blackbird. In: 

Smith, J.N.M.; Cook, T.L.; Robinson, S.K.; Rothstein, S.I.; Sealy, S.G.; editors. Ecology and management of cowbirds and their hosts: studies in the 

conservation of North American passerine birds. 

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 115–19.

Dullum, Jo Ann L.D.; Foresman, Kerry R.; Matchett, Marc R. 2005. Efficacy of translocations for 

restoring populations of black-tailed prairie dogs. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(3):842–50.

Ecological Solutions Group, LLC. 2009. Internal 

report on lotic wetland health assessment survey, 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. On 

file at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lewistown, MT. 8 p.

———. 2011. U.S. Lotic wetland inventory form 

user manual. <www.ecologicalsolutionsgroup.com/

Documents/PDFforms/UserManuals/USALotic

InventoryManual.pdf> accessed December 2011. 

29 p. 

Economic Research Service. 2009. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, commodity costs and returns. 

<www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/Test

Pick.htm#historic2> accessed December 2011.

Egan, A.F.; Luloff, A.E. 2000. The exurbanization 

of America’s forests: research in rural social sciences. Journal of Forestry 98(3):26–30. 

Ehrhart, Robert C.; Hansen, Paul L. 1997. Effective 

cattle management in riparian zones: a field survey and literature review. Montana BLM Riparian Technical Bulletin Number 3. Billings, MT: 

Bureau of Land Management, Montana State 

Office. 47 p. 

Ellison, Lincoln. 1960. Influence of grazing on plant 

succession of rangelands. Botanical Review 

26(1):1–78.
Bibliography 445

Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Interim air 

quality policy on wildland and prescribed fires. 

<www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/firefnl

.pdf> accessed July 12, 2011. 38 p.

Fairfield, George M. 1968. Chestnut-collared longspur. In: Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, 

sparrows, and allies. [City and State published 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 1,635–52.

Fandrich, Blain; Peterson, Lynelle. 2005. A traditional cultural property study Fort Peck Lake, 

Montana. Report produced for U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Omaha, by Ethnoscience, Incorporated, Billings, Montana. [City, State, and office on 

file unknown]. [Pages unknown].

FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants. 1996. An analysis of riparian habitat on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge in relation to birds 

and small mammals. Report prepared for Charles 

M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. On file at 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, 

Boulder, MT. [Pages unknown].

Fernandez-Cornejo, J. 2007. Off-farm income, technology adoption, and farm economic performance. 

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Report Number 

36. <www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err36/err36.pdf> 

accessed September 24, 2008.

Fischman, Robert L. 2005. The significance of 

national wildlife refuges in the development of 

U.S. Conservation Policy. Journal of Land Use 

21(1). 22 p. 

Fitch, L.; Adams, B.W. 1998. Can cows and fish coexist? Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences. 78:191–

98.

Fleischner, Thomas L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology 8(3):629–44.

Foreman, Richard T.T.; Alexander, Lauren E. 1998. 

Roads and their major ecological effect. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics. 29:207–31 (C2).

Foresman, Kerry R. 2001. The wild mammals of 

Montana. Special Publication 12. The American 

Society of Mammalogists. 278 p.

Frank, D.A.; McNaughton, S.J. 1991. Stability increases with diversity in plant communities: 

empirical evidence from the 1988 Yellowstone 

drought. Oikos 1(3):360–62.

Freese, C.; Montanye D.; Dabrowska, K. 2009. New 

directions for the prairie economy: connecting conservation and rural development in the 

northern Great Plains. World Wildlife Fund, 

August. [Pages unknown].

Frost, Cecil. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency 

regimes of the United States: a first approximation. In: Pruden, Teresa L.; Brennan, Leonard A.; 

editors. Fire in ecosystem management: shifting 

the paradigm from suppression to prescription. 

Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceeding, Number 20; [Date of conference unknown]; 

[City and State of conference unknown]. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station. 70–81. 

———. 2008. Natural fire regimes and pre-European 

settlement vegetation of the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge. Report prepared for 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. On 

file at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lewistown, MT. 87 p. 

Fuhlendorf, Samuel D.; Engle, David M. 2001. Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: ecosystem 

management based on evolutionary grazing patters. Bioscience 51(8):625–32.

———. 2004. Application of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a shifting mosaic on tallgrass prairie. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:604–14.

Fuhlendorf, Samuel D.; Engle, David M.; Kerby, Jay; 

Hamilton, Robert. 2008. Pyric herbivory: rewilding landscapes through the recoupling of fire and 

grazing. Conservation Biology 23(3):588–98.

Fuhlendorf, Samuel D.; Harrell, Wade C.; Engle, 

David 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.

Gaines, M.S.; Diffendorfer, J.E.; Tamarin, R.H.; 

Whittam, T.S. 1997. The effect of habitat fragmentation on the genetic structure of small mammal 

populations. Journal of Heredity 88:294–304.

Gardner, William M. 1996. Missouri River pallid sturgeon inventory. Report F–78–R–2. Helena, MT: 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

25 p.

———. 2003. Statewide fisheries investigations. 

Middle Missouri River fisheries evaluations. Project Number F–113–R5. [City on file unknown], 

MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks. 58 p.

General Accounting Office. 1989. Report to Congressional requesters: national wildlife refuges—continuing problems with incompatible uses call for 

bold action. <http://archive.gao.gov/d26t7/139500

.pdf> accessed September 2011. 88 p.

Gerrity, Paul C.; Guy, C.S.; Christopher, S.; Gardner, 

William M. 2008. Habitat use of juvenile pallid 

sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon with implications for water-level management in a downstream reservoir. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 28:832–43.

Gerrity, P. C.; Guy, C. S.; Gardner, W. M. 2006. Juvenile 

pallid sturgeon are piscivorous: a call for conserving native cyprinids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:604–09.

Gibson, R.S.; Bosch, O.J.H. 1996. Indicator species for 

the interpretation of vegetation condition in the 
446 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

St. Bathans area, Central Otago, New Zealand. 

New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20(2):163–72.

Gould, William. 1998. Sturgeon chub. American Fisheries Society Web site. [URL unknown] [access 

date unknown].

Grace, James B.; Smith, M.D.; Grace, S.L.; Collins, 

S.L.; Stohlgren, T.J. 2001. Interactions between 

fire and invasive plants in temperate grasslands 

of North America. In: Gallery, K.E.M.; Wilson, 

T.P.; editors. Proceedings of the invasive species 

workshop: the role of fire in the control and spread 

of invasive species. Fire Conference 2000: the first 

national conference on fire ecology, prevention 

and management; [Date of conference unknown]; 

[City and State of conference unknown]. Miscellaneous Publication Number 11. Tallahassee, FL: 

Tall Timbers Research Station. 40–65.

Graetz, Rick; Graetz, Suzanne. 2003. CMR—Montana’s Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge; National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial 

1903–2003. Booklet prepared by Northern Rockies Publishing. On file at refuge headquarters, 

Lewistown, MT. 32 p.

Green, M.T.; Lowther, P.E.; Jones, S.L.; Davis, S.K.; 

Dale, B.C. 2002. Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus 

bairdii). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F.; editors. The Birds 

of North America, Number 638. Philadelphia, PA: 

The Birds of North America, Inc. <www.allabout

birds.org/guide/Bairds_Sparrow/lifehistory> 

accessed September 2011.

Grisak, Grant. 1998. Sicklefin chub. Montana Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit. American Fisheries Society Web site. [URL unknown] [access date 

unknown].

Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire and vegetative trends 

in the northern Rockies: interpretations from 

1871–1982 photographs. General Technical Report 

INT–158. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 117 p.

Gruenert, J.C. 1999. Second job entrepreneurs. 

Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall. [Pages 

unknown].

Guliano, William M.; Homyack, Joshua D. 2004. 

Short-term grazing exclusion effects on riparian 

small mammal communities. Journal of Range 

Management 57:346–50.

Gunderson, Lance C. 2000. Ecological resilience—in 

theory and application. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 31:425–39.

Gunderson, Lance H.; Holling, C.S.; editors. 2002. 

Panarchy: understanding transformations in 

human and natural systems. Washington, DC: 

Island Press. 507 p.

Hamann, B.; Johnston, H.; McClelland, P.; Johnson, 

S.; Kelly, L.; Gobielle, J. 1999. Birds. In: Joslin, G.; 

Youmans, H.; coordinators. Effects of recreation 

on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. [City published unknown], MT: Montana 

Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Committee on 

Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. 3.1–3.34.

Hansen, L.J.; Biringer, J.L.; Hoffman, J.R.; editors. 

2003. Buying time: a user’s manual for building 

resistance and resilience to climate change in natural systems. <www.panda.org/about_our_earth/

all_publications/?8678/BUYING-TIME-A-UsersManual-for-Building-Resistance-and-Resilience-to-Climate-Change-in-Natural-Systems> 

accessed March 17, 2010. 246 p.

Hansen, Paul. 1989. Inventory classification and 

management of riparian sites in the Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River. Missoula, 

MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Riparian Association. [Pages 

unknown].

Hansen, Paul; Cook, Brad; Ehrhart, Robert; Thompson, Bill. 1993. The development of a riparian and 

wetland ecological health evaluation form for 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge—its 

applicability for Montana. Presented at the 1993 

Annual Montana Riparian and Wetland Association Workshop; [Date of workshop unknown]; 

[City and State of workshop unknown]. Montana 

Riparian–Wetland Association draft report. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, School 

of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation 

Experiment Station. 147 p.

Hansen, Paul; Pfister, Robert; Boggs, Keith; Cook, 

Brad; Joy, John; Hinckley, Dan. 1995. Classification and management of Montana’s riparian and 

wetland sites. Missoula, MT: The University of 

Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forestry 

and Conservation Experiment Station, Montana 

Riparian and Wetland Association. 646 p.

Hansen, Paul L. 1992. Developing a riparian–wetland 

grazing management plan. Missoula, MT: The 

University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forestry and Conservation Experiment Station, Montana Riparian and Wetland Association. 

10 p.

Hansen, Paul L.; Thompson, William H.; Ehrhart, 

Robert C.; Hinckley, Dan K.; Haglan, Bill; Rice, 

Karen. 2000. Development of methodologies to 

evaluate the health of riparian and wetland area. 

In: Thurston, Vance; editor. Proceedings of the 

Fifth International Symposium of Fish Physiology, 

Toxicology, and Water Quality; November 10–13, 

1998; Hong Kong, China. EPA/6000/R–00/015. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Research and Development. 

300 p.

Hansen, P.L.; Chadde, S.W.; Pfister, R.D. 1988. 

Riparian dominance types of Montana. Miscellaneous Publication Number 49. Missoula, MT: The 

University of Montana, School of Forestry, Mon-
Bibliography 447

tana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. [Pages unknown].

Harmon, Will; editor. 1999. Best management practices for grazing Montana. Helena, MT: Environmental Protection Agency R6 and Department of 

Natural Resources and Conservation. 28 p. 

Havlick, David G. 2002. No place distant: roads and 

motorized recreation on America’s public lands. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 297 p.

Heller, Nicole E.; Zavaleta, E.S. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a 

review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological 

Conservation 142:14–32.

Hendricks, Paul. 1999. Amphibian and reptile surveys on Montana refuges. Report for U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service: Montana Field Office, 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and 

Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Helena, 

MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 27 p.

Hendricks, Paul; Maxell, B.A.; Lenard, S. 2006. 

Land mollusk surveys on USFS Northern Region 

lands. Report for USDA Forest Service, Northern Region by Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 11 p.

Hendricks, Paul S.; Currier, Lenard C.; Johnson, J. 

2005. Bat use of highway bridges in south-central Montana. Report for Montana Department 

of Transportation by Montana Natural Heritage 

Program, Helena, MT. 31 p.

Hendricks, P.S.; Currier, Lenard, C.; Maxell, B. 2007. 

Filling the distribution gaps for small mammals 

in Montana. Report for Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office by Montana Natural 

Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 17 p.

Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium 

of historical fire accounts in the northern Great 

Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource 

Publication 161. [Pages unknown].

Hoff, K.v.S.; Blaustein, A.R.; McDiarmid, R.W.; 

Altig, R. 1999. Behavior—interactions and their 

consequences. In: McDiarmid, R.W.; Altig, R.; editors. Tadpoles—the biology of anuran larvae. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 215–39.

Hoffman, Robert S.; Pattie, Donald L. 1968. A guide 

to Montana animals: identification, habitat, distribution, and abundance. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana. 133 p.

Hoffmann, Robert S.; Wright, Phillip L.; Newby, 

Fletcher E. 1969. Distribution of some mammals 

in Montana. I. Mammals other than bats. Journal 

of Mammalogy 50(3):579–604.

Hoitsma Ecological, Inc. 2006. Telegraph Creek 

riparian habitat restoration project: phase III, 

final report and recommendations. Prepared for 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, World Wildlife 

Fund, and American Prairie Foundation. On file 

at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lewistown, MT. 43 p.

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1–23.

Hollow, O’Brien; Chadwick, Amy; Hansen, Paul L. 

2001. Lower Musselshell River study. Environmental Protection Agency/Montana Department 

of Environmental Quality 319 grant project, June 

1999–May 2001. Missoula, MT: The University of 

Montana, School of Forestry, Riparian and Wetland Research Program. [Pages unknown].

Holloway, Gillian L.; Barclay, Robert M.R. 2000. 

Importance of prairie riparian zones to bats in 

southeastern Alberta. Ecoscience 7(2):115–22.

Holmes, Brian E.; Foresman, Kerry R.; Matchett, 

Marc R. 2006. No evidence of persistent Yersinia 

pestis infection at prairie dog colonies in northcentral Montana. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 

42:164–69.

Hoogland, John L. 1995. The black-tailed prairie dog: 

social life of a burrowing mammal. Wildlife behavior and ecology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 562 p.

Howe, Henry F. 1994. Managing species diversity in 

tallgrass prairie: assumptions and implications. 

Conservation Biology 8(3):691–704.

Howe, Marshall; Bart, J.; Brown, S.; Elphick, C.; 

Gill, R.; Harrington, B.; Hickey, C.; Morrison, G.; 

Skagen, S.; Wamock, N.; editors. 2000. A comprehensive monitoring program for North American 

shorebirds. Manomet Center for Conservation 

Sciences. <www.Manomet.org/USSCP/files.htm> 

[access date unknown].

Hubbard, John P. 1977. Importance of riparian ecosystems—biotic considerations. In: Importance, 

preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium. [Date of symposium unknown]; 

Tucson, AZ. General Technical Report RM–43. 

Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

49–51. 

Hurteau, M.; North, M. 2009. Fuel treatment effects 

on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions 

under modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment 7(8):409–14.

Johnson, Douglas H. 2001. Habitat fragmentation 

effects on birds in grasslands and wetlands: a critique of our knowledge. Great Plains Research 

11(2):211–13. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center Online. <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/

birds/habfrag/index.htm> accessed January 15, 

2010.

Johnson, Douglas H.; Igl, Lawrence D. 2001. Area 

requirements of grassland birds: a regional perspective. The Auk 118:24–34.
448 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Johnson, J. 2004. The state of the land—analysis of 

land use change in Montana and the three regions. 

<www.mt.gov> accessed October 2009.

Johnson, Laura C.; Wallace, George N.; Mitchell, John 

E. 1997. Visitor perception of livestock grazing in five 

U.S. wilderness areas, a preliminary assessment. 

International Journal of Wilderness 3(2):14–20.

Johnson, R. Roy; Haight, Lois T.; Simpson, James M. 

1977. Endangered species vs. endangered habitats—a concept. In: Importance, preservation and 

management of riparian habitat: a symposium; 

[Date of symposium unknown]; Tucson, AZ. General Technical Report RM–43. [Pages unknown].

Joslin, G.; Youmans, H.; coordinators. 1999. Effects of 

recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review 

for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation 

on Wildlife. [City unknown], MT: Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307 p.

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.

Karl, Thomas R.; Melillo, Jerry M.; Peterson, 

Thomas; editors. 2009. Global climate change 

impacts in the United States. U.S. Global Change 

Research Program. Cambridge University Press. 

