Regional Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed 

Management Alternatives for Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge

Open-File Report 2012-1014

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Front cover photograph: Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, courtesy of Asuka Ishizaki.
Regional Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed 

Management Alternatives for Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge

By Lynne Koontz, Natalie Sexton, Asuka Ishizaki, and John Ritten 

Open-File Report 2012–1014

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Koontz, Lynne, Sexton, Natalie, Ishizaki, Asuka, and Ritten, John, 2013, 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, 43 p.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Regional Economic Setting............................................................................................................................................ 1

Population and Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 2

Population and Density .......................................................................................................................................... 2

Communities near the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................... 3

Population Projections............................................................................................................................................ 3

Age and Racial Composition .................................................................................................................................. 3

Employment and Income ........................................................................................................................................... 4

Employment Trends ............................................................................................................................................... 4

Current Employment and Income........................................................................................................................... 7

Key Refuge Activities that Affect the Local Economy................................................................................................. 9

Livestock Grazing................................................................................................................................................... 9

Agricultural Revenues from Livestock ...................................................................................................................10

Cattle Inventories ..................................................................................................................................................11

Animal Unit Month Dependency by County...........................................................................................................12

Tourism and Outdoor Recreation in Montana and Counties Surrounding the Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge..........................................................................................................................................................15

Tourism and Recreation in Regions Surrounding the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge......................15

Land-Use and Ownership Changes Surrounding the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge .............................16

Seasonal and Recreational Housing .....................................................................................................................16

Changing Land Use near the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge...........................................................17

Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs .......................................................................................................................................18

Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Activities ...........................................................................19

Methods for a Regional Economic Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................19

Economic Impacts of Alternative A ...............................................................................................................................20

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Revenue Sharing...........................................................20

Impacts from Charles M. Russell Natiional Wildlife Refuge Administration...............................................................21

Staff—Personal Purchases ...................................................................................................................................21

Work-Related Purchases.......................................................................................................................................22

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management..................................................................................................23

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy.....................................................................................................23

Impacts from Other Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Management Activities—Grazing ........................25

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative A......................................................................................................26

Economic Impacts of Alternative B ...............................................................................................................................27

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Revenue Sharing...........................................................27

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Administration................................................................27

Staff—Personal Purchases ...................................................................................................................................27

Work-Related Purchases.......................................................................................................................................28

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management..................................................................................................29

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy ...........................................29

Impacts from Other Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Management Activities—Grazing ........................30

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative B......................................................................................................30

Economic Impacts of Alternative C...............................................................................................................................31

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Revenue Sharing...........................................................31
iv

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildllife Refuge Administration...............................................................31

Staff—Personal Purchases ...................................................................................................................................31

Work-Related Purchases.......................................................................................................................................32

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management..................................................................................................33

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy ...........................................33

Impacts from Other Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Management Activities—Grazing ........................34

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative C......................................................................................................35

Economic Impacts of Alternative D...............................................................................................................................35

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Revenue Sharing...........................................................35

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Administration................................................................35

Staff—Personal Purchases ...................................................................................................................................35

Work-Related Purchases.......................................................................................................................................36

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management..................................................................................................37

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy.....................................................................................................37

Impacts from Other Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Management Activities—Grazing ........................38

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative D......................................................................................................39

Summary and Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................40

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................................40

Figures

1. Total employment index for Montana and counties surrounding Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge, 1975–2006....................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Agricultural employment in the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge....... 9

3. Trends in gross agriculture revenues in the region surrounding the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge, 1969–2007..................................................................................................................................... 11

4. Breakdown of total gross revenues from agriculture by county, 2007 ............................................................. 11

5. Cattle inventory for six counties surrounding Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, 1950–2009......... 12

6. Total Animal Unit Months by agency by county, 2007..................................................................................... 13

Tables

1. National and regional population estimates....................................................................................................... 2

2. Employment by type for Montana and counties surrounding the refuge............................................................ 6

3. Employment by industry for the six-county area surrounding the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge, 2007................................................................................................................................................. 8

4. Income, earnings, and unemployment in the region, State, and Nation ............................................................ 8

5. Farm operators whose primary employment is farming................................................................................... 10