<www.globalchange.gov> [access date unknown]. 

196 p.

Kauffman, J. Boone; Beschta, R.L.; Otting, N.; 

Lytjen, D. 1997. An ecological perspective of 

riparian and stream restoration in the western 

United States. Fisheries 22(5):12–24. 

Kauffman, J. Boone; Krueger, W.C. 1984. Livestock 

impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside 

management implications. Journal of Range Management 37(5):430–38.

Keane, R.E.; Arno, S.F.; Brown, J.K. 1990. Simulating cumulative fire effects in ponderosa pine/

Douglas-fir forests. Ecology 71(1):189–203.

Kemmimck, E. 2002. Our way of life special report: 

we are three. Montana Standard. November 17. 

<www.mtstandard.com/articles/2002/11/17/

specialreports/export47716.txt> accessed July 18, 

2008. 

Kennedy, Theodore A.; Naeem, Shahid; Howe, Katherine M.; Knops, Johannes M.H.; Tilman, David; 

Reich, Peter. 2002. Biodiversity as a barrier to 

ecological invasion. Nature 417:636–38.

Kerkvliet, J. 2008. An economic profile of Montana 

in 2008. The Wilderness Society, November. 62 p.

Knopf, Fritz L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered 

grasslands. Studies in Avian Biology 15:247–57.

Knowles, Craig; Campbell, Bruce R. 1982. Distribution of elk and cattle in a rest-rotation grazing 

system. 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, ID: 

University of Idaho; Forestry, Wildlife and Range 

Experimental Station. 47–60. 

Knowles, Craig J. 1985. Observations on prairie dog 

dispersal in Montana. Prairie Naturalist 17(1):33–40.

Knowles, Craig; Knowles, Pamela. 1994. Bird species composition and abundance in two riparian areas with differing grazing histories on the 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. On 

file at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Boulder, MT. 26 p.

Knowles, Craig J.; Knowles, Pamela R. 1995. Presettlement wildlife and habitat of Montana: an 

overview. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Online. <www.npwrc

.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/presettl/index.htm> 

(Version 16JUL97) [access date unknown].

Knowles, Craig J.; Knowles, P.R. 1994. A review of 

black-tailed prairie dog literature in relation to 

rangelands administered by the Custer National 

Forest. On file at Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge, Boulder, MT. 98 p.

Knowles, Pamela R. 1981. Habitat selection, home 

range size, and movements of bobcats in northcentral Montana [master’s thesis]. Missoula, MT: 

The University of Montana. 62 p.

Koontz, Lynne; Sexton, Natalie; Ishizaki, Asuka; Ritten, John. 2010. Regional economic impacts of current and proposed management alternatives for 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1014. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Geological Survey. 41 p.

Kotliar, Natasha B. 2000. Application of the new keystone-species concept to prairie dogs: how well 

does it work? Conservation Biology 14(6):1,715–21.

Krausman, Paul R.; Rosenstock, Steven S.; Cain, 

James W., 3rd. 2006. Developed waters for wildlife: science, perception, values and controversy. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(3):563–69.

Krueper, D.J. 1993. Effects of land use practices on 

western riparian ecosystems. Pages 321–30. In: 

Finch, D.M.; Stangel, P.W.; editors. Status and 

management of neotropical migratory birds. General Technical Report RM–229. Fort Collins, CO: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 422 p.

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species 

umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation 

Biology. 11(4):849–56.

Lambert, J. Daniel; Hodgman, Thomas P.; Laurent, 

Edward J.; Brewer, Gwenda L.; Iliff, Marshall J.; 

Dettmers, Randy. 2009. The Northeast bird monitoring handbook. The Plains, VA: American Bird 

Conservancy. 32 p.

Landsberg, Jill; Crowley, Gabriel. 2004. Monitoring 

rangeland biodiversity: plants as indicators. Austral Ecology 29:59–77.
Bibliography 449

Larson, Diane L.; Anderson, Patrick J.; Newton, 

Wesley. 2001. Alien plant invasion in mixed-grass 

prairie: effects of vegetation type and anthropogenic disturbance. Ecological Applications 

11(1):128–41.

Lausen, Cori L.; Barclay, Robert M.R. 2002. Roosting behavior and roost selection of female big 

brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) roosting in rock 

crevices in southeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80(6):1,069–76.

Leonard, Steve; Kinch, Gene; Elsbernd, Van; Borman, Mike; Swanson, Sherman. 1997. Riparian 

area management: grazing management for riparian–wetland areas. Technical Reference 1737–

14. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Natural Applied 

Resource Sciences Center. 40 p.

Leopold, Aldo; Sowls, Lyle K.; Spencer, David L. 

1947. A survey of over-populated deer ranges in 

the United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 11(2):162–77.

Leopold, A.S.; Cain, S.A.; Cottam, C.M.; Gabrielson, 

I.N.; Kimball, T.L. 1963. Wildlife management 

in the national parks: the Leopold report. Advisory board on wildlife management appointed by 

Secretary of the Interior Udall. <www.nps.gov/

history/history/online_books/leopold/leopold.htm> 

accessed March 2010.

Lesica, Peter; Miles, Scott. 2004. Ecological strategies for managing tamarisk on the C.M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, USA. Biological Conservation 119(4):535–43.

Leung, Yu-Fai; Marion, Jeffery L. 2000. Recreation 

impacts and management in wilderness: a stateof-knowledge review. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS–P–15–Vol–5. Ogden, UT. 26 p.

Licht, Daniel S.; Millspaugh, Joshua J.; Kunkel, 

Kyran, E. [and others]. 2010. Using small populations of wolves for ecosystem restoration and 

stewardship. Bioscience 60(2):147–53.

Liljeblad, Adam; Borrie, William T. 2006. Trust in 

wildland fire and fuel management systems. International Journal of Wilderness 12(1):39–43.

Lindmeier, John P. 1960. Plover, rail and godwit nesting on study area in Mahnomen County, Minnesota. The Flicker 32(1):5–9.

Loflin, Brant. 2008. Site form for site 24PH1015. On file 

at Montana Historical Society, Helena, MT.

Logan, Brian D. 2001. Avian community composition 

and nesting productivity relative to cattle grazing 

in north-central Montana. Tempe, AZ: University 

of Arizona. 66 p.

Lokemoen, John T. 1973. Waterfowl production 

on stock-watering ponds in the northern Plains. 

Journal of Range Management 26(3):179–84. 

Louv, Richard. 2005. Last child in the woods: saving 

our children from nature deficit disorder. Chapel 

Hill, NC: Aloquin. 323 p.

Luna, Carmen. 2002. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge: site description, what species, research and 

management activities, information relating to 

WHSRN, locally involved communities, bibliography. On file at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Malta, MT. 11 p.

Lyon, L.J.; Telfer, E.S. 2009. Direct effects of fire and 

immediate animal responses. In: Forest Encyclopedia Network. <www.forestencylopedia.net/p/

p700/view> accessed February 2010. 

Mack, Gene D.; Flake, Lester D. 1980. Habitat relationships of waterfowl broods on South Dakota 

stock ponds. Journal of Wildlife Management 

44(3):695–700. 

Mackey, Dennis. 1992. Planting shrubs and trees 

along the South Fork of Rock Creek. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service internal memo. Unpublished. 

On file at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lewistown, MT.

Mackie, Richard J. 1970. Range ecology and relations 

of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri River 

Breaks, Montana. Wildlife Monographs 20:3–79.

Mader, Eric; Shepard, Matthew; Vaughn, Mace; 

Black, Scott Hoffman. 2011. Attracting native 

pollinators: the Xerces Society guide to conserving North American bees and butterflies and their 

habitat. [City published unknown], MA: Storey 

Publishing. 384 p. 

Maestas, J.D.; Knight, R.L.; Gilgert, W.C. 2001. 

Biodiversity and land-use change in the American Mountain West. The Geographical Review, 

91(3):509–24.

Maher, William, J. 1974. Ecology of pomarine, parasitic and long-tailed jaegers in northern Alaska. 

Pacific Coast Avifauna 37. 157 p.

Malone, Michael; Roeder, Richard; Lang, William. 

1976. Montana, a history of two centuries. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. [Pages 

unknown].

Manfredo, Michael J.; editor. 2002. Wildlife viewing: a management handbook. Chapter 5. In: Manfredo, Michael J.; Pierce, Cynthia; Vaske, Jerry J.; 

Whittaker, Doug. An experience-based approach 

to planning and management for wildlife-viewing 

recreation. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 70–91.

Markitecture. 2007. A disciplined approach to 

developing agritourism and marketing the consumer opportunities: initial research findings. 

Prepared for The Rural Landscape Institute. 

<http://rurallandscapesinstitute.org/market_

research_02_02_07.pdf> [access date unknown]. 

136 p.
450 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Matchett, M.R.; Biggins, D.E.; Carlson, V.; Powell, 

B.; Rocke, T. 2010. Enzootic plague reduces blackfooted ferret (Mustela nigripes) survival in Montana. Journal of Vector-borne Zoonotic Diseases 

(10)1. 10 p.

Maxell, Bryce; Hokit, Grant. 1999. Amphibians and 

reptiles. In: Joslin, G.; Youmans, J.; coordinators. 

Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: 

a review for Montana. [City and State published 

unknown]: Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. 2:1–29.

Meehan, William R.; Platts, William S. 1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic environment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 33(6):274–78.

Merrell, D.J. 1970. Migration and gene dispersal in 

Rana pipiens. American Zoologist 10:47–52.

Merrell, D.J. 1977. Life history of the leopard frog, 

Rana pipiens, in Minnesota. Occasional Paper 

Number 15. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Bell Museum of Natural History. [Pages 

unknown].

Milchunas, D.G.; Noy-Meir, I. 2002. Grazing refuges: 

external avoidance of herbivory and plant diversity. Oikos. 99:113–30.

Miles, Scott. 1996. Rock Creek and Siparyann Creek 

woody riparian vegetation and cross section monitoring. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau 

of Land Management. On file at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Missoula, MT. 272 p.

Miller, Scott; Knight, Richard. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. 

<http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/openspace

/pdf_gis/IndependentResearchReports/4428_

Miller_Scott_Influence.pdf> accessed February 

2010.

Mills, L. Scott. 2007. Conservation of wildlife populations: demography, genetics, and management. 

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Company. 

[Pages unknown].

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2007. IMPLAN data 

files. <www.implan.com> [access date unknown].

Mitchell, John E.; Wallace, George N.; Wells, Marcella D. 1996. Visitor perceptions about cattle 

grazing on national forest land. Journal of Range 

Management. 49:81–86.

Moehrenschlager, A.; Moehrenschlager, C. 2001. 

Census of swift fox (Vulpes velox) in Canada and 

northern Montana: 2000–2001. Alberta Species at 

Risk Report Number 24. Edmonton, AB: Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and 

Wildlife Division. 21 p.

Montana Audubon. 2008. Montana important bird 

areas for greater sage-grouse. <www.mtaudubon

.org/birds/documents/sage-grouse_IBA_

NominationPacket2.pdf> accessed December 

2011. 22 p.

Montana Department of Commerce. 2008. Census 

and economic resources. <http://commerce.mt.gov/

censusresources.asp> accessed December 2009.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 

2001. Lower Musselshell TMDL planning area 

decision document. [City unknown], MT. 15 p.

———. Clean Water Act Information Center. 2011. 

Montana’s water quality assessment database. <http://cwaic. mt. gov/query. aspx> accessed 

October 3, 2011.

[MFWP] Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks. 2001. Adaptive harvest management: mule 

deer population objectives, hunting regulation 

strategies, special management districts, monitoring program, population modeling, deer management policies. Helena, MT: Montana Department 

of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 667 p.

———. 2002a. Helena, Montana: Fort Peck Reservoir fisheries management plan 2002–2012. 

<http:fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=31385> 

accessed October 30, 2009. 21 p.

———. 2002b. Conservation plan for black-tailed 

and white-tailed prairie dogs in Montana. Montana prairie dog working group January 2002. 

<http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=31186> 

accessed August 2010. 51 p.

———. 2004. Montana statewide elk management 

plan. <http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/elkplan.html> 

accessed November 27, 2009. 404 p.

———. 2005a. Montana comprehensive fish and 

wildlife conservation strategy 2005. Helena, 

MT. <http://fwp.mt.gov/specieshabitat/strategy/

default.html> accessed September 21, 2009. 658 p.

———. 2005b. Montana management plan and conservation strategies for sage grouse in Montana: final. Montana Sage Grouse Work Group. 

<http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=

31187> accessed October 2011. 200 p.

———. 2005–2006. Statewide fisheries investigations: Middle Missouri River fisheries evaluations. 

Project Number F–113–R7 and R8. [City, State, 

and office on file unknown]. 65 p.

———. 2006a. A guide to building and managing private fish ponds in Montana. <http://fwp.mt.gov/

content/getItem.aspx?id=19293> accessed October 30, 2009. 34 p.

———. 2006b. Final Fish, Wildlife and Parks region 6 

prairie dog abundance and distribution objectives 

plan. Region 6 Prairie Dog Advisory Board. On 

file at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. 20 p.

———. 2008a. The road ahead: strategic plans. 

<http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/insidefwp/

aboutUs.html> accessed October 21, 2009.

———. 2008b. Montana statewide comprehensive 

outdoor recreation plan, 2008 to 2012. Helena, MT. 

155 p.
Bibliography 451

———. 2009a. Bighorn sheep conservation strategy. 

<http://fwp.mt.gov/wildlife/conservation/bighorn.

html> accessed October 15, 2009.

———. 2009b. Harvest and hunting reports. <http://

fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports

.html> [access date unknown].

———. 2009c. Paddlefishing. <http://fwp.mt.gov/

fishingmontana/brochure_paddlefish.html> 

accessed October 22, 2009.

———. 2009d. Pallid sturgeon recovery program for 

the Upper Missouri River. [City unknown], MT. 

2 p.

———. 2009e. Recreation and tourism. <http://fwp

.mt.gov/doingBusiness/reference/montana

Challenge/reports/tourism.html> accessed January 1, 2010.

———. 2011. FWP fact sheet: Congress delists Montana wolf population. <http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc

.html?id=50145> accessed February 2012. 3 p.

Montana Department of Labor and Industry. 2009. 

State and county economic fliers. <www.ourfacts

yourfuture.org/cgi/databrowsing/?PAGEID=4&S

UBID=273> accessed December 2009. 

[DNRC] Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation. 2007. Oil and Gas Conservation 

Division annual review 2007. Volume 51. <www

.bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/AR_2007.pdf> [access date 

unknown]. 87 p.

———. 2011. Water Rights Bureau. <http://dnrc.

mt.gov/wrd/water_rts> accessed July 2011.

[MIAG] Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. 2010. Montana/Idaho airshed operating guide. <http://

smokemu.org/docs/20100601OpsGuide.pdf> 

accessed July 12, 2011. 56 p.

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2008. Species of 

concern. <http://nhp.nris.mt.gov/SpeciesOfConcern

Concern/Default.aspx> [access date unknown].

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2009. 

Montana animal species of concern. Helena, MT. 

17 p.

Montana Partners in Flight. 2000. Draft Montana bird 

conservation plan, version 1.0. <www.partners

inflight.org/bcps/plan/pl_mt_10.pdf> [access date 

unknown]. 288 p.

Montana Steering Committee Intermountain West 

Joint Venture. 2005. Coordinated implementation 

plan for bird conservation in western Montana. 

<http://iwjv.org/Images/MTPlan2005.pdf> [access 

date unknown]. 58 p.

More, Thomas A.; Averill, J.R.; Stevens, T.H. 1996. 

Values and economics in environmental management: a perspective and critique. Journal of Environmental Management 48:397–406.

Moulton, Gary E. 2002. The definitive journals of 

Lewis and Clark. <http://lewisandclarkjournals

.unl.edu/index.html> accessed October 6, 2009. 

3,404 p. 