6. Animal inventory and Animal Unit Months of feed needed by county, 2007.................................................... 12

7. Total Animal Unit Months (AUM) by county, 2008........................................................................................... 14

8. Seasonal housing in the region surrounding the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge ....................... 17

9. Wildlife value orientations (WVO) and proportions in Western States and Montana....................................... 19

10. County acreage of refuge full fee simple acquisition acreage and Refuge Revenue Sharing payments......... 21

11. Annual impacts from refuge revenue sharing payments for Alternative A (2007$).......................................... 21

12. Current approved staff (Alternative A)............................................................................................................. 22

13. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel (2007$) ........................................... 22

14. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for Alternative A (2007$).............................................. 23

15. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative A ............................................................. 23

16. Annual impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for Alternative A (2007$)............................................................ 25
v

17. Refuge permits and Animal Unit Months (AUM) by county, 2008.................................................................... 25

18. Economic impact of refuge grazing (2007$).................................................................................................... 26

19. Economic impacts of refuge management activities for Alternative A (2007$)................................................ 27

20. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for Alternative B (2007$)............................ 28

21. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for Alternative B (2007$).............................................. 28

22. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative B ............................................................. 29

23. Annual impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for Alternative B (2007$)............................................................ 30

24. Summary of all refuge management activities for Alternative B (2007$)......................................................... 31

25. Change in economic impacts under Alternative B compared to Alternative A (2007$).................................... 32

26. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for Alternative C (2007$)............................ 32

27. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for Alternative C (2007$).............................................. 33

28. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative C............................................................. 33

29. Annual Impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for Alternative C (2007$)............................................................ 34

30. Summary of refuge management activities for Alternative C (2007$) ............................................................. 35

31. Change in economic impacts under Alternative C compared to Alternative A (2007$) ................................... 36

32. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for Alternative D (2007$)............................ 36

33. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative D............................................................. 37

34. Annual impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for Alternative D (2007$)............................................................ 38

35. Summary of all refuge management activities for Alternative D (2007$)......................................................... 39

36. Change in economic impacts under Alternative D compared to Alternative A (2007$) ................................... 40
1

Regional Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed 

Management Alternatives for Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge

By Lynne Koontz, Natalie Sexton, Asuka Ishizaki, and John Ritten1

Introduction

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires all units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System to be managed under a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The 

CCP must describe the desired future conditions of a refuge and provide long-range guidance and 

management direction to achieve refuge purposes. Charles M. Russell (CMR) National Wildlife Refuge, 

located in north-central Montana, is in the process of developing a range of management goals, 

objectives, and strategies for the CCP. The CCP for the Refuge must contain an analysis of expected 

effects associated with current and proposed refuge-management strategies. 

For refuge CCP planning, an economic analysis provides a means of estimating how current 

management (No Action Alternative) and proposed management activities (Alternatives) affect the local 

economy. This type of analysis provides two critical pieces of information: (1) it illustrates a refuge’s 

contribution to the local community; and (2) it can help in determining whether economic effects are or 

are not a real concern in choosing among management alternatives. 

It is important to note that the economic value of a refuge encompasses more than just the 

impacts on 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. 

This report first presents 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 stakeholders and residents and the local economy 

is then presented. The refuge management activities of economic concern in this analysis are:

• Refuge purchases of goods and services within the local community; 

• Refuge personnel salary spending; 

• Grazing operations; 

• Spending in the local community by refuge visitors; and 

• Revenues generated from Refuge Revenue Sharing. 

Regional Economic Setting

Encompassing 1.1 million acres of land and water, including the 245,000-acre Fort Peck 

Reservoir, the CMR National Wildlife Refuge is the largest refuge in Montana and the second-largest 

 

1

John Ritten, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyom., 82071
2

refuge in the continental United States. The Refuge includes native prairies, forested coulees, river 

bottoms, and badlands so often portrayed in the paintings of Charlie Russell, the colorful western artist 

for whom the refuge is named (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009). Extending 125 miles along the 

Missouri River, the Refuge spans six counties (McCone, Garfield, Fergus, Phillips, Petroleum, and 

Valley) in the north-central part of the State. 