Moynahan, B.J. 2004. Landscape-scale factors affecting population dynamics of greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) in north-central 

Montana, 2001–2004 [Ph.D. dissertation]. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana. [Pages 

unknown].

Moynahan, B.J.; Lindberg, C.; Thomas, J.W. 2006b. 

Factors contributing to process variance in 

annual survival of female greater sage-grouse in 

north-central Montana. Ecological Applications 

16(44):1,529–38.

Moynahan, B.J.; Lindberg, M.S.; Rotella, J.J.; 

Thomas, J.W. 2006a. Factors affecting nest survival of greater sage-grouse in north-central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 

71(6):1,773–83.

mt.gov (Montana’s Official State Web site). 2008a. 

Montana animal field guide species ranking status. <http://fieldguide.mt.gov/statusCodes.aspx> 

accessed September 19, 2008.

———. 2008b. Montana field guide. Baird’s sparrow: Ammodramus bairdii. <http://FieldGuide.

mt.gov/detail_ABPBXA0010.aspx> accessed September 19, 2008.

———. 2008c. Montana field guide. Brewer’s sparrow: Spizella breweri. <http://fieldguide.mt.gov/

detail_ABPBX94040.aspx> accessed September 19, 

2008.

———. 2008d. Montana field guide. Burrowing owl: 

Athene cunicularia. <http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/

detail_ABNSB10010.aspx> accessed September 19, 

2008.

———. 2008e. Montana Field Guide. Lark bunting: 

Calamospiza melanocorys. <http://FieldGuide.

mt.gov/detail_ABPBX98010.aspx> accessed September 19, 2008.

———. 2010. Montana field guide. Greater sagegrouse—Centrocercus urophasianus. <http://

FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_ABNLC12010.aspx> 

accessed January 26, 2010.

Murie, O.J. 1935. Report on the Fort Peck migratory 

bird refuge. Report on file at Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. [Pages 

unknown].

Murphy, Robert. 2008. Fire is for the birds in northern mixed-grass prairie. Fire Science Brief 9:1–6 

<www.firescience.gov> [access date unknown].

Myers, L.H. 1981. Grazing on stream riparian habitats in southwestern Montana. Proceedings of the 

Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Great 

Falls, MT. [Pages unknown].

Mysterud, Atle. 2006. The concept of overgrazing 

and its role in management of large herbivores. 

Wildlife Biology 12:129–41.
452 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

National Audubon Society. 2009 Important bird 

areas. <http://iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport

.do?siteId=2934&navSite=search&pagerOffset=

0&page=1> [access date unknown].

National Park Service. 2008. Glacier National Park 

fact sheet. <www.nps.gov/glac/parknews/factsheet.htm> accessed January 2010.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2001. Fire 

effects guide. NFES 2394. <www.nwcg.gov/pms/

RxFire/FEG.pdf> accessed October 2011. 313 p.

———. 2011. Glossary of wildland fire terminology. 

<www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/w.htm> 

accessed December 2011.

National Wildlife Federation. 2010. Fact sheet: 

grazing retirement auction on the C.M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge. <www.nwf-wcr.org/

PDFs/NWF-CMR-FactSheet.pdf> accessed February 22, 2010. 

———. 2011. CMR grazing allotment map. <www.

nwf-wcr.org/PDFs/WCR-MAP-CMRussellRetirements-FINAL.pdf> accessed October 2011.

[NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

1999. Grassland Birds. Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Leaflet Number 8. [City and State 

published unknown]. USDA Natural Resource 

Conservation Service. [Pages unknown].

———. 2003 edition. Grazing Lands Technology 

Institute: national range and pasture handbook. 

<http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNon

WebContent.aspx?content=17734.wba> accessed 

October 23, 2009.

———. 2005a. Montana native plants for pollinator-friendly plantings. <ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda

.gov/MT/www/technical/plants/pollinator.pdf> 

accessed October 2011. 8 p.

———. 2005b. Farm pond ecosystem. 2005. Fish and 

Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 

29. [City and State published unknown]. [Pages 

unknown].

———. 2009. Ecological site descriptions. <www.mt

.nrcs.usda.gov> accessed October 2009.

The Nature Conservancy. 2007. Prairie birds in 

peril: Nature Conservancy launches major effort 

to protect prairie bird habitat. <www.nature

.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/montana

/news/news620.html> [access date unknown].

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: an 

online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.0 Arlington, 

VA. <www.natureserve.org/explorer> accessed 

September 19, 2008.

Naugle, David E.; Aldridge, Cameron L.; Walker, 

Brett L. [and others]. 2004. West Nile virus: pending crisis for greater sage-grouse. Ecology Letters 7:704–13. 

Naugle, David E.; Aldridge, Cameron L.; Walker, 

Brett L. [and others]. 2005. West Nile virus and 

sage-grouse: what more have we learned? Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(2):616–23.

Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard 

F.; editors. 2005 (revised 2008). Wildland fire in 

ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. General Technical Report RMRS–GTR–42, volume 4. 

Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 250 p.

Needham, Robert G. 1978. Northeastern Montana 

fisheries investigation. Montana Department 

of Fish and Game Fisheries Division. Project 

Number F–11–R–25, Job Number I–a. On file 

at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lewistown, MT. 12 p.

Needham, Robert G.; Gilge, Kent W. 1980. Northeast 

Montana fisheries study: inventory and survey of 

waters of the project area. Helena, MT: Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. [Pages 

unknown].

Neppl, Travis. 1997. Riparian and wetland ecological health evaluations for Duck Creek and Brown 

Pass Coulee, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. 15 p.

Nolt, D. 2008. Revamping the Charles M. Russell 

Wildlife Refuge conservation plan. New West 

Bozeman. February 22.

Norberg, Jon; Cumming, Graeme S.; editors. 2008. 

Complexity theory for a sustainable future. [City 

and State published]: Columbia University Press. 

315 p.

Norman C. Wheeler and Associates. 2008. Newsletter. <www.ncwheeler.com> accessed October 2008. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. 

Committee. 2009. The state of the birds, United 

States of America, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 36 p.

[NRCG] Northern Rockies Coordinating Group. 2008. 

Appropriate management response summary for 

the northern Rockies. <www.wildfirelessons.net/

documents/Northern_Rockies_AMR_Strategy

.pdf> accessed September 2008. 13 p.

Noss, Reed F. 1991. Sustainability and wilderness. 

Conservation Biology 5(1):120–22.

NPA Data Services, Inc. 2007. 2007 Regional economic projections series. [City unknown], MT: 

Montana Department of Commerce, Census and 

Economic Information Center. [Pages unknown].

Ohmart, Robert D. 1996. Historical and present 

impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife 

resource in western riparian habitats. In: Krausman, P.R.; editor. Denver, CO: Rangeland Wildlife 

Society for Range Management. 245–79. 

Olson, D.; Lindall, S. 2000. IMPLAN professional. 

Version 2.0. Stillwater, MN: MIG, Inc.
Bibliography 453

Olson, R.; Hansen, J.; Whitson, T.; Johnson, K. 1994. 

Tebuthiuron to enhance rangeland diversity. 

Rangelands 16(5):197–201.

Oring, Lew; Harrington, J.W.; Brown, S.; Hickey, 

C.; editors. 2000. National shorebird research 

needs: a proposal for a national research program and example high priority research topics. 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 

<www.Manomet.org/USSCP/files.htm> [access 

date unknown].

Oschell, C.; Nickerson, N. 2006a. Niche News: Missouri River country traveler characteristics. 

<www.itrr.umt.edu/NicheNews06/Missouri

RiverCountryChar.pdf> accessed December 2009.

———. 2006b. Niche News: Russell country traveler 

characteristics. <www.itrr.umt.edu/NicheNews06

/RussellCountryChar.pdf> accessed December 2009.

Owens, R.A.; Myres, M.T. 1973. Effects of agriculture upon populations of native passerine birds of 

an Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 51:697–713.

Paige, Christine. 2008. A landowner’s guide to wildlife friendly fences. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Landowner/

Wildlife Resource Program. 44 p.

Park, John A. 1998. Site form for 24GF419. Produced 

by the Bureau of Land Management, Lewistown, 

MT. On file with the Montana Historical Society, 

Helena, MT. 

Parker, Thomas G.; Hansen, Paul L. 1996. Riparian 

and wetland ecological health evaluation of East 

Slippery Ann habitat unit (#2) and Germaine Coulee habitat unit (#55), Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge. Contract completion report 

for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative 

Agreement Number 14–48–0006–95–939, Modification Number 2. Missoula, MT: The University 

of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest 

and Conservation Experiment Station, Riparian 

and Wetland Research Program. 96 p.

Parrett, Charles; Johnson, D.R. 2004. Methods for 

estimating flood frequency in Montana based on 

data through water year 1998: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03–4308. Helena, MT. 101 p.

Parrett, Charles; Omang, R.J.; Hull, J.A. 1983. Mean 

annual runoff and peak flow estimates based on 

channel geometry of streams in northeastern and 

western Montana: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 83–4046. Helena, MT. 53 p.

Partners in Flight. 2010. What is Partners in Flight 

(PIF)? Revised November 10, 2010. <www

.partnersinflight.org/description.cfm> accessed 

December 2011.

Pauli, Jonathan N.; Buskirk, Steven W. 2007. Riskdisturbance overrides density dependence in a 

hunted colonial rodent, the black tailed prairie 

dog Cynomys ludovicianus. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 44:1,219–30.

Pearce, Cheryl M.; Smith, Derald G. 2003. Abundance and dispersal mechanisms, northern Montana, USA. The Society of Wetland Scientists. 

Wetlands 23(2):215–28.

Pearman, Myrna. 2005. Mountain bluebird trail monitoring guide. Red Deer, AB: Red Deer River 

Naturalists. [Pages unknown].

Pilliod, D.S.; Wind, Elke; editors. 2008. Habitat management guidelines for amphibians and reptiles 

of the northwestern United States and western 

Canada. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Technical Publication HMG–4. Birmingham, AL. 139 p.

Platts, William S.; Wagstaff, Fred J. 1984. Fencing 

to control livestock grazing on riparian habitats 

along streams: is it a viable alternative? North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 

4:266–72.

Poff, N. Leroy; Allan, J.D.; Bain, M.B. [and others]. 1997. Natural flow regime: a paradigm for 

river conservation and restoration. BioScience 

47(11):769–84.

Pool, Duane B.; Austin, J.E. 2006. Migratory bird 

management for the Northern Great Plains Joint 

Venture: implementation plan. General Technical 

Report TC–01. Bismarck, ND: Northern Great 

Plains Joint Venture. 171 p.

Price, Jeff; Glick, Patricia. 2002. The bird watchers 

guide to global warming. [City and State published unknown]: National Wildlife Federation 

and American Bird Conservancy. 34 p.

Puckett, Karl. 2009a. Wildlife refuge grazing deal 

sought. Great Falls Tribune. July 8.

———. 2009b. Bids received for groups’ offer of money 

for grazing land. Great Falls Tribune. August 21.

Rademaker, L.; Nickerson, N. 2006. Niche News: 

2005 nonresident traveler characteristics. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, Institute 

for Tourism and Recreation Research. <www

.itrr.umt.edu/NicheNews06/2005TravChar.pdf> 

accessed December 2009.

Ranchers Stewardship Alliance. 2008. Our mission. 

<www.ranchersstewardshipalliance.org/index

.asp> accessed December 2011.

Rasker, R. 2006. An exploration into the impact of 

industrial development versus conservation on 

western public lands. Society and Natural Resources 19:191–207.

Rasker, R.; Hansen, A. 2000. Natural amenities and 

population growth in the Greater Yellowstone 

Region. Human Ecology Review (2):30–40.

Red Lodge Clearinghouse. 2008. Matador Ranch 

grass bank. <www.rlch.org/stories/matador-ranch

-grass-bank> accessed July 15, 2008.
454 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Resilience Alliance. 2007. Assessing and managing 

resilience in social-ecological systems: a practitioners workbook. <http://resiliencealliance.com> 

accessed February 2012. 54 p.

Riley, Scott A.; Wilkinson, Kim M. 2007. Roadside 

revegetation: a new frontier for native plant 

growers. In: Riley, L.E.; Dumroese, R.K.; Landis, T.D.; technical coordinators. National proceedings: Forest and Conservation Nursery 

Associations—2006; [Date of meeting unknown]; 

[City and State of meeting unknown]. Proceedings RMRS–P–50. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

<www.rngr.net/nurseries/publications/proceedings> [access date unknown].

Robbins, Mark B.; Dale, Brenda C. 1999. Sprague’s 

pipit (Anthus spragueii). In: Poole, A.; editor. The 

Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <www.bna.birds.cornell

.edu/bna/species/439> accessed September 2011. 

Rogers, K.H.; Biggs, H. 1999. Integrating indicators, 

end points, and value systems in the strategic 

management of Kruger National Park. Freshwater Biology 41:439–51.

Rorabaugh, J.C. 2005. Rana pipiens Schreber, 1782, 

northern leopard frog. In: Lannoo, M.J.; editor. 

Amphibian declines: the conservation status of 

United States species. Berkeley, CA: University 

of California Press. 570–77.

Rosenstock, Steven S.; Ballard, Warren B.; Devos, 

James C., Jr. 1999. Viewpoint benefits and impacts 

of wildlife water developments. Journal of Range 

Management 52(4):302–11. 

Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied river morphology. 

Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology. [Pages 

unknown].

Rossenberg, Daniel K.; Noon, Barry R.; Meslow, E. 

Charles. 1997. Biological corridors: form, function, 

and efficacy. BioScience 47:677–87.

Rowe, H.I.; Bartlett, E.T. 2001. Development and 

Federal grazing policy impacts on two Colorado 

counties: a comparative study. In: Torell, A.L.; 

Bartlett, E.T.; Larranaga, R.; editors. Society 

for Range Management; February 20–23, 2001; 

Kailua–Kona, HI. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico 

State University Agricultural Experiment Station. 17 p.

Rudzitis, G. 1999. Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural West. Rural Development Perspectives 14(2):9–13.

Rudzitis, G.; Johansen, H. 1989. Migration to western wilderness counties: causes and consequences. 

Western Wildlands 15:19–23.

Ruebelmann, George N. 1982. An archaeological 

study of the Lewistown BLM District. On file at 

Bureau of Land Management headquarters, Lewistown, MT. [Pages unknown].

Rumble, Mark A.; Flake, Lester D. 1983. Management considerations to enhance use of stock ponds 

by waterfowl broods. Journal of Range Management 36(6):691–94. 

Salant, P.; Dillman, D.; Carley, L. 1997. Who’s moving into the nonmetropolitan counties? Evidence 

from Washington State. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Social and Economic Sciences Research Center. [Pages unknown].

Samson, Fred; Knopf, Fritz. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. BioScience 44(6):418–21.

Sanderson, H. Reed; Meganck, Richard A.; Gibbs, 

Kenneth C. 1986. Range management and scenic 

beauty as perceived by dispersed recreationists. 

Journal of Range Management 39(5):464–69.

Sando, Steven K.; Morgan, Timothy J.; Dutton, 

DeAnn M.; McCarthy, Peter M. 2009. Estimation of streamflow characteristics for Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge, northeastern 

Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5009. [City and State published unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey. 60 p. 

Sauls, H.S. 2006. The role of selective foraging and 

cecal microflora in sage-grouse nutritional ecology 

[master’s thesis]. Missoula, MT: The University of 

Montana. [Pages unknown].

Schroeder, M.A.; Young, J.R.; Braun, C.E. 1999. 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). In: Poole, A.; editor. The Birds of North 

America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna> 

accessed October 3, 2011. 

Schultz, James Willard. 1902. Floating on the Missouri. Helena, MT: Riverbend Publishing. 135 p.

Scott, Michael L.; Auble, Gregor T.; Friedman, Jonathan M. [and others]. 1993. Flow recommendations for maintaining riparian vegetation along 

the Upper Missouri River, Montana. Prepared 

for Montana Power Company and U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation. Fort Collins, CO: National Biological 

Survey, National Ecology Research Center. 43 p.