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; much of the regional economic activity is confined within the sixcounty area. The 1.1-million-acre refuge boundary accounts for 7 percent of total land and water within 

the six-county area including 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 comprise 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 six-county area. 

Population and Demographic Characteristics 

Population and Density

Table 1 summarizes the population estimates and trends for Montana and the six counties 

surrounding the Refuge. In 2008, there were 25,287 residents in the local six-county area, accounting 

for 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 McCone was the least populated county with 1,676 residents. While Montana’s population grew 

Table 1. National and regional population estimates.

Area estimated Population 

(2008) 1 

Percent change 

from 20001

Persons per 

square mile1

Percentage of 

expected population 

growth (2000–2030)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, GCTT1 and DPI.

2

Source: NPA Data Services Inc., 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2008. 
3

by more than 7 percent from 2000 to 2008, all six counties experienced a population decline 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 1, all six counties have substantially lower densities (0.3–2.6 persons per mi2) 

compared to that of Montana (6.6 persons per mi2). Nearly half of the residents in Fergus 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 reside 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 1. 

Communities near the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge 

Lewistown, the county seat of Fergus County, is the largest city in the six-county area, with a 

total of 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, Montana, 2009). Recently, there has been a great deal of growth 

and diversification in the local economy including recreation, tourism and a variety of small 

manufacturing- and service-sector businesses (Destination Lewistown, Montana, 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), the Phillips County seat. The terrain between the towns of Jordan (336 residents), the 

Garfield County seat, and Circle (542 residents), 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, the Petroleum County seat with 163 residents in 2008, was formerly an oil 

boom town with more than 2,000 residents in the 1920s (Travel Montana, 2009). 

Population Projections

As shown in table 1, 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 are older than 50 and 

retired, and those who are attracted to the wilderness and mountains (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, McCone, Petroleum, 

Phillips, and Valley Counties are expected to lose more than 20 percent of their population compared to 

2000 (table 1). Garfield County is expected to lose 15 percent by 2030, while 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 CMR counties 
4

had a median age ranging from 40.8 to 42.4 years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). In addition, the sixcounty area had substantially higher proportions of residents between the ages of 65 and 84 (14.9–17.7 

percent) compared to the entire State (11.7 percent), and substantially lower proportions of residents 

between the ages of 25 and 40 (26.8–8.0 percent) compared to 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 ages 

20–29) emigrating out of eastern Montana (Young and Martin, 2003) in addition to the aging babyboomer generation. The impact of retirement-aged 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 a means to access 

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 the State average (90.6 percent) while 

Fergus County (97.1 percent), Garfield County (99.1 percent), McCone County (97 percent), and 

Petroleum County (99.2 percent) averages were greater than the State (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). The 

percentage of residents identifying themselves as American Indian or Native Alaskan was 6.2 percent

for the State, while 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, 2008). 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. 

Employment and Income

Employment Trends

Employment trends in the six-county area from 1975 to 2006 are shown in figure 1. 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 declined in total employment until around 

1990, and have been experiencing a steady recovery since. Phillips County increased 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, 

2009), several trends explain the total employment fluctuations seen in figure 1. 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 grew during the same time 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 affected by Refuge-management practices that influence surrounding 

counties’ farming practices. 
5

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, CA25, 2009. 

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. 

Figure 1. Total employment index for Montana and counties surrounding Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge, 1975–2006. 

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 1) 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 both population and labor force have mostly 

declined in the six-county area during the same timeframe. 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 2 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 out by wage and salary employment 

(people who work for someone else) and proprietors (self-employed—includes sole proprietorships, 

partnerships, and tax-exempt cooperatives). In 2005, all six counties surrounding the CMR had 

substantially higher proportions of proprietors (39.0–65.5 percent) compared to the State as a whole 

(27.1 percent, table 2). Approximately one-half of all proprietors in the six-county area are farm 

proprietors (those who are self-employed and operate a farm and are 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. 

Total Employment Index

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1975198019851990199520002005

Year

Employment Index (1975 = 100) .

Montana

Fergus

Phillips

Petroleum

Garfield

McCone

Valley
6

Table 2. Employment by type for Montana and counties surrounding the refuge.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, CA30, 2009. 