Scott, Michael L.; Auble, Gregor T.; Friedman, Jonathan M. 1994. Impacts of dams and high flows 

along the Upper Missouri River, Montana. Prepared for Montana Power Company, Inc. Fort 

Collins, CO: National Biological Survey, Midcontinent Ecological Science Center. 19 p.

Scott, M.L.; Auble, G.T. 2002. Conservation and restoration of semi-arid riparian forests: a case study 

from the upper Missouri River, Montana, USA. 

In: Middleton, B.; editor. Flood pulsing and wetland restoration in North America. [City and 

State published unknown]: John Wiley and Sons, 

Inc. 145–90.

Scott, M.L.; Auble, G.T.; Friedman, J.M. 1997. Flood 

dependency of cottonwood establishment along 
Bibliography 455

the Missouri River, Montana, USA. Ecological 

Applications 7:677–90.

Shackford, John S. 1996. The importance of shade to 

breeding mountain plovers. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Ornithological Society 29(3):17–24.

Shearer, LeRoy A. 1960. Use of dugouts by breeding 

ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 24(2):213–15. 

Sheley, R.L.; Svejcar, T.J.; Maxwell, B.D. 1996. A 

theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland. 

Weed Technology 7:766–73. 

Short, Jeffrey J.; Knight, J.E. 2003. Fall grazing 

affects big game forage on rough fescue grasslands. 

Journal of Range Management 28(3):213–17.

Silva, M. 2001. Abundance, diversity, and community 

structure of small mammals in forest fragments 

in Prince Edward Island National Park, Canada. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:2,063–71.

Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single species management passe in 

the landscape era? Biological Conservation 83(3):

47–257.

Sipe, Gene. 1993. Tree and shrub planting—1993. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service internal memo. 

Unpublished. On file at Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT.

Skaar, P.D. (revised by Skaar, D.; Flath, D.; Thompson, L.S.). 1985. Montana bird distribution. Montana Academy of Sciences Supplement to the 

Proceedings. Volume 44. [City and State published unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 2 p.

Skagen, Susan K.; Knopf, F.L. 1994. Migrating shorebirds and habitat dynamics at a prairie wetland 

complex. Wilson Bulletin 106(1):91–105.

Smith, B.E. 2003. Conservation assessment for the 

northern leopard frog in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [City and 

State published unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

[Pages unknown].

Smith, Jane Kapler; editor. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. General Technical Report RMRS–GTR–42, Volume 1. Ogden, UT: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. <www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_

1.pdf> accessed March 2010. 83 p.

Smucker, Kristina M.; Hutto, Richard L.; Steele, 

Brian M. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after 

wildfire: importance of fire severity and time since 

fire. Ecological Applications 15(5):1,535–49.

Stewart, E. Ray; Reese, Scott A.; Ultsch, Gordon R. 

2004. The physiology of hibernation in Canadian 

leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) and bullfrogs (Rana 

catesbeiana). Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 77(1):65–73.

Stewart, I.T.; Cayan, D.R.; Dettinger, M.D. 2004. 

Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western 

North America under a “business as usual” climate change scenario. Climate Change 62:217–32.

Stewart, Joanne E. 2007. An analysis of bat activity 

patterns along a prairie riparian corridor in eastern Montana at multiple spatial scales [master’s 

thesis]. Denver, CO: University of Denver. 148 p. 

Stewart, Kelley M.; Bowyer, R. Terry; Kie, John G.; 

Cimon, Norman J.; Johnson, Bruce K. 2002. Temporospatial distributions of elk, mule deer, and 

cattle: resource partitioning and competitive displacement. Journal of Mammalogy 83(1):229–44. 

Stewart, Robert E. 1975. Breeding birds of North 

Dakota. Version 06JUL2000. Fargo, ND: Tri-College Center for Environmental Studies. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center Online. <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/

birds/bbofnd/biog.htm> 295 p.

Stewart, Robert E.; Kantrud, Harold A. 1973. Ecological distribution of breeding waterfowl populations in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 37(1):39–50. 

Stynes, D. 1998. Guidelines for measuring visitor 

spending. [City unknown], MI: Michigan State 

University, Department of Park, Recreation and 

Tourism Resources. [Pages unknown].

Swetnam, T.W.; Betancourt, J.L. 1990. Fire-southern 

oscillation relations in the southwestern United 

States. Science 249:1,017–20.

Takats, Lisa D.; Francis, Charles M. [and others]. 

2001. Guidelines for nocturnal owl monitoring in 

North America. Edmonton, AB: Beaverhill Bird 

Observatory and Bird Studies Canada. 32 p.

Taylor, Audrey R.; Knight, R.L. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecological Applications 13(4):951–63.

Taylor, D.; Coupal, R.; Foulke, T.; Rashford, B.; 

Olson D. 2008. An economic profile of the BridgerTeton National Forest. [City and State published 

unknown]: University of Wyoming, Department 

of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 144 p.

Taylor, Daniel A.R.; Tuttle, Merlin D. 2007. Water for 

wildlife. A handbook for ranchers and range managers. Bat Conservation International <www.

batcon.org/pdfs/water/bciwaterforwildlife.pdf> 

[access date unknown]. 20 p.

Teel, T. .; Dayer, A.A.; Manfredo, M.J.; Bright, A.D. 

2005. Wildlife values in the West. Project Report 

Number 58 for the Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado 

State University, Department of Human Dimensions in Natural Resources. 344 p.

Tewksbury, Joshua J.; Black, Anne E.; Nur, Nadav 

[and others]. 2002. Effects of anthropogenic fragmentation and livestock grazing on western riparian bird communities. Studies in Avian Biology 

25:158–202.
456 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Thackeray, L. 2006. Land buys by nonprofit conservation groups concern locals. Billings Gazette, February 27. <www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006

/02/27/news/state/50-locals.tx> accessed July 29, 

2008.

Thomas, Jack W.; Maser, Chris; Rodiek, John E. 

1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands—

the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon riparian 

zones. General Technical Report PNW–80. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 19 p.

Thompson, William H.; Ehart, Robert C.; Hansen, 

Paul L. [and others]. 1998. Assessing health of 

a riparian site. In: Proceedings: Specialty Conference on Rangeland Management and Water 

Resources; [Date of conference unknown]; [City 

and State of conference unknown]. [City and State 

published unknown]: American Water Resources 

Association. 13 p.

Thompson, William H.; Hansen, Paul L. 1999. Lotic 

health assessment of selected streams on the 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Contract completion report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Cooperative Agreement Number 14–48–

0006–95–939, Modification Number 2. Missoula, 

MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Riparian and Wetland Research 

Program. 35 p.

Tilden, Freeman. 1957. Interpreting our heritage. 

Chapter 1. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North 

Carolina Press. 3–10.

TravelMT.com. 2009. Jordan Montana travel information. <www.travelmt.com/mt-cities-Jordan.html> 

accessed December 2009.

Tredennick, Cam. 2000. The National Wildlife System Improvement Act of 1997: defining the 

National Wildlife Refuge System for the twentyfirst century. 12 Fordham Environmental Law 

Journal 1:41–109.

Truett, Joe C.; Dullum, Jo Ann L.D.; Matchett, Marc 

R.; Owens, Edward; Seery, David. 2001. Translocating prairie dogs: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(3):863–72.

Tsharntke, Teja; Grieler, H.J. 1995. Insect communities, grasses and grasslands. Annual Review of 

Entomology 40:535–58. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. USA counties, 

civilian labor force. <http://censtats.census.gov/

usa/usa.shtml> accessed March 2010.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 

Upper Musselshell Water Users Association, 

and Deadmans Basin Water Users Association. 

1998. Musselshell River basin water management 

study. Lewistown, MT: Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation. 402 p.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. State and county quickfacts. <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html> 

accessed October 2009.

———. 2009. USA counties. <http://censtats.census

.gov/usa/usa.shtml> accessed October 2009. 

[USFS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Missoula, Montana: backcountry road 

maintenance and weed management. <www.fs.fed

.us/invasivespecies/document/BackcountryRd

MtceWeed.pdf> accessed October 28, 2009. 26 p.

———. 2009. Fire and aviation management. Fire 

management. <www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/

index.html> accessed March 2010.

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. 2007 Census of agriculture. <www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf> accessed 

March 12, 2012. 739 p.

———. 2011. Grazing fee rates for cattle by selected 

States and regions for 2008. <www.nass.usda

.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/Publications/

economic/prices/grazefee.htm> [access date 

unknown].

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior: Forest Service, Bureau of 

Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. 2009. Guidance for implementation of Federal wildland fire management policy <www.nifc

.gov/policies/policies_documents/GIFWFMP.pdf> 

accessed February 2012. 20 p.

[USACE] U.S. Department of Army, Army Corps 

of Engineers. 1995. Seaplane landing plan. <www

.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/Lake_Proj/Seaplane/

SeaplanePlan.htm> accessed November 13, 2009.

———. 2004. Environmental assessment implementation of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge Enhancement Act of 2000. [City and State 

published unknown]: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region. 60 p.

———. 2005. Finding of no significant impact. Implementation of the Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge Enhancement Act of 2000. On file 

at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. 

[Pages unknown].

———. 2008. Fort Peck Dam/Fort Peck Lake master 

plan. Northwestern Division. <https://www.nwo

.usace.army.mil/masterplans/> accessed December 2, 2009.

———. 2009a. Fort Peck brochure. <https://www

.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/Lake_Proj/brochures/

FP_brochure.pdf> accessed February 3, 2010. 4 p.

———. 2009b. Missouri River Recovery Program. 

Missouri River ecosystem restoration plan and 

environmental impact statement (in draft). <www

.moriverrecovery.org> [access date unknown].
Bibliography 457

———. 2009c. September 2009 monthly visitation 

data for Fort Peck Dam and Lake. Internal report 

provided by Darin McMurry, June 2010. Fort 

Peck, MT. [Pages unknown]. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2008. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis—regional economic information system. <www.bea.gov> accessed December 

2009.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Office of Fossil Energy and Office of Science report. Carbon 

sequestration research and development. <www

.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/

publications/1999_rdreport> [access date unknown].

[DOI] U.S. Department of the Interior. 1974a. Draft 

environmental impact statement. DES 74–54. 

Proposed Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Range wilderness area. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management. 136 p. 

———. 1974b. Report on proposed recommendations from draft environmental impact statement 

as forwarded to Congress. DES 74–54. Proposed 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range wilderness area. Washington, DC. 65 p. 

———. 1974c. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, 

Montana: wilderness study summary. Washington, DC. 55 p. 

———. 2001. Secretarial Order 3226. Evaluating climate change impacts in management planning. 1 p.

———. 2008a. Bison conservation initiative. <www

.doi.gov/initiatives/bison/Bison%20Bridge%20

Page%20DOI%20Bison%20Conservation%20

Initiative%20framework.pdf> accessed October 

2009. 

———. 2008b. An analysis of climate change impacts 

and options relevant to the Department of the 

Interior’s managed lands and waters. Department 

of the Interior Task Force on Climate Change. 

Report of the Subcommittee on Land and Water 

Management. <www.usgs.gov/global_change/doi_

taskforce.asp> [access date unknown].

———. 2009. Secretarial Order 3289. Addressing 

the impacts of climate change on America’s water, 

land, and other natural and cultural resources. 

<www.doi.gov/climatechange/SecOrder3289.pdf> 

accessed September 22, 2009. 4 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Bureau of Land Management. 1996. 

Kofa National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness 

and New Water Mountain Wilderness interagency 

management plan, environmental assessment, 

and decision record. Washington, DC. <www.fws

.gov/southwest/refuges/Plan/Kofa%20NWR%20

&%20Wilderness%20&%20New%20Water%20

Mtns%20IAMP%20&%20EA%20BINDER.pdf> 

accessed September 2011. 140 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service; SEMARNAP Mexico; and Environment 

Canada. 1998. North American waterfowl management plan. <www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/

files/NAWMP1998.pdf> accessed December 2011. 

43 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Census Bureau. 2006. National survey of fishing, 

hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC. 168 p.

U.S. Department of Labor. 2008. Local area unemployment statistics. <www.bls.gov/lau/#tables> 

accessed March 2010. 

U.S. Department of State. 2011. Final environmental 

impact statement for the Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Project. Applicant for a Presidential permit: 

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP. <www

.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl

.nsf?Open> accessed February 2012. 

[FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department 

of the Interior. 1982. Grazing and haying management. 6 RM 9. Fish and Wildlife Service Policy 

Manual. Washington, DC. [Pages unknown].

———. 1985. Final environmental impact statement. 

Management of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Washington, DC. 453 p. 

———. 1986. Record of decision on final environmental impact statement. Management of Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge. [City and State 

published unknown]. 5 p. 

———. 1994a. Comprehensive management plan 

and final environmental impact statement. Volume 1. Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge. 

Washington, DC. 326 p.

———. 1994b. Stocking guidelines and management 

strategies for ponds and small impoundments. 

Prepared by Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 

Fisheries and Wildlife Assistance. Valentine, NE. 

5 p. 

———. 1996. A history—Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge, Montana. On file at Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, 

MT. [Pages unknown].

———. 1999a. Fulfilling the promise: the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Arlington, VA. 94 p.

———. 1999b. National policy issuance #99–01. 

<www.fws.gov/policy/npi99_01.html> accessed 

January 25, 2010. 

———. 2000a. Compatibility. 603FW2. In: Fish and 

Wildlife Service Policy Manual. Washington, DC. 

12 p.

———. 2000b. Prescribed fire management. 

621FW3. In: Fish and Wildlife Service Policy 

Manual. Washington, DC. 3 p.
458 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

———. 2000c. Refuge planning overview. 602FW1. 

In: Fish and Wildlife Service Policy Manual. 

Washington, DC. 6 p.

———. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 601FW3. In: Fish and Wildlife 

Service Policy Manual. Washington, DC. 8 p.

———. 2003. Status assessment and conservation 

plan for the western burrowing owl in the United 

States. <www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/

birds> [access date unknown].

———. 2004a. A blueprint for the future of migratory 

birds. <http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/mbstratplan

/mbstratplan.htm> [access date unknown].

———. 2004b. National Wildlife Refuge System 

wildland fire management program strategic plan 

2003–2010. <www.fws.gov/fire/downloads/fwsfire

strategicplan.pdf> accessed October 2009. 6 p.

———. 2006a. Post 2005 hunting season mule deer and 

elk survey summary. Report on file at Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, 

Lewistown, MT. 18 p.

———. 2006b. Service responsibilities to protect 

migratory birds. 720FW2 In: Fish and Wildlife 

Service Policy Manual. Washington, DC. 11 p.

———. 2006c. Wildlife-dependent recreation. 

605FW1. In: Fish and Wildlife Service Policy 

Manual. Washington, DC. 11 p.

———. 2006d. Environmental education. 605FW6. 

In: Fish and Wildlife Service Policy Manual. 

Washington, DC. 3 p.

———. 2006e. Recreational fishing. 605FW3. In: 

Fish and Wildlife Service Policy Manual. Washington, DC. 6 p.

———. 2006f. Hunting. 605FW2. In: Fish and Wildlife Service Policy Manual. Washington, DC. 5 p.

———. 2006g. Interpretation. 605FW7. In: Fish and 

Wildlife Service Policy Manual. Washington, DC. 

3 p. 

———. 2006h. Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge: comprehensive conservation plan, wilderness stewardship plan, and environmental impact 

statement. Washington, DC. 668 p.

———. 2007a. Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge planning Web site. <www.fws.gov/cmr/

planning> accessed February 10, 2010.

———. 2007b. Chronic wasting disease management 

on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana: environmental assessment. <www.fws.gov/cmr/PDF_Files/CMRNWR

_CWD_EA_061307.pdf> accessed October 30, 

2009. 13 p.

———. 2007c. Invasive species program: National 

Wildlife Refuge System fiscal year 2007 update. 

<www.fws.gov/invasives/pdfs/InvasiveSpecies

Program_2007_revised.pdf> accessed February 3, 

2010.

———. 2007d. National bald eagle management 

guidelines. Helena, MT: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services. 25 p.

———. 2008a. Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in Montana. <www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie

/pfw/montana/> accessed October 3, 2011.

———. 2008b. Scoping report for Charles M. Russell 

and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges. <http://

fws.gov/cmr/planning/Scopingrpt_4_18_08.pdf> 

accessed November 2, 2009.

———. 2008c. Wilderness stewardship planning. 

610FW3. In: Fish and Wildlife Service Policy 

Manual. Washington, DC. 5 p.

———. 2008d. Volunteers. <www.fws.gov/volunteers

/pdfs/2008_VolunteerAndFriendsReport_072909

_Final.pdf> [access date unknown].

———. 2009a. Desert National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex; Ash Meadows, Desert, Moapa Valley, 

and Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuges: final 

comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement. Volume I. <www.fws

.gov/desertcomplex/ccp.htm> accessed September 2011.

———. 2009b. Joint ventures. <www.fws.gov/

mountain-prairie/nawm/> accessed September 22, 

2009.

———. 2009c. Let’s go outside. <www.fws.gov/lets

gooutside> accessed October 30, 2009.

———. 2009d. Mountain–Prairie. <www.fws.gov/

mountain-prairie/mt1.html> accessed September 

2, 2009. 

———. 2009e. Refuge System. <www.fws.gov/

refuges> accessed September 2, 2009.

———. 2009f. Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 

Program. <http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages

/GrantPrograms/SFR/SFR_Accomplishments

.htm> accessed July 30, 2009. 

———. 2010a. Annual report of lands under control 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as of September 30, 2010. Washington, DC. 50 p.

———. 2010b. Refuge revenue sharing database. 

2008. Washington, DC: Realty Division.

———. 2010c. Rising to the challenge: strategic plan 

for responding to accelerating climate change. 

Washington, DC. <www.fws.gov/home/climate

change/pdf/CCStrategicPlan.pdf> accessed April 

2011.

———. 2010d. Timeline of the American Bison. <www

.fws.gov/bisonrange/timeline.htm> accessed June 

2010.

———. 2010e. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) conservation plan. <www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/

species/birds/spraguespipit/SpraguesJS2010r4

.pdf> accessed October 2011.

———. 2011a. Information quality. Ensuring the 

quality and credibility of information. <www.fws
Bibliography 459

.gov/informationquality/peer_review/index.html> 

accessed July 2011. 

———. 2011b. Managing invasive plants. Management methods: grazing. <www.fws.gov/invasives/

staffTrainingModule/methods/grazing/introduction

.html> accessed July 2011. 

———. 2011c. Migratory bird lists. Migratory Bird 

Program. <www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Current

BirdIssues/Management/BirdManagement.html> 

accessed September 2011. 

———. 2011d. National wildlife refuges purposes 

database. <www.fws.gov/refuges/policiesandbudget

/purposes/Purposes_Search.cfm> accessed April 18, 

2011.

———. 2011e. Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge: 

draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement. Washington, DC. 

<www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/NV/

docssheldon.htm> accessed September 2011. 591 p.

———. 2011f. Montana refuge saves sage-grouse as 

part of broader initiative. Refuge Update, May/

June 2011. <www.fws.gov/refuges/RefugeUpdate

/pdfs/refUp_MayJune_2011.pdf> accessed October 2011. 28 p.

———. 2011g. Visitor services standards: a handbook for evaluating visitor services programs. 

Washington, DC. 87 p.

U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

1979. Mineral resources of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge; Fergus, Garfield, 

McCone, Petroleum, Phillips and Valley Counties, 

Montana. Revised 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Geological Survey. [Pages unknown].

U.S. House of Representatives, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session. 1997. Report 105–106. National Wildlife 

Refuge Improvement Act. <www.fws.gov/refuges/

realty/archives/pdf/HR_Report_106.pdf> accessed 

September 2011. 26 p.

Van Dyke, F. 2003. Conservation biology: foundations, concepts, applications. 2nd edition. [City 

and State published unknown]: McGraw-Hill. 

[Pages unknown].

Van Tassell, Larry W.; Richardson, James W. 1998. 

Impacts of Federal grazing reductions on Wyoming ranches. In: Stubble height and utilization measurements: uses and misuses. Western 

Regional Research Publication. Oregon State 

University Bulletin 682. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Oregon State Agricultural 

Experiment Station. 1998:50–56.

 Van Vuren, Dirk. 1981. Comparative ecology of bison 

and cattle in the Henry Mountains, Utah. In: Proceedings of the wildlife–livestock relationships 

symposium; April 20–22, 1981; Coeur d’Alene, ID. 

Moscow, ID: University of Idaho; Forest, Wildlife 

and Range Experiment Station. 449–57.

Vavra, Martin; Sheehy, D.P. 1996. Improving elk 

habitat characteristics with livestock grazing. 

Rangelands 18(5):182–85.

Vias, A.C. 1999. Jobs follow people in the rural Rocky 

Mountain West. Rural Development Perspectives 

14(2):14–23.

Vickery, P.D.; Blanco, D.E.; Lopez-Lanus, B. 2008. 

Conservation plan for the upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). Version 1.0. Manomet, MA: 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 

[Pages unknown].

Vickery, Peter D.; Herkert, James R.; Knopf, Fritz 

L. 1999. Grassland birds: an overview of threats 

and recommended management strategies. In: 

Bonney, Rick; Pashley, David N.; Cooper, Robert J.; Niles, Larry; editors. 1999. Strategies for 

bird conservation: the Partners in Flight planning 

process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://birds.

cornell.edu/pifcapemay> [access date unknown].

Vinkey, Ray S.; Schwartz, M.K.; McKelvey, K.S. 

[and others]. 2006. When reintroductions are augmentations: the genetic legacy of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Montana. Journal of Mammalogy 

87(2):265–71.

Vodehnal, W.L.; Haufler, J.B.; compilers. 2007. A 

grassland conservation plan for prairie grouse. 

Fruita, CO: North American Grouse Partnership. 

286 p.

Wagner, Robbin. 1996. Memorandum to Bill Haglan. 

Rock Creek Fish Collections. On file at Charles 

M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, 

MT. 

Walcheck, Kenneth C. 1970. Nesting bird ecology of 

four plant communities in the Missouri River 

Breaks, Montana. The Wilson Bulletin 82(4):370–

82.

Walker, Brian; Salt, David. 2006. Resilience thinking. [City and State published unknown]: Island 

Press. 174 p.

Watts Robert C.; Eichhorn, L.C. 1981. Changes in 

the birds of central Montana. Proceedings, Montana Academy of Science 40:31–40. 

Werner, J. Kirwin; Mawell, Bryce A.; Hendricks, 

Paul; Flath, Dennis L. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press 

Publishing Company. 262 p.

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 

2007. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. <www

.whsrn.org/shorebirds/status.html> [access date 

unknown].

White, T. 1978. The importance of a relative shortage 

of food in animal ecology. Oecologia (Berl.) 33:71–

86.

The Wilderness Society. 1992. Wilderness Society, 

volume 56–57. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. [Pages unknown].
460 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

———. 2009. Evaluation of accessibility and visibility of roads on the Charles M. Russell NWR. 

On file at the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, Lewistown, MT. [Pages 

unknown]. 

The WILD Foundation. 2006. International Journal 

of Wilderness 2006: trust in wildland fire and fuel 

management decisions. April 2006:(12)1.

Wildland Fire Associates. 2005. Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge wildland fuels assessment. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region, Denver, CO. 40 p.

Williams, Eugene. 1991. Riparian rehabilitation: 

UL Bend NWR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

internal report. Unpublished. On file at Charles 

M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, 

MT. [Pages unknown].

Williams, J.E.; Johnson, J.E.; Hendrickson, D.A. [and 

others]. 1989. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special concern: 1989. 

Fisheries 14(6):3–20.

Willmore, Ille. 1990. Homesteading and homesteaders. In: Homestead shacks over buffalo tracks—

a history of northeastern Fergus County by Roy 

History Committee. Bozeman, MT: Color World 

Printer. 516 p.

Wilson, Don E.; Ruff, Sue. 1999. The Smithsonian 

book of North American mammals. Washington, 

DC: Smithsonian Institute and American Society 

of Mammalogists. 750 p.

Wilson, S.D.; Belcher, J.W. 1989. Plant and bird 

communities of native prairie and introduced 

Eurasian vegetation in Manitoba, Canada. Conservation Biology 3(1):39–44.

Wood, Garvey. 1977. Wild and scenic river historical 

archaeological investigation. Report for Bureau 

of Land Management, Lewistown Field Office, 

by Gar Wood and Associates, Loma, MT. [Pages 

unknown].

Wright, H.A.; Neuenschwander, L.F.; Britton, C.M. 

1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrush-grass 

and pinyon-juniper plant communities. A state-ofthe-art review. General Technical Report INT–58. 

Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p.

Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire Ecology. United States and southern Canada. [City 

and State published unknown]: John Wiley and 

Sons, Inc. [Pages unknown].

Wyman, S.; Bailey, D.; Borman, M. [and others]. 2006. 

Riparian area management: grazing management 

processes and strategies for riparian–wetland 

areas. Technical Reference 1737–20. BLM/ST/

ST–06/002+1737. Denver, CO: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Science and Technology Center. 105 p.

Young, D.J.; Martin, L. 2003. Moving in or moving 

out?—migration patterns vary by age and region. 

In: Montana Business Quarterly, winter. Missoula, 

MT: The University of Montana, School of Business Administration, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 3 p.

Young, Jock; Cilimburg, A.; Noson, A.; Hutto, R.; 

Casey, D. 2006. A plan for coordinated all-bird 

monitoring in Montana. Missoula, MT: Montana 

CBM Steering Committee. [Pages unknown].

Young, Jock A.; Hoffland, John R.; Hutto, Richard 

L. 2001. Birds and vegetation structure in tallwillow riparian communities of central Montana. 

Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, Division of Biological Sciences, Avian Science Center. 

<http://avianscience.dbs.umt.edu/projects/documents/Willow2001_Report.pdf> accessed February 16, 2010.

Zwickel, F.C.; Schroeder, M.A. 2003. Grouse of the 

Lewis and Clark Expedition, 1803 to 1806. Northwestern Naturalist 84(1):2003, 1–9.
Index

A

access: XVII, XVIII, XX–XXV, XXVII, 3, 12–14, 29, 31, 32, 34, 

45, 51–54, 59, 73, 74, 77, 108, 111, 114–124, 129–132, 

137, 138, 141, 147, 152, 159, 164, 166, 171, 172, 181, 182, 

186, 240–246, 248, 249, 255, 264, 265, 271, 272, 274, 

277–280, 284, 285, 287, 289, 292, 293, 295, 302, 303, 308, 

311–316, 320–327, 331, 337, 347, 348, 340, 343, 350, 352, 

353, 356, 359, 374, 377, 378, 385, 386, 388, 389, 392, 393, 

396, 400, 404, 409–415, 417

accessibility: XIII, 54, 59, 123, 131, 165, 242, 312, 321, 322, 

326, 364, 379, 401

accessible: XX, 13, 29, 32, 34, 51, 59, 108, 114, 116–119, 121, 

123, 125, 126, 130, 132, 133, 141, 164, 165, 172, 240, 242, 

243, 245, 246, 319, 321–323, 331, 359, 364, 385, 393, 400, 

412

See also parking

adaptive management: XII, XIX, 29, 59, 66, 67, 71, 86, 89, 90, 

112, 143, 150, 151, 155, 165, 166, 203, 291, 305, 309, 394, 

396

adaptive resource management: 8, 359

agriculture: XXI, XIII, XXV, 39, 72, 88, 147, 157, 181, 186, 206, 

209, 225, 236, 247, 248, 251, 255, 258–263, 265, 278–280, 

288, 334, 348, 350, 351, 360 363, 368

air quality: XXV, 80, 145, 170, 171, 181, 269, 271–273, 276, 282, 

349, 353, 400

all-terrain vehicles: XXXI. See also ATVs

alternatives

alternative A: XX, XXII, XXIII, XXV–XXVIII, 31, 33, 40, 45, 

46, 51, 52, 54, 59, 60, 62, 72, 75, 79, 80, 83, 86, 88, 90, 

98, 104, 106–108, 112, 114, 115, 117, 119, 122, 124–126, 

128, 129, 132, 133, 135, 137, 139, 140, 142, 144, 151–154, 

157, 165, 166, 244, 271–297, 299–304, 306–327, 330–348, 

350–353, 404, 415–417

alternative B: XX, XXI, XXV–XXVIII, 31, 39, 51, 52, 54, 59, 

60, 64, 65, 69, 72, 74, 75, 78, 79, 81, 84, 86, 89, 91, 99, 

101, 104, 106–108, 112, 115, 119, 120, 122, 124, 126, 

128–130, 133, 134, 136, 137, 139, 141–143, 145, 149, 

151–154, 157, 163, 271–315, 317–324, 326–328, 330, 

335–338, 340, 345–353, 378, 379, 408, 409, 411–417

alternative C: XX, XXII, XXV–XXVIII, 31, 40, 46, 60, 66, 67, 

73, 77, 80–82, 85, 87, 90, 97, 102, 104, 107, 110, 114, 116, 

121, 123, 124, 126–128, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 140, 142, 

143, 145, 151–154, 157, 272–274, 276–281, 283, 285–

296, 298–302, 306–310, 312, 314–320, 322–324, 326, 327, 

338–343, 345–353, 378, 417

alternative D: XX, XXIII, XXV–XXVIII, 31, 33, 46, 52, 53, 65, 

68, 69, 70, 74, 78, 80, 83, 85, 88, 90, 98, 103, 105, 107, 

110, 114, 118, 121, 125, 127, 129, 131–133, 135, 137, 139, 

140, 142, 144, 145, 151–154, 157, 158, 271–273, 275–

281, 283–289, 291–296, 298–302, 307, 308, 310, 312, 314, 

315, 317–320, 322–324, 326, 327, 342–348, 350, 351, 353, 

377–379, 386, 387, 411, 416, 417

alternatives development: 31, 148, 376

preferred alternative: XX, XXIII, 2, 31, 33, 53, 151, 157, 353, 

363, 375, 376, 386, 387

amphibians: XXIV, XXVI, 60, 74, 76, 77, 102, 112, 114, 163, 

187, 207, 235, 289, 291, 292, 308–311, 355, 359, 419, 431 

See also frogs

aquatic: XIX, 27, 30, 40, 51, 86, 113, 132, 157, 159, 165, 186, 

187, 196, 208, 213, 235, 281, 290, 292, 350, 362, 364 

Includes aquatic ecosystems, habitat, plants, species, 

and wildlife

aspen: 69, 93, 95, 197, 203–205, 419, 429

ATVs: XXXI, 34, 45, 121, 129, 165, 166, 316, 359, 392–394

B

bears

bear, grizzly: See grizzly bear

black bear: 117, 169, 223, 440

bicycling: XVIII, 13, 34, 59, 129, 165, 166, 245, 246, 392–394

See also mountain bikes

big game: XX–XXII, XXIV, XXVI, XXVIII, 11, 25, 33, 34, 45, 51, 

59, 60, 61, 64, 66, 74, 107–112, 114–119, 132, 135, 145–

147, 152, 157, 158, 163–167, 182, 187, 202, 229, 240, 242, 

246, 286, 292, 293, 301–308, 311–315, 322, 326, 331–333, 

336–339, 342, 347, 355, 365, 379, 384, 385, 390, 391, 395

See also bighorn sheep, elk, mountain lion, mule deer, pronghorn, and white-tailed deer

bighorn sheep: XV, XVII, XXI, XXII, 13, 20, 34, 39, 45, 51, 54, 

60, 61, 64, 66, 68, 107–111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 136, 145–