Montana Fergus 

County

Garfield 

County

McCone 

County

Petroleum 

County

Phillips 

County

Valley 

County

Type of 

employment 2005

Percent 

change 

(1995–

2005)

2005

Percent 

change 

(1995–

2005)

2005

Percent 

change 

(1995–

2005)

2005

Percent 

change 

(1995–

2005)

2005

Percent 

change 

(1995–

2005)

2005

Percent 

change 

(1995–

2005)

2005

Percent 

change 

(1995–

2005)

Total 

employment 615,864 22 7,654 11 872 9 1,283 7 345 24 2,645 -9 4,706 0.1

Wage and 

salary 73 19 61 6 48 -1 51 -1 35 -3 58 -16 65 -2 

Proprietors 27 29 39 19 52 20 49 15 66 45 42 4 35 4 

Nonfarm 23 34 27 27 25 44 19 30 36 151 23 4 20 2 

Farm 4 8 12 6 27 4 30 8 30 -4 19 5 15 6
7

As shown in figure 1, five out of six counties surrounding CMR have been experiencing 

increases in total employment since the mid-1990s. During that time, Montana also had an increase in 

total employment, with the majority of the increase coming from wage and salary employment (table 2). 

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. 

Current Employment and Income

Table 3 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 Group (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 2007) from a number of 

sources, including Census Bureau economic censuses and Bureau of Economic Analysis output and 

employment projections developed by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

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 government employment, retail trade and the service 

sectors also have high employment across all six counties. 

During the past 30 years, Montana and the six-county area had a steady increase in total personal 

income (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2009). This increase was attributed to a steady increase in both 

labor- and nonlabor-source incomes, but nonlabor-source incomes (transfer payments and dividendsinterests-rent) increased at a greater rate than that of labor-source income despite decreasing populations 

in the area (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2009). 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 indicating the aging trend of the area. 

Median household income, average earnings per job, and unemployment data for the region, 

State, and Nation are listed in table 4. 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

which 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 downward trend since 2000. In 2008, unemployment rates were lower for 

Montana and 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 sixcounty area compared to the State average aligns with the aging population (fewer people actively 

seeking work) and the growing number of people with more than one job to supplement their income. 
8

Table 3. Employment by industry for the six-county area surrounding the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife

Refuge, 2007.

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 1814.2 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 (NAICS) introduced in 2001 prevents disclosure of employment numbers for many industries in small 

communities. 

Table 4. Income, earnings, and unemployment in the region, State, and Nation. 

1

Source: State and County QuickFacts, 2007. 

2

Source: USA Counties, 2008. 

Area Median household 

income (2007)1

Average earnings 

per job (2007)

Unemployment 

rate (2008) 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
9

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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) land-use decisions and associated land uses. Livestock 

grazing, recreation, and tourism are the prominent, resource-based industries with ties to the Refuge and 

are described in more detail in the next section. 

Livestock Grazing

Farming and ranching are important cultural forces in eastern Montana, including the areas 

surrounding the Refuge. As shown in table 3, 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: 1,075 jobs, or 32 percent of total farm 

employment. As shown in figure 2, Valley County had the second highest farm employment: 826 jobs, 

or 25 percent of the total for the area. Phillips County had 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 U.S. farmers now hold off-farm jobs in addition to their farm operation, and off-farm 

income now accounts for a larger proportion of the total household income of U.S. farmers (FernandezCornejo, 2007; Gruenert, 1999). This trend is apparent 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 (table 5). Garfield County has the highest proportion 

of farmers whose primary occupation is farming, while Valley County has the lowest. 

Total is 3,373 jobs.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2008. 

Figure 2. Agricultural employment in the six counties surrounding the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.

1075

298

444

117

613

826

Agricultural Employment Numbers by County

Fergus

Garfield

McCone

Petroleum

Phillips

Valley
10

Table 5. Farm operators whose primary employment is farming. 

Year Montana

(percent)

Fergus 

County

(percent)

Garfield 

County 

(percent)

McCone 

County 

(percent)

Petroleum 

County 

(percent)

Phillips 

County 

(percent)

Valley 

County

(percent)

2007 51 60 77 69 72 65 58

2002 64 69 84 70 73 72 73

Source: USDA 2007 Agricultural Census, table 46. 