147, 163, 164, 201, 229, 233–235, 240, 242, 283, 302–305, 

313–315, 317, 365, 440

biological control: 54, 159, 207, 213, 359, 362

birds: XV, XVII, XXII–XXIV, XXVI, XXVIII, 3, 6–8, 20, 27–29, 

34, 40, 54, 60, 67, 68, 71–74, 76, 77, 90–98, 102, 114, 118, 

122, 130, 143, 147, 148, 152, 159, 161, 162, 164, 165, 182, 

187, 196, 198, 203, 209, 214, 217–219, 221, 222, 226, 228, 

240, 242, 284, 291–296, 298, 302, 303, 308, 311, 312, 315, 

355, 360–362, 364–366, 379, 384, 394, 399–401, 419, 433, 

434

See also focal species, grassland birds, migratory birds, 

threatened and endangered species, and upland birds

bison: XVII, XXII, XXIV, 13, 26, 39, 60, 64, 70, 78, 81, 106, 107, 

147, 149, 152, 164, 168, 187, 188, 197, 198, 209, 219, 229, 

247–252, 265, 292, 300, 301, 305–307, 311, 317, 352, 355, 

366, 440

black-footed ferret: XIII, 7, 8, 27, 29, 34, 45, 60, 64, 98, 99, 

102, 103, 140, 148, 162, 164, 219–221, 224, 225, 296, 297, 

311, 325, 415, 440

black-tailed prairie dog: XV, XXII, 7, 20, 29, 34, 45, 51, 54, 

60, 98–101, 103, 114, 128, 129, 142–144, 146, 147, 162, 

164, 165, 188, 201, 219–221, 224–227, 236, 242, 265, 286, 

294, 296–298, 352, 387, 395, 415, 439
462 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

blinds, viewing: XXIV, 34, 59, 116–118, 122–126, 141, 165, 

240, 242, 246, 274, 279, 281, 295, 299, 312, 317, 319

boating: XX, XXIII, 3, 32, 34, 45, 52, 59, 87, 108, 114–119, 121, 

129–133, 141, 166, 174, 181, 240–242, 244, 245, 249, 250, 

271, 272, 277, 278, 295, 296, 314, 316, 321, 323, 349, 353, 

356, 377, 385–388, 391, 412, 414

brucellosis: 106, 304

Bug Creek: 29, 32, 75, 77, 140, 239, 328

byways: 14, 29, 239

See also Missouri Breaks Back Country Byway

C

camping: XXII, XVIII, 13, 26, 34, 40, 45, 46, 51, 52, 59, 114–

120, 131–133, 135, 159, 166, 171, 174, 181, 196, 240–242, 

246, 264, 265, 274, 277, 279, 280, 295, 314, 323, 383, 385, 

387–389, 391

candidate species: 96, 148, 221, 224, 226, 365

cattle: 15, 78, 95, 149, 158, 174, 188, 195, 197, 198, 201, 203, 

208, 209, 211, 250, 251, 261–263, 265, 278, 280, 290, 291, 

299, 300, 334, 345, 365, 440

See also grazing (livestock)

chronic wasting disease: 110, 304

chub: See sicklefin chub and sturgeon chub

climate change: XVIII, XXIV, XXIX, 8, 9, 13, 14, 28, 33, 34, 

40, 51, 54, 60, 68, 69, 88–90, 112, 127–129, 145, 146, 149, 

161, 162, 170, 201, 217, 271, 272, 282, 296, 349, 353, 360, 

395

closures: XX, XXIV, XXVII, XXVIII, 34, 39, 59, 77, 115–117, 

129–132, 137, 165–167, 245, 255, 256, 265, 272, 273, 

276–278, 287, 292, 293, 310, 312, 313, 315, 321, 322, 326, 

327, 346, 348, 353, 356, 359, 408, 409, 415, 417

compatibility: XX, 4, 5, 16, 34, 39, 62, 74, 114, 146, 148, 149, 

150, 202, 359, 360, 362, 383, 385–388, 390, 391, 393, 395, 

397

compatibility determination: 4, 5, 34, 74, 114, 149, 359, 360, 

383, 385–388, 390, 391, 393, 395, 397

compatible use: 4, 5, 119, 120, 290, 359, 360

conservation districts: XV, 1, 11, 12, 39, 66, 68, 71, 142, 150, 

151, 244, 352, 368, 374, 376, 377, 380

conservation easements: XXII, 40, 51, 54, 168, 223

conservation strategy: 8, 92–94, 102, 106, 110, 111, 113, 146, 

147, 233

contamination: 40, 159, 281

cooperating agencies: XV, XX, 1, 2, 10, 12, 31, 352, 367, 374–

376

cottonwood: XIX, 28, 29, 64, 69, 72, 80, 94, 95, 187, 197, 206, 

208, 209, 211, 213, 217, 252, 288, 311, 419, 429

coyote: 34, 64, 104, 105, 108, 114, 117, 118, 133, 163, 164, 167, 

224, 225, 228, 299, 300, 313, 384, 440

cultural resources: XIX, 30, 39, 46, 52, 59, 130, 137–139, 142, 

151, 167, 246, 252, 279, 280, 318, 319, 327, 328, 351, 357, 

360, 369

cumulative impacts: 16, 145, 160, 270, 271, 282, 310, 311, 323, 

324, 327–329, 348, 370, 388, 390, 391, 393, 395, 396

D

deer: XV, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, 13, 20, 26, 27, 29, 34, 51, 60, 64, 

66, 68, 73, 75, 96, 107, 108, 109, 110, 114, 115, 117, 142, 

145, 147, 163, 164, 165, 198, 201, 203, 209, 211, 229, 230, 

231, 232, 233, 234, 240, 242, 252, 283, 302, 303, 304, 305, 

311, 313, 350, 352, 359, 365, 384, 385, 387, 395, 440. See 

also mule deer and white-tailed deer

dinosaurs: See fossils and paleontological resources

disease: 34, 45, 89, 98, 100, 107, 109, 110, 143, 162, 200, 220, 

226, 304, 308, 350, 363

See also brucellosis, chronic wasting disease, and West Nile 

virus

districts: See conservation districts

E

easements: See conservation easements

ecological processes: XIX, XXI, XXIII, 30, 39, 53, 54, 59, 

60–62, 69, 89, 96, 103, 111, 127, 129, 131, 132, 136, 137, 

144, 157, 161, 164, 165, 167, 168, 174, 187, 198, 203, 283, 

285, 291, 298, 300, 301, 303, 304, 306, 307, 314, 315, 325, 

350, 351, 353, 359, 361, 364, 387, 394, 417, 419

economics: XVIII, XX–XXV, XXVII, 4, 5, 14, 28, 30, 31, 33, 

39, 40, 46, 51–53, 62, 73, 83, 85, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 

121, 133, 135, 137, 143, 145, 147–150, 157–159, 161–163, 

166–168, 253, 254, 257, 259, 264–267, 269, 271, 273, 282, 

285, 288, 289, 294, 300, 301, 311, 314, 318, 323, 329–349, 

351, 353, 356, 357, 362, 394, 395, 417

See also socioeconomics

elk: XV, XXI, 13, 20, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39, 51, 60, 64, 66, 68, 73, 

75, 96, 107–111, 114, 115, 117, 121–123, 125, 126, 128, 

129, 131, 133, 135, 141, 142, 147, 151, 163, 164, 166, 169, 

197, 201, 203, 209, 211, 229–231, 233, 234, 240, 242, 243, 

245, 252, 272, 274, 278, 279, 283, 289–291, 293, 295, 

302–305, 311–313, 316, 317, 319, 323, 352, 359, 378, 384, 

385, 387, 395, 408, 440

employment: XXXI, 148, 254, 256–260, 329–344, 347

endangered species: XVII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, XXVI, XXVIII, 

XXXI, 3, 7, 13, 29–31, 33, 39, 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 60, 68, 

74, 75, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 90, 98, 100–102, 108, 120, 127, 

132, 136, 157, 162, 165, 187, 211, 219, 221–224, 226–229, 

235, 269, 291, 293, 296–299, 302, 310, 329, 349, 350, 360, 

365, 379, 383, 400, 433

See also black-footed ferret, least tern, pallid sturgeon, and 

threatened and endangered species

environmental education: XVIII, XXIV, XXVI, 4, 5, 13, 34, 45, 

51, 59, 126–128, 151, 152, 165, 240, 243, 312, 318, 319, 

351, 356, 362, 363, 366, 386, 387, 389, 390, 399, 416

environmental justice: 346, 357

erosion: 40, 59, 76, 116, 129, 146, 159, 160, 166, 183, 187, 210, 

266, 278–281, 292, 348, 349, 351, 360, 394, 395, 407
Index 463

F

fences: XVII, XX, XXII, 13, 33, 40, 46, 53, 63–67, 70–72, 75, 76, 

101, 104, 130, 141, 147, 157–160, 171, 173, 174, 186–188, 

195, 196, 203, 208, 211, 250, 269, 274, 276, 280, 284, 285, 

287, 290, 291, 293, 294, 304, 306, 308, 310, 340, 345–347, 

350, 352, 357, 362, 365, 377, 394, 395, 397

ferret: See black-footed ferret

field stations: XXI, 39, 40, 52, 60, 65, 66, 85, 103, 121, 123–

126, 143, 157, 168, 240, 242, 243, 246, 274, 365

Fort Peck Field Station: 34, 46, 52, 60, 141, 142, 153, 174, 243, 

244, 253, 274, 367, 386

Jordan Field Station: 52, 60, 154, 168, 367

Lewistown Field Station: 142

Sand Creek Field Station: 45, 52, 60, 90, 122, 124, 125, 142, 

154, 174, 243, 274, 279, 280, 295, 318, 319, 367, 410

fire

fire management: XIX, XX, 30, 32, 33, 39, 46, 53, 54, 80–85, 

100, 102, 153, 154, 157, 161, 200, 201, 273, 274, 282, 299, 

307, 309, 310, 345, 351, 355, 361, 367

prescribed fire: XX, XXI, XXIII–XXV, 5, 32, 33, 40, 46, 51, 53, 

59, 60, 63, 64, 66–68, 71, 74, 80–85, 90, 100–102, 111–

113, 132, 145, 152, 157, 158, 160, 161, 171, 174, 181, 188, 

198, 200, 201, 207, 219, 239, 269, 270–274, 276–282, 284, 

285, 288, 294, 296, 298, 299, 302, 303, 305–310, 345, 346, 

348, 350–355, 361, 363, 366, 376, 377, 417

wildfire: XVII, XX, XXIII–XXV, 26, 29, 32, 33, 39, 40, 46, 51, 

54, 59, 60, 66, 68, 80, 81, 83–85, 90, 100–102, 113, 145, 

146, 152, 157, 161, 170, 171, 181, 188, 198–201, 204, 211, 

269, 271–274, 276, 278, 279, 281, 282, 284–286, 294, 298, 

302, 303, 307, 345, 346, 348, 349, 353–355, 359, 361, 366

wildland fire: XIX, 13, 29, 30, 33, 40, 51, 53, 80–82, 90, 113, 

157, 200, 276, 278, 281, 351, 361, 363, 366 

See also pyric herbivory

fish: XV–XVII, XX–XXIV, XXVI, XXXI, 1–5, 8, 13–15, 25, 28, 31, 

40, 45, 51, 60, 64, 76, 77, 78, 88, 92–94, 101, 102, 106, 

112, 113, 114, 119, 120, 121, 126, 132, 146, 147, 149, 150, 

158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 167, 187, 209, 222, 227, 235, 236, 

237, 241, 242, 243, 246, 263, 280, 291, 292, 295, 308, 309, 

310, 311, 313, 317, 333, 347, 352, 355, 359–367, 369, 380, 

381, 383, 384, 386, 397, 399–401, 417, 419

fish, native: 45, 119, 158, 310

See also fishing, pallid sturgeon, sicklefin chub, and sturgeon 

chub

fishing: XV, XVIII, XXIV, XXVI, XXVII, 4, 5, 13, 14, 26, 34, 45, 

51, 59, 77, 114, 119–122, 131, 133–135, 147, 148, 151, 

152, 160, 163, 164, 166, 174, 240–242, 246, 258, 263–

265, 267, 272, 279, 280, 291, 293, 295, 296, 312, 316, 323, 

331–333, 336, 337, 339, 340, 342, 343, 351, 352, 356, 362, 

363, 365, 366, 383, 385, 386, 388, 393, 399, 404, 415

focal species: XXI, XXIII, XXVIII, 39, 53, 60, 62, 64, 65, 68, 

69, 71, 72, 74–76, 78, 79, 81–83, 86, 91, 92, 94–98, 100, 

157, 158, 162, 197, 218, 219, 228, 283, 284, 286, 287, 296, 

298, 300, 354, 361, 379, 419

forest: XV, XIX, XXXI, 13, 20, 29, 39, 81–83, 92, 94, 95, 112, 

170, 171, 174, 197, 200, 208, 209, 214, 219, 235, 252, 260, 

261, 284–286, 294, 295, 302, 324, 329, 365, 368, 380, 404, 

407

Fort Peck

Fort Peck Dam: XV, 1, 20, 137, 145, 182, 183, 185, 211, 212, 

217, 222, 223, 242, 243, 251, 255, 291, 311, 323, 414

Fort Peck Field Station: See field stations

Fort Peck Lake: 15, 34, 51, 52, 86, 119–121, 132, 134, 145, 

159, 186, 211, 221, 223, 228, 244, 245, 252, 264, 311, 323, 

380, 386, 392, 393, 414

Fort Peck Reservoir: XIII, XV, XIX, 20, 25, 26, 29, 32, 75, 79, 

80, 101, 119, 129, 134, 147, 174, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 

201, 202, 213, 221, 222, 223, 224, 227, 233, 241, 245, 246, 

247, 277, 320, 386, 407, 413, 414

Fort Peck Visitor Center: 122, 240

fossils: XV, 29, 39, 139, 253, 255, 279, 328, 348, 349, 351, 385

fossil areas: 140, 239. See also Bug Creek and Hell Creek

See also paleontological resources

fox: See swift fox

Friends groups: 46, 128, 129, 143, 144, 320, 361

frogs: 77, 227, 235, 308, 359, 431

See also amphibians and northern leopard frog

furbearers: XXII, XXIV, XXVI, 60, 103–105, 115, 117, 118, 152, 

163, 187, 228, 291, 292, 299, 300, 302, 311, 315, 355

See also trapping

G

geology: 14, 125, 182, 264, 390, 408, 417

goals: XIX, XX, XXIV, XXIX, 1–3, 5–8, 10, 11, 15, 19, 29, 30, 31, 

33, 39, 46, 52, 53, 59, 60, 62, 63, 68, 89, 99, 101, 111, 112, 

120, 125, 127–129, 140, 142, 146–150, 157, 164, 167, 168, 

170, 171, 202, 203, 221, 222, 239, 249, 270, 284, 295, 307, 

312, 313, 317–319, 340, 349, 350–352, 359, 361, 363, 364, 

370, 373, 375, 379, 394, 399, 416

grassland: 6, 8, 54, 64, 71, 82, 86, 89, 92, 96, 97, 102, 108, 130, 

143, 147, 170, 182, 196, 197, 199, 200, 203, 209, 214, 

217–219, 235, 236, 242, 250, 251, 271, 273, 281, 293–296, 

305, 311, 361, 364, 394, 407

native grassland: 147, 196, 295

grassland birds: 8, 96, 97, 130, 147, 196, 214, 217, 219, 242, 

293–296, 311. See also upland birds

See also prairie and upland

gray wolf: See northern gray wolf

grazing: XVII, XVIII, XX–XXVIII, 5, 13–15, 20, 25–28, 32, 33, 

39, 40, 51, 53, 54, 60, 62–80, 82, 83, 87, 88, 93, 96, 97, 

100–103, 107, 108, 110, 112, 133, 144–151, 157, 158, 160, 

161, 171, 174, 186–188, 195, 197–204, 208–211, 218, 219, 

229, 238, 239, 250, 254, 259, 262, 265–267, 269, 274, 

276–296, 298–300, 303–311, 313, 314, 325, 326, 329, 330, 

333–335, 337, 338, 340, 341, 343–355, 357, 359, 363, 364, 

376, 377, 379, 383, 394–396, 400, 417

grazing management: XXVII, 77, 210, 290–292, 348, 395

livestock grazing: XVII, XVIII, XX–XXV, XXVIII, 5, 13–15, 

20, 26–28, 33, 40, 51, 53, 54, 62–66, 68, 71, 73, 75, 76, 78, 

80, 82, 83, 87, 101, 103, 107, 108, 110, 146, 147–150, 157, 

158, 160, 171, 174, 186–188, 195, 199–203, 208–210, 211, 

219, 238, 239, 250, 259, 266, 269, 276–278, 280–284, 286, 

287, 289, 290–292, 294, 298, 300, 303, 306, 308, 314, 325, 

330, 334, 337, 340, 343, 345, 348–350, 353, 354, 363, 377, 

394, 417
464 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

overgrazing: 20, 40, 71, 159, 211, 286, 291

prescribed grazing: XXVIII, 62, 283, 284, 354, 359, 394

prescriptive grazing: XXI, XXV, XXVIII, 13, 28, 32, 33, 40, 51, 

53, 54, 62–68, 70–72, 78, 79, 100, 101, 149, 157, 158, 160, 

161, 202, 276–281, 283–287, 289–291, 293–296, 298, 303, 

304, 306, 307, 309–311, 325, 326, 337, 340, 343, 345–349, 

351, 354, 355, 357, 363, 377, 379, 383, 394–396

ungulate grazing: 62, 69, 188, 197, 203, 269, 287, 292, 394

See also pyric herbivory

See also ranching

greater sage-grouse: XXIV, 6, 28, 29, 54, 60, 67, 68, 71, 81, 

86, 93, 96–98, 100, 101, 103, 128, 129, 141–143, 146–148, 

162, 168, 198, 214, 217–219, 226, 242, 265, 283, 295–298, 

311, 313, 325, 384, 395, 396, 411, 416, 419, 434

grizzly bear: XVII, 13, 45, 51, 60, 98–100, 103, 162, 195, 219, 

223, 296, 297, 303

grouse: See greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse

guiding: XXV, 9, 34, 40, 45, 52, 117, 133–135, 147, 152, 159, 167, 

241, 242, 312–315, 319, 323, 379, 383, 390–392, 399

See also recreation (commercial)