From 2001 to 2007, agricultural earnings in the six counties surrounding the Refuge were fairly 

stable, with an average of $17.1 million dollars per year (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2008). The 

highest value (just over $18 million) was in 2002, and the lowest (just under $16 million) was 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 six-county area. Phillips County had the secondlargest earnings in 2007 with $4.2 million, or 24 percent of the total. Valley County had $3.5 million 

(20 percent), McCone County $2.6 million (14 percent), and Garfield County $2.3 million (13 percent). 

Petroleum County had the lowest agricultural earnings, $812,000, or 4 percent of the total agricultural 

earnings in the six-county area, in 2007. 

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 (fig. 3). The lowest percentage (37 percent) of livestock 

revenue was in 1996, while the highest (62 percent) was back in 1971. Gross revenues from crops 

averaged 35 percent over this timespan, 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 (or) custom work, rental income, and income from forest 

products. 

In 2007, gross revenue for agricultural operations in the six counties surrounding the CMR 

totaled $364.7 million (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2008). This total consists of $164 million (45

percent) from 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 ($81.2 million), Phillips ($64.6 million), McCone ($56.1 million), and Garfield ($53.1 

million) Counties. 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 4, 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 County (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 

accounted for 61 percent. 
11

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2008. Other sources of revenue for agricultural operations include government 

payments, value of home consumption, machine hire and (or) custom work, rental income, and income from forest products.

Figure 3. Trends in gross agriculture revenues in the region surrounding the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge, 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 (or) custom work, rental income, and income from forest products.

Figure 4. Breakdown of total gross revenues from agriculture by county, 2007. 

Cattle Inventories

Between 1950 and 2009, cattle inventory for the six counties surrounding the CMR 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 (fig. 5). As shown in figure 5, the CMR NWR was established in 1976 when there 

were 474,700 head of cattle in the six-county area. When the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 

the Refuge was completed in 1986, cattle numbers in this area were 338,000 head. When the EIS was 

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

Thousands of dollars (2008$)

Other

Crops

Livestock

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Fergus Garfield McCone Petroleum Phillips Valley Total Six

County Area

Other

Crops

Livestock
12

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Number of Cattle per County

GARFIELD

MCCONE

VALLEY

PHILLIPS

PETROLEUM

FERGUS

1976, CMR NWR 

Established

1991, CMR NWR 

EIS Fully Implemented

1986, CMR NWR 

EIS Completed

Source: http://www.nass.usda.gov /Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp

Figure 5. Cattle inventory for six counties surrounding Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, 1950–2009. 

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 animal unit months (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 time period, total number of cattle in the six-county area 

increased from 361,400 in 2001 to 382,400 in 2008 (+2.8 percent over 2001 levels). 

Animal Unit Month Dependency 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 6). 

Table 6. Animal inventory and Animal Unit Months of feed needed by county, 2007. 

County Cattle and calves inventory1 Sheep and lamb inventory Total AUMs of feed needed2

Fergus 116,094 6,062 711,113

Garfield 68,390 23,444 466,606

McCone 38,780 6763 248,911

Petroleum 26,155 4032 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 2007 Census of Agriculture, table 12 and table 17. 

1

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. 

2

Calculated as [(cattle and calves inventory/2) x 12 months] + [(sheep and lamb inventory/5) x 12 months]. 
13

As shown in table 7, of the Federal agencies supplying AUMs in the six-county region, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supplied the largest proportion (21 percent) in 2008, followed by 

the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) with 7 percent and the 

Refuge (FWS) with just less than 1 percent. The remaining 72 percent of AUMs in the region were 

supplied by nonfederal grazing permits or owned and (or) leased land. 

As shown in table 7 and figure 6, nongovernment lands supplied the most AUMs (ranging from 

about 55 percent for Valley County to more than 87 percent in Fergus County) while FWS 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). 

Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture. 

Figure 6. Total Animal Unit Months by agency by county, 2007. 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Fergus Garfield McCone Petroleum Phillips Valley

Other

DNRC

BLM

FWS
14

Table 7. Total Animal Unit Months (AUM) by county, 2008.