H

habitat

fragmentation: 89, 130, 136, 137, 196, 218, 219, 287, 311, 361

management: XXI, XXIV, XXV, XXVIII, 5, 28, 29, 34, 40, 62, 

63, 80–83, 87, 88, 98, 102, 104, 111–113, 122, 143, 150, 

151, 155, 162, 168, 200, 203, 271, 282, 296, 297, 305, 307, 

310, 312, 318, 324, 327, 346, 352, 355, 361, 379, 394

See aspen, cottonwood, forest, riparian area, river bottom, 

sage-steppe, shoreline, upland, and wetland

See also vegetative communities

Hell Creek: XXII, XXIV, 29, 32, 45, 59, 82, 132, 136, 137, 140, 

150, 163, 182–184, 239, 242, 245, 246, 253, 279, 328, 403, 

407, 412, 413, 415–417

herbicides: XXI, 32, 40, 72–74, 158, 213, 278, 280, 281, 288, 

289, 294

highways: 129, 244, 364

State Highway 24: 244

U.S. Highway 191: 129, 225, 229, 239, 244, 265, 408, 410

hiking: 26, 123, 126, 131, 243, 245, 264, 265, 295, 393

hunting: XV, XVII, XVIII, XX–XXIV, XXVI, XXVIII, 4, 5, 13, 14, 

26, 32, 34, 40, 45, 51–54, 59, 68, 73, 87, 100, 101, 104, 

105, 107–112, 114–119, 122, 128–130, 132–135, 141, 145, 

147, 148, 151, 152, 160, 163–167, 181, 182, 188, 195, 213, 

214, 228–234, 240, 241, 245–249, 255, 258, 263–267, 269, 

272, 277, 279, 283, 286, 291, 295, 297, 299–304, 306–

309, 312–315, 319, 322, 323, 326, 331–333, 336–338, 340, 

343, 346, 347, 350–352, 356, 362–366, 377–379, 383–385, 

388–393, 396, 399–401, 411, 413, 415, 416 

hunters: XXII, XXIII, XXVI, 8, 87, 115–118, 135, 143, 174, 

182, 196, 213, 217, 231, 233, 234, 240, 241, 246, 247, 255, 

264, 277, 278, 295, 302, 312–316, 323, 333, 337, 379, 384, 

385, 390–393, 409

I

impacts, cumulative: See cumulative impacts

Improvement Act: XVI, XVII, XIX, XXVIII, XXXI, 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 

12, 15, 16, 28, 29, 62, 111, 146, 148–150, 229, 240, 270, 

307, 361–363, 366, 373, 379, 385–387, 395, 399, 401, 403

infrastructure: XVIII, 13, 52, 145, 148, 166, 267, 385–387

integrated pest management: XX, 32, 80, 86, 87, 362

interpretation: XVIII, XXIV, XXVI, XXVII, 4, 5, 13, 34, 45, 51, 

52, 59, 121–127, 139, 151, 152, 164, 165, 167, 238, 240, 

242, 277, 312, 317, 319, 327–329, 356, 357, 362, 363, 366, 

383, 386, 387, 389, 390, 399

invasive species: XVII–XXI, XXIV, XXV, 5, 8, 13, 14, 28, 

30–33, 39, 40, 46, 51, 60, 62, 64, 72–74, 77, 79–81, 85–89, 

101, 127, 128, 130, 132, 137, 146, 149, 157–159, 165, 171, 

181, 187, 188, 196, 198, 202, 206, 207, 211–213, 265, 269, 

276–278, 281–283, 286–290, 292–294, 296–299, 302, 303, 

308–310, 350, 351, 353, 359, 362, 363, 377, 395, 397

See also noxious weeds

IPM: See integrated pest management

issues: XVII, XVIII, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 28, 31, 33, 63, 76, 87, 

108, 114, 123, 126, 127, 130, 132, 145, 146, 149, 166, 171, 

174, 185, 202, 243, 245, 266, 272, 293, 300, 301, 306, 316, 

318, 320, 352, 363, 369, 373–378, 390, 396, 397

J

Jordan: See field stations

L

landowners: XVIII, XXI, 3, 14, 32, 39, 40, 54, 71, 82, 84, 87, 90, 

99, 101, 109, 110, 112, 115, 128, 130, 142–144, 147, 148, 

150, 151, 160, 163, 168, 187, 202, 220, 234, 244, 245, 264, 

265, 305, 306, 311, 313, 321, 322, 330, 348, 362, 400

landscape conservation cooperatives: 8, 89, 104

LCC: See landscape conservation cooperatives

least tern: 7, 60, 79, 91, 97–99, 102, 103, 148, 162, 211, 219, 

221, 296–298, 435

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail: 32, 171

Lewistown: See field stations

livestock grazing: See grazing (livestock)

M

mammals, small: XXIV, XXVI, 60, 71, 103, 112, 163, 187, 235, 

237, 238, 291, 292, 294, 299, 308, 309, 311, 355

management

See adaptive management, fire management, habitat management, and wildlife management

See also special management areas and stepdown management plans

migratory birds: XV, XVII, XXII, XXIII, 3, 4, 6, 20, 25, 27, 51, 

54, 64, 72, 74, 75, 90, 91, 96, 118, 123, 125, 162, 165, 182, 
Index 465

203, 218, 240, 303, 332, 333, 336, 342, 360, 361, 362, 365, 

383, 384, 389, 399–401

minerals: XVIII, XXVIII, 14, 15, 20, 39, 46, 52, 60, 140, 141, 

168, 183, 282, 379

mineral rights: XVIII, 14, 15

mining: 15, 248, 249, 251, 254, 256, 258, 282, 364, 383

Missouri Breaks Back Country Byway: 239

Missouri River: XV, XVII, XIX, 1, 12–14, 20, 25–29, 32, 45, 

51, 52, 59, 64, 66, 68, 71, 72, 76, 79, 80, 84–86, 89, 96, 

99–102, 104–107, 109, 111–113, 117, 119, 121, 128, 135, 

137, 138, 145, 146, 149, 157, 163, 169, 171, 174, 181–

183, 185, 186, 195, 199–201, 206, 208, 209, 217, 221–223, 

227–230, 233–237, 239–251, 264, 271, 277, 280, 290, 295, 

296, 301, 302, 317, 324, 326, 327, 350, 352, 356, 368, 374, 

380, 381, 385, 390, 392, 401, 404, 407–412, 414, 415

Missouri River Breaks: XV, XIX, 1, 20, 29, 32, 66, 68, 71, 84, 

89, 96, 100, 104, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 121, 128, 135, 

138, 145, 146, 157, 169, 195, 199, 228–230, 234, 235, 240, 

242, 247, 271, 301, 302, 317, 324, 350, 380, 390, 404, 407, 

408, 415

See also Missouri Breaks Back Country Byway, Upper Missouri 

River Breaks National Monument, and Upper Missouri 

River Breaks Wild and Scenic River

monitoring: XII, XIII, XIX, XXII, XXIV, XXV, XXVIII, XXIX, 8, 

28, 30, 33, 34, 40, 51, 54, 60, 62–69, 71, 72, 74–80, 84–91, 

97–105, 107–112, 115–118, 129, 137, 141, 143–45, 151, 

154, 155, 157, 160–163, 170, 174, 186, 187, 195, 197–

199, 202, 203, 205, 206, 209–211, 213, 220, 222, 226, 227, 

230, 231, 237, 239, 253, 270, 271, 276, 278, 279, 283, 284, 

286–289, 291, 293, 295, 296, 298, 299, 303–307, 309, 310, 

313, 351, 359, 362, 365, 379, 385, 389, 391, 393–396, 416

moose: 117, 169, 359, 440

mountain bikes: 130

See also bicycling

mountain lion: XXIV, 34, 60, 105, 107–112, 117, 118, 145, 163, 

229, 234, 235, 302–304, 306, 307, 314, 315, 440

mountain plover: XXVIII, 6, 29, 60, 86, 98, 101, 103, 162, 214, 

219, 224, 226, 227, 284, 296, 379, 435

mule deer: XV, XX–XXIII, 20, 29, 34, 51, 64, 96, 107–110, 114, 

115, 117, 142, 145, 147, 163, 164, 198, 229–232, 240, 242, 

283, 302–305, 311, 313, 381, 384, 385, 440

Musselshell River: 27, 75, 76, 79, 86, 90, 158, 174, 182, 183, 

185–187, 208–210, 213, 218, 228, 229, 231, 236, 237, 244, 

249, 250, 407, 410

N

National Environmental Policy Act: 1, 12, 14, 28, 105, 107, 

156, 171, 270, 348, 360, 373, 375, 376, 401

See also NEPA

national historic trails: 238, 401

See also Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail

national monuments: See Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument

national natural landmarks: 140, 252, 324, 328

See also Bug Creek and Hell Creek

Native Americans: XVII, XIX, 2, 10, 11, 14, 26, 29, 39, 137, 

138, 185, 195, 199, 248, 346, 363, 373, 374, 399, 401

See also tribes

native grassland: See grassland, native

NEPA: 363

See also National Environmental Policy Act

noise: 145, 181, 277, 278, 295, 309, 326, 388, 393, 394

northern gray wolf: XVII, XXVIII, 13, 60, 107, 117, 209, 229, 

292, 301, 302, 305–307, 310, 317, 355, 379, 440

northern leopard frog: XXVIII, 101, 227, 228, 235, 308, 310, 

379, 416, 431

noxious weeds: 32, 73, 86, 88, 89, 101, 130, 159, 170, 206, 207, 

211, 213, 276, 278, 287, 288, 310

See also invasive species

O

off-highway vehicles: 181, 255

See also ATVs

outfitting: See guiding

outreach: XIX, XXVI, 12, 30, 34, 45, 51, 59, 87, 116–118, 123, 

128, 129, 138, 143, 152, 164, 168, 244, 320, 351, 356, 373, 

375, 378

overbrowsing: 283, 287, 354

overgrazing: See grazing

P

paleontological resources: XVIII–XX, XXV, XXVII, 14, 

29–31, 33, 39, 46, 52, 59, 121, 127, 135, 137–140, 142, 

151, 165, 167, 169, 239, 252, 253, 265, 269–271, 279, 280, 

328, 329, 349, 351, 354, 357, 401, 413

pallid sturgeon: 7, 8, 60, 79, 98, 99, 101–103, 148, 162, 164, 

211, 219, 221, 222, 237, 296, 297, 432

parking: 123, 131, 133, 243, 272, 274, 277, 279, 281, 314, 317, 

318, 321, 352, 385–387, 391

partners: XVI, XVIII–XXIII, 2, 3, 6, 14, 29, 32, 39, 40, 45, 46, 

51–54, 60, 66, 67, 72, 79, 80, 83, 86–90, 92–95, 97–99, 

101, 104, 106, 109–112, 114–116, 118, 119, 121, 125, 127, 

128–132, 138, 143, 144, 155, 161–168, 223, 225, 229, 234, 

272, 294, 296–298, 300, 352, 365, 399

Partners in Flight: 6, 54, 92, 93, 94, 95, 294, 365

photography: XVIII, XXIV, XXVI, 4, 5, 13, 26, 34, 45, 51, 59, 

121–127, 144, 151, 152, 164, 165, 240, 242, 246, 277, 295, 

312, 316, 317, 319, 331, 356, 362, 363, 366, 383, 386, 387, 

390, 399

piping plover: 7, 29, 60, 79, 91, 97–99, 102, 103, 145, 148, 162, 

188, 211, 219, 220, 222, 223, 295, 296, 298, 435

planning process: XIX, XXVIII, 1, 5, 9–12, 14–16, 19, 26, 28, 

29, 149, 174, 214, 306, 352, 364, 373–376, 415

See also public comments and public involvement

plover: See mountain plover and piping plover

population targets, wildlife: 286, 300, 306
466 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

prairie

mixed-grass prairie: XIX, 6, 13, 29, 147, 265, 311, 362

shortgrass prairie: 92, 214, 236, 252, 253, 362

tallgrass prairie: 294, 362

See also grassland and upland

prairie dogs: See black-tailed prairie dog

predators: XXII, XXIV, XXVI, 45, 54, 60, 89, 103–105, 145, 163, 

187, 188, 195, 209, 220, 227, 228, 286, 299, 308, 315, 355, 

365

See also coyote

prescribed grazing: See grazing

prescriptive grazing: See grazing

pronghorn: XV, XVI, 13, 20, 25–28, 34, 51, 60, 64, 107–110, 112, 

114, 115, 117, 142, 143, 145, 149, 163, 168, 195, 198, 201, 

229, 233, 283, 302, 304, 305, 365, 384, 385, 396, 412, 440

public

public comments: XV, XXVII, 1, 2, 11, 12, 145, 373, 374, 377, 

378

public involvement: XVII, XXVII, 1, 4, 10, 11, 364, 373, 399

public use: XVII–XXIV, 1, 4, 5, 11–14, 19, 30, 31, 33, 34, 39, 

45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 86, 90, 102, 103, 105, 110–114, 116, 

119, 121, 125–130, 132–134, 139, 141–145, 148–151, 157, 

159, 164–166, 174, 188, 196, 219, 230, 238, 240, 242, 245, 

265, 269–273, 277–281, 293, 295, 299–302, 307, 312, 314, 

317, 318, 327, 330, 331, 334, 335, 337, 338, 340–344, 346, 

349, 351, 354, 362–364, 366, 369, 370, 374, 385–390, 392, 

393, 399, 400, 415, 416

safety: 5, 54, 77, 83, 84, 118, 130–132, 243, 282, 312, 321, 

322, 359, 364, 385, 388, 389, 391, 400

scoping: XVII, XX, 2, 10–12, 14, 31, 60, 148, 150, 267, 306, 

364, 373–376, 378

purposes: XVI, XVII, XIX, XXI, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 15, 19, 25, 26, 