 

County

Total annual 

AUMs of feed 

needed

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Montana Department 

of Natural Resource 

Conservation 

Other 

AUMs

Percentage 

of total 

AUMs

AUMs

Percentage 

of total 

AUMs

AUMs

Percentage

of total 

AUMs

AUMs

Percentage 

of total 

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

Calculated as [(Cattle and Calves inventory/2) x 12 months] + [(Sheep and Lamb inventory/5) x 12 months].

Dependency: agency AUMs and (or) Total AUMs of Feed Needed.

FWS numbers: 10-year annual average.

BLM Source: Rhodes, B.J., (April) 2009.

DNRC Source: Rooney, C., (April) 2009.

Other: are private and (or) other lands—not on Federal or State lands. This is actually an underestimate, the Ag Census is the physical number at the end of 

December, not the annual average.
15

Tourism and Outdoor Recreation in Montana and Counties Surrounding the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge

Montana residents and visitors to the State participate 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 participated in wildlife-associated 

activities in Montana (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a). Of all participants, 31 percent

participated in fishing for a total of 2.9 million fishing days, 21 percent participated in hunting for a total 

of 2.1 million hunting days, and 79 percent participated in wildlife-watching for a total of 3.1 million 

activity days. Montana residents had the highest per capita hunting participation in the country at 20 

percent, and fishing participation was also high at 23 percent. The majority of all anglers (59 percent) 

and hunters (74 percent) in Montana were State residents, while the majority of away-from-home 

wildlife watching participants2 in Montana were nonresidents (67 percent). These wildlife-associated 

activities in Montana generated a total of $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 Regions Surrounding the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 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 and includes 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, the majority of 

these activities occur in the western parts of the State, bringing substantially fewer benefits to Russell 

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 Russell Country and 3 

percent in 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 less in the 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 percent to 39 percent growth during the same time 

period (Montana Department of Commerce, 2008). 

Nevertheless, Russell Country received 976,140 visitors in 2005 who spent a total of $216.8 

million in the travel region for various travel-related expenses (Oschell and Nickerson, 2006b). 

Travelers to Russell Country participated 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 CMR was visited by 8 percent

of the Russell Country visitors, and was the sixth most visited site. 

Likewise, 283,013 nonresident visitors traveled to Missouri River Country, spending a total of 

$32.9 million in the area for expenses such as gas, food, shopping, and lodging (Oschell and Nickerson, 

2006a). Visitors to Missouri River Country participated in activities such as driving for pleasure (46

 

2 For the purpose of the National Survey, wildlife watching is categorized into (1) away-from-home (activities taking place at 

least 1 mile from home); and (2) around-the-home (activities taking place within 1 mile from home). All wildlife watchers to 

the Refuge would be considered away-from-home participants. 
16

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), 

visiting 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 Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge

Outdoor recreational amenities are an important factor in attracting and retaining 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 and others, 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 a number of 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 CMR is owned by the BLM; the remainder is mostly in private 

ownership. As shown in table 8, the six-county area surrounding the Refuge had an increase in seasonal 

housing units between 1990 and 2000, which may reflect the recent trend in private property purchases 

for hunting and other recreational uses in areas surrounding the Refuge (B. Crawford, FWS, oral 

commun., April 2008). 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 partly 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. 
17

Table 8. Seasonal housing in the region surrounding the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. 

Seasonal housing units Percentage of total 

housing units (2000) County 2000 Percent change from 1990

Fergus 187 3 3.4

Garfield 293 12 30.5

McCone 107 -14 9.8

Petroleum 28 -30 9.6

Phillips 264 4 10.6

Valley 376 43 7.8

Six-county region 1,255 3 12.0

 

 Most of the access roads to Refuge lands cross private lands. These predominantly dirt roads are 

not designated as public roads or do not have right-of-ways 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 land owners, and the closures are reducing the 

number of access roads available to the public (B. Crawford, FWS, oral commun., April 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. 

Changing Land Use near the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge 

Adjacent to the north 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 

Foundation (APF). As of 2008, the APF had more than 86,000 acres in deeded and leased land acquired 

since 2004 for a prairie-based wildlife reserve (American Prairie Foundation, 2008). Within the reserve 

is a 2,600-acre enclosed bison range that supports a herd of nearly 76 bison (as of November 2009) 

initially translocated from Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota. The APF plans to continue 

acquiring land for the preserve, as well as expanding the bison herd and bison range, restoring other 

native prairie wildlife, preserving human history, and managing the preserve for public use such as 

hiking, bird watching, camping, and hunting. 

A socioeconomic impacts analysis conducted for the APF 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). 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 (TNC) manages the 60,000-acre Matador Ranch located north of the 

Refuge along Highway 191 near Zortman, Montana. The Matador 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 noxious weeds 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 
18

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 and others, 2009) highlights the expanding 

function 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 

activities through three major categories of nature-based 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 semi-native ecosystems, such as native plant seeds 

and native vegetation, whether harvested directly as hay or indirectly by livestock grazing, 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 and others, 2009, p. 6)

Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs 

As much of the data presented in this report indicate, 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 and others, 

2005) identified four types of values people hold toward wildlife, called wildlife value orientations 

(WVO). These WVOs 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 have 

neither a Utilitarian nor a Mutualist 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 9). In Montana, however, nearly one-half of the State (47 percent) was 

found to hold the traditional Utilitarian value orientation, while only 19 percent were categorized as 

Mutualist. Considering that the area surrounding CMR is considerably more rural compared to some of 

the western portions of Montana, it is likely that even higher proportions of residents around CMR 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. 
19

Table 9. Wildlife value orientations (WVO) and proportions in Western States and Montana.

Wildlife value 

orientations type Description Percentage in 19 Western States

Percentage 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 co-exist or 

live in harmony.

33 19

Pluralist Hold both a mutualist and utilitarian value orientation 

toward wildlife. 

20 27

Distance Distanced from the issue of wildlife. Do not hold either a 

mutualist or a utilitarian orientation toward wildlife. 

13 7

Source: Teel and others, 2005.

In addition to people’s general perceptions about wildlife and natural resources, their attitudes 

toward the CMR and its management specifically form the basis of their level of support for 

management actions. The FWS 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) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 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 maintain unique traditions and a 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 on the Refuge have negatively impacted the local economy, while others 

believe that increasing visitor numbers to the Refuge will require additional infrastructure maintenance 

in local communities. 

Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Activities

Methods for a 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 CMR were estimated using IMPLAN, a regional input-output modeling 

system developed by the USDA Forest Service. IMPLAN is a computerized database and modeling 

system that provides a regional input-output analysis of economic activity in terms of 10 industrial 

groups involving more than 400 economic sectors (Olson and Lindall, 1999). The IMPLAN model 

draws upon data collected by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group from multiple Federal and State sources 

including the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Census Bureau 

(Olson and Lindall, 2009). The year 2007 IMPLAN county-level data profiles for McCone, Garfield, 

Fergus, Phillips, Petroleum, and Valley Counties were used in this study. The IMPLAN county-level 

employment data estimates were found to be comparable to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System data for the year 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 
20

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). In order 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-time and part-time workers, 

which are measured in total jobs.

• Labor income includes employee wages and salaries, including income of sole proprietors and 

payroll benefits. 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (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 commonly take several years 

to achieve. The estimates reported for Alternatives B, C, and D represent the final economic effects after 

all changes in management have been implemented. 

Economic Impacts of Alternative A

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Revenue Sharing

The Refuge boundary encompasses 1.06 million acres, including the CMR and UL Bend 

National Wildlife Refuges. Only 40 percent of the acreage within the CMR boundary is under the 

primary jurisdiction of the FWS. The majority of the acreage (51 percent) falls under the primary 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with the FWS having secondary jurisdiction in those 

areas. The remaining acreages are owned by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation (DNRC) and private landowners. Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing (RRS) 

Act, local counties receive an annual payment for lands that have been purchased byIXOOIHHVLPSOH

DFTXLVLWLRQby the FWS. Table 10 shows the FWS fee acquisition acreage in each surrounding county. 