29, 31, 33, 52, 63, 104, 106, 114, 134, 136, 141, 148, 149, 

174, 195, 203, 229, 239, 240, 251, 252, 254, 266, 274, 278, 

300, 311, 322, 327, 328, 330, 346, 349, 350, 352, 359–361, 

363, 365, 375–377, 383–395, 397, 400, 401

pyric herbivory: 62, 66–68, 71, 82, 144, 188, 273, 283, 285, 307, 

364, 395

R

ranching: XVIII, 14, 15, 27, 33, 51, 63, 67, 68, 70, 72, 75, 76, 88, 

127, 142–144, 147, 151, 160, 174, 201, 244, 251, 252, 254, 

255, 257, 259, 265, 311, 326, 334, 337, 338, 340, 341–344, 

346–349, 352, 376, 381

See also grazing

record of decision, 1986: XXI, 15, 27, 28, 34, 62, 63, 80, 108, 

201–204, 286, 292, 310

recreation

commercial recreation: XVIII, 5, 13, 34, 45, 52, 56, 59, 133–

135, 166, 167, 241, 246, 323, 377. See also guiding

recreation sites: 34, 45, 52, 59, 111, 132, 133, 152, 166, 239–

241, 246, 323

wildlife-dependent recreation: XV, XX–XXII, 1, 4, 31, 33, 39, 

45, 46, 54, 103, 105, 109, 111, 114, 116, 118, 119, 122, 

132, 133, 157, 165, 240, 283, 289–291, 295, 296, 307, 312, 

316, 325, 351, 359, 364, 366, 384, 399, 417

See also environmental education, fishing, hunting, interpretation, photography, and wildlife observation

refuge operations: XX, XXV, 33, 39, 46, 52, 60, 90, 122, 123, 

125, 140–142, 154, 156, 168, 271, 331, 334, 335, 338, 341, 

344, 347, 349, 351

reptiles: XXIV, XXVI, 29, 60, 74, 76, 112, 114, 163, 187, 207, 

235, 253, 291, 292, 308–311, 355, 419, 431

research and science: XIX, 29, 30, 33, 39, 46, 53, 144, 157, 

349, 350

research natural areas: 32, 239, 295, 324

Revised Statute 2477: 15, 16, 364

See also R.S. 2477

riparian area: XVII, XXI, XXIII–XXVI, XXVIII, 13, 28, 33, 34, 

40, 53, 54, 60, 64, 69, 74–80, 86, 88–91, 93, 95, 97, 102, 

112–114, 117, 122, 125, 130, 149, 152, 158–160, 162, 174, 

183, 186, 187, 195, 196, 202, 207–212, 214, 218, 219, 222, 

276–278, 280, 281, 283, 288–293, 299, 303, 306–311, 346, 

348, 350, 355, 361, 364, 377, 379

river bottom: XV, XVI, XIX, XXI, XXIV–XXVI, XXVIII, 20, 25, 

29, 39, 40, 53, 60, 72–75, 78, 80, 86, 91, 94, 97, 112, 115, 

122, 125, 137, 152, 158, 171, 181, 187, 188, 201, 206, 207, 

213, 214, 219, 228, 231, 250, 276–278, 280, 281, 288, 289, 

293, 303, 305–307, 311, 353, 354, 361, 377, 379, 419 

roads: XII, XIII, XV, XVIII, XX–XXIV, XXVI–XXVIII, 3, 13, 15, 

16, 34, 39, 40, 45, 52, 59, 73, 74, 102, 114–119, 121, 128–

132, 136, 137, 150, 159, 160, 165, 166, 171–174, 181, 188, 

196, 217, 238–241, 244–246, 250, 251, 265, 272, 274–

277, 279, 280, 286, 287, 292, 293, 295, 302, 303, 308–316, 

320–322, 326, 350, 352, 353, 356, 375–378, 385, 386, 388, 

389, 392, 393, 404, 408–415, 417

See also closures and highways

R.S. 2477: 352, 364

See also Revised Statute 2477

S

sage-grouse: See greater sage-grouse

sage-steppe: 100, 218

Sand Creek: See field stations

science: See research and science

scoping: See public involvement

sentinel species: 39, 60, 64–71, 83, 97, 112, 143, 157, 187, 188, 

197, 198, 203, 204, 206, 211, 283, 284, 287, 419

sharp-tailed grouse: XV–XXII, 20, 25, 28, 51, 64, 68, 71, 90, 

91, 93, 96–98, 108, 128, 129, 141, 149, 162, 198, 203, 214, 

217–219, 242, 283, 294, 303, 313, 361, 383, 384, 396, 419, 

434

SHC: See strategic habitat conservation

shorebirds: 6, 8, 218, 293, 297, 362

shoreline: XXI, XXIV, XXVI, XXVIII, 40, 51, 54, 60, 79, 80, 87, 

91, 97, 99, 119, 120–122, 125, 145, 152, 159, 164, 166, 

181, 187, 195, 196, 211, 213, 214, 218, 291, 293, 295, 297, 

298, 302, 303, 354, 361, 379, 386, 414

sicklefin chub: 60, 98, 101, 103, 222, 227, 237, 296, 432
Index 467

signage: 45, 86, 87, 122, 123, 131, 141, 142, 165, 242, 312, 319

significant issues: See issues

socioeconomics: XVIII, XXV, XVII, 12, 14, 16, 148–150, 169, 

182, 202, 240, 253, 254, 265, 270, 272, 329, 347, 348, 357, 

370, 371, 374

See also economics

soil: XXV, 20, 25, 27, 31, 40, 53, 63, 66–68, 76, 78, 80, 88–90, 

102, 146, 157–160, 170, 182, 187, 198, 200–204, 210, 212, 

213, 236, 244, 247, 252, 266, 269, 272–274, 276, 278–282, 

289–293, 307, 326, 348, 349, 351, 353, 354, 360–365, 394, 

395, 404 

soundscapes: XXV, 170, 181, 245, 277, 282, 324, 353

special management areas: XXV, XXVI, 238, 252, 274, 276, 

278, 293, 295, 324, 356

See also byways, national historic trails, national monuments, 

national natural landmarks, research natural areas, USACE, 

wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness

species: See candidate species, endangered species, focal species, invasive species, sentinel species, target species, and 

threatened species

species of concern: XVII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, XXVI, XXVIII, 8, 

13, 30, 33, 34, 39, 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 60, 68, 74–78, 81, 83, 

84, 90, 92–95, 98–103, 142, 143, 157, 158, 162, 168, 187, 

219, 222, 223, 225, 227, 228, 235, 293, 296–299, 302, 310, 

311, 325, 349, 350, 355, 365, 379

Sprague’s pipit: XXVIII, 6, 60, 68, 71, 81, 92, 93, 96, 98, 102, 

103, 162, 214, 217, 219, 228, 293, 296, 298, 299, 379, 419, 

437

State comprehensive conservation strategy: See conservation strategy

stepdown management plans: 5, 9, 32, 46, 86, 106, 122, 126–

128, 137, 140, 141, 151, 156, 166, 280, 281, 308, 310, 318, 

327–329, 361, 365, 387

strategic habitat conservation: 8, 9, 104, 113

sturgeon chub: 60, 98, 101, 103, 222, 227, 237, 296, 432

swift fox: 104, 105, 118, 162, 164, 225, 226, 228, 296, 299, 300, 

440

T

threatened and endangered species: XVII, XIX, XXIII, 

XXIV, XXVI, XXVIII, XXXI, 7, 13, 29–31, 33, 34, 39, 45, 

46, 51, 53, 54, 60, 68, 74, 75, 79, 81, 83, 90, 98, 101, 127, 

136, 157, 162, 165, 187, 211, 218, 219, 223, 226, 239, 291, 

293, 296–299, 302, 310, 349, 350, 361, 365, 379, 383, 400, 

433

See also grizzly bear and piping plover

traffic: 87, 122, 137, 213, 239, 240, 243, 245, 250, 272, 295, 302, 

326, 332, 365, 408, 411–413

trails: XX, XXIV, 4, 16, 34, 45, 52, 59, 102, 115, 117, 121–126, 

129, 131, 133, 135, 141–143, 164–166, 174, 238, 239, 

243–245, 251, 274, 276, 278, 286, 295, 317, 332, 333, 336, 

339, 342, 401 

Bone Trail: 182, 225, 244, 414

trapping: XXIII, 34, 51, 59, 72, 104, 105, 108, 112, 114–118, 163, 

164, 208, 209, 225, 238, 299

tribes: XV, XVII, 2, 7, 8, 10–13, 31, 32, 80, 142–144, 150, 185, 

248–250, 252, 327, 346, 352, 362, 363, 370, 373–375, 380, 

399 

Arapahoe Business Council: 12, 374

Chippewa Cree Tribe: 12, 374, 380

Crow Tribal Council: 12, 374

Fort Belknap Tribal Council: 12, 374

Fort Peck Tribal Council: 12, 374

Northern Cheyenne Tribe: 12, 374, 380

See also Native Americans

U

UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge: XV–XVII, XXV, 1, 19, 20, 

25–28, 34, 39, 52, 67, 81, 99, 100, 142, 149, 154, 168, 170, 

174, 182, 183, 185, 201, 212, 220, 221, 227, 231, 246, 247, 

265, 282, 291, 297, 298, 339, 342, 383, 384, 390, 400, 401, 

404, 409, 415, 419

UL Bend Wilderness: XVI, XX, 13, 16, 20, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 

135, 167, 170, 238, 246, 272, 273, 277, 325, 326, 385, 404, 

415, 416

upland: XXIII–XXV, XXVIII, 3, 26–28, 32–34, 53, 60, 62–75, 

77, 78, 80, 81, 86, 91, 92, 96, 97, 100–102, 108, 109, 112, 

114, 119, 121, 122, 125, 129, 130, 152, 157, 158, 164, 174, 

181–183, 187, 188, 197–203, 207–211, 213, 214, 217–219, 

227, 228, 231, 235, 238, 240, 252, 273, 277, 278, 281–287, 

291, 293–295, 298, 299, 303, 304, 306–315, 331, 332, 336, 

337, 339, 342, 343, 352, 354, 355, 361, 364, 377, 379, 384, 

386, 387, 392, 419, 435

See also grassland and prairie

upland birds: 34, 73, 114, 164, 240, 295, 298, 312, 315

Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument: XV, 1, 

20, 29, 146, 240, 324, 408, 415

Upper Missouri River Breaks Wild and Scenic River: 20, 

32

USACE: XXXI, 1, 15, 16, 20, 25, 26, 32, 34, 40, 45, 46, 52, 54, 59, 

75, 79, 80, 82, 86, 87, 97, 99, 102, 103, 115–121, 127, 129, 

130, 132–135, 140–142, 144, 145, 150, 159, 161, 165, 166, 

168, 174, 181, 182, 211, 213, 214, 221, 222, 238–246, 251, 

252, 274, 276, 293, 297, 298, 302, 312, 316, 320, 323, 330, 

332, 336, 339, 342, 352, 354, 365, 368, 374, 385, 390, 392, 

411, 414

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: See USACE

V

vegetative communities: 77, 187, 282, 305–307

See also habitat

vision: XIX, XXIV, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 19, 29, 31, 33, 39, 46, 52, 

60, 84, 149, 181, 233, 363, 365, 370, 373, 375

visitor: XV, XVI, XIX, XXIV, XXV, XXVII, 2, 4, 13, 26, 29, 30, 

40, 45, 54, 59, 114–116, 118, 120–129, 131–133, 135, 138, 

141–143, 145, 146, 159, 164–167, 171, 172, 174, 181, 228, 

238, 240, 242–245, 249, 254, 262, 264, 266, 267, 271, 274, 

276–280, 295, 296, 299, 312–314, 317–320, 322, 323, 327, 

329, 331–333, 336, 337, 339, 340, 342, 343, 351, 356, 364, 

369, 385, 386, 388, 389, 391, 401, 417 
468 Final CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

visitor center: 125, 312, 319, 332. See also Fort Peck Visitor 

Center

visitor services: XXV, XXVI, 114, 121–129, 141–143, 164, 

165, 172, 240, 270, 274, 295, 312, 313, 317, 318, 323, 356, 

369 

visitor use: 145, 166, 295, 314, 332, 336, 339, 342

visual resources: XXV, 170, 171, 174, 181, 196, 269, 273, 274, 

276, 277, 282, 324, 325, 349, 353

volunteers: XX, 30, 105, 123, 127–129, 139, 141, 143, 144, 168, 

242, 318, 320, 351, 401

W

waterfowl: 3, 6–8, 27, 34, 73, 75, 90, 91, 108, 114, 162, 164, 

195, 196, 207, 217, 240, 293, 295, 308, 312, 314, 315, 331, 

332, 336, 337, 339, 342, 362, 365, 366, 384, 401

water resources: XVII, XXVIII, XXXI, 12, 13, 14, 16, 32–34, 

39, 40, 46, 51, 53, 54, 60, 75, 159, 160, 170, 174, 183, 195, 

280–282, 354, 360, 369, 374 

water quality: XVII, XXIX, 13, 40, 51, 54, 75–78, 146, 158–

160, 184, 186, 187, 208, 210, 222, 269, 280, 281, 290, 308, 

326, 354, 364, 379, 394 

water sources : XVII, 13, 51, 78, 158, 160, 182, 195, 247, 281, 

286, 305

water rights : XVII, XX, 16, 32, 34, 40, 75, 76, 140, 141, 160, 

185, 186, 195, 280 

watersheds : XXI, 34, 78, 159, 160, 183, 184, 186, 204, 209, 210, 

280, 292, 305, 360, 365, 366, 407

weeds: See invasive species and noxious weeds

West Nile virus : 90, 226

wetland : XXV, XXIV, XXVIII, 3, 4, 7, 19, 60, 74–80, 88, 91, 95, 

97, 102, 152, 158, 159, 170, 174, 187, 195, 196, 207–211, 

218, 219, 227, 236, 276, 281, 289–291, 293, 303, 305–308, 

310, 329, 355, 360, 362–366, 379, 399, 400, 419

white-tailed deer : XV, 20, 64, 75, 107, 114, 115, 117, 229, 231, 

233, 240, 302, 305, 384, 385, 440

whooping cranes : 219, 223

wild and scenic river : 29, 146, 181, 240, 245, 326, 327

See also Upper Missouri River Breaks Wild and Scenic River

wilderness : XVI–XXVI, XXVIII, XXXI, 12–14, 16, 20, 26, 27, 

29, 30, 32–34, 45, 52, 59, 116, 119, 123, 130–132, 135–

137, 145, 146, 150, 151, 166, 167, 170–174, 181, 182, 200, 

238, 240, 243, 244, 246, 255, 272–278, 282, 287, 295, 303, 

314–316, 320–327, 345–349, 351, 352, 356, 366, 369, 374, 

376–378, 381, 383–385, 388, 400, 401, 403, 404, 407–418

proposed wilderness : XVI, XIX–XXII, XXIV, XXVI, XXVIII, 

13, 29, 30, 32, 34, 45, 59, 119, 123, 130–132, 135–137, 

150, 167, 171–174, 181, 182, 238, 240, 244, 246, 274–277, 

282, 287, 303, 314–316, 323–327, 351, 377, 378, 388, 403, 

404, 407–417

recommended wilderness : 32, 403, 415–418

wilderness review : XVIII, 13, 135–137, 238, 246, 366, 369, 

403, 407, 417, 418

wilderness study areas : XIX, XXVIII, 30, 45, 59, 131, 146, 

167, 173, 275, 325, 327, 351, 356, 378, 388, 404, 407, 

415–418

See also UL Bend Wilderness

wildlife

wildlife management : XVII, XIX, 3–5, 8, 13, 29, 33, 39, 46, 53, 

65, 130, 145, 146, 157, 174, 195, 271, 274, 277, 286, 291, 303, 

304, 306, 317, 349, 350, 352, 362, 363, 367–369, 377, 385, 400

See also animal groups such as “birds” and “reptiles”

See also animal species such as “elk” and “piping plover”

See also population targets

wildlife-dependent public use

See environmental education, fishing, hunting, interpretation, 

photography, and wildlife observation

See also recreation (wildlife-dependent)

wolf: See northern gray wolf