RRS 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 FWS. 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 six-county area surrounding the Refuge received RRS

payments totaling $25,684 (table 10). Table 11 shows the resulting economic impacts of RRS payments 

under Alternative A. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, RRS payments for 
21

Alternative A generate total annual economic impacts of about $32,600 in local output, $7,000 in labor 

income, and less than one-third of a job in the local impact area. 

Table 10. County acreage of refuge full fee simple acquisition acreage and Refuge Revenue Sharing payments.

County Full fee simple acquisition acreage Fiscal year 2008 RRS 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

Total 24,935 $25,684

Table 11. Annual impacts from refuge revenue sharing payments for Alternative A (2007$). 

Types of effects 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

Impacts from Charles M. Russell Natiional Wildlife Refuge Administration

Staff—Personal Purchases 

Refuge employees reside 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 and (or) 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 outside the region. The 

current approved refuge staff consists of 28 permanent and 21 seasonal employees for Alternative A 

(table 12). 

Based on fiscal year 2008 salary charts, it was estimated that annual salaries for Alternative A 

would total more than $2.3 million. Table 13 shows the economic impacts associated with spending of 

salaries in local areas by refuge employees under Alternative A. For Alternative A, salary spending by 

refuge personnel would directly account for about $1.5 million in local output, 11 jobs, and $277,200 in 

labor income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional 

$375,200 in local output, four jobs, and $98,900 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 about $1.9 million in local output, 15 jobs, and $376,000 in labor income. 
22

Table 12. Current approved staff (Alternative A).

CMR Headquarters 

(Lewistown, Montana) 

Sand Creek 

Field Station 

Jordan Field 

Station

Fort Peck 

Field Station 

UL BEND 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

Project Leader Station Manager Station Manager Station Manager None

Deputy Project Leader Assistant Station 

Manager

Assistant Station 

Manager

Assistant Station 

Manager

Pilot-Wildlife Biologist Assistant Fire 

Management Officer

Range Technician Biological 

Technician

Wildlife Refuge Specialist Biological Technician

Maintenance Worker (2) Law Enforcement 

Officer

Supervisory Wildlife 

Biologist

Range Technician

Wildlife Biologist (3) Maintenance Worker

Fire Management Officer Student Trainee

Administrative Officer

Administrative Assistant (2)

Seasonal Employees - 14 fire seasonals and 7 biological technicians

Table 13. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel (2007$).

Type of effect Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(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

Work-Related Purchases 

A variety of supplies and services are purchased for refuge operations and maintenance 

activities. Refuge purchases made in 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 14 shows the economic impacts associated with work-related 

expenditures in the six-county area. For Alternative A, work-related expenditures would directly 

account for almost $597,000 in local output, two jobs, and about $59,000 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 $670,800 in local output, three jobs and $79,800 in labor 

income. 
23

Table 14. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for Alternative A (2007$).

Type of effect Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(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

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy

Spending associated with recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generates significant 

economic activity. The FWS report “Banking on nature—The economic benefits of National Wildlife 

Refuges visitation to local communities” estimated the impact of national wildlife refuges on their local 

economies (Carver and Caudill, 2007). According to the report, more than 34.8 million visits were made 

to national wildlife refuges in 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 refuge 

visitors generated nearly 27,000 jobs, and more than $542.8 million in employment income (Carver and 

Caudill, 2007). Approximately 82 percent of total expenditures were from nonconsumptive activities, 12 

percent from fishing, and 6 percent from hunting (Carver and Caudill, 2007). 

The Refuge offers a wide variety of year-round accessible recreational opportunities including 

big game hunting, upland game hunting, fishing, migratory game bird 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 was 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 and (or) Office, traffic counters, hunting permits, and general observation by 

refuge personnel. Annual Refuge visitation estimates are on a per-visit basis. Table 15 summarizes 

estimated Refuge visitation by type of visitor activity for Alternative A. 

Table 15. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative A.

Visitor activity Total number 

of visits

Percentage of 

nonlocal visits

Total number 

of nonlocal 

visits

Number of 

hours spent 

at refuge

Number of 

nonlocal 

visitor days1

Consumptive use 

Fishing 60,000 50 30,000 8 30,000

Big game hunting 90,000 70 63,000 8 63,000

Waterfowl and migratory 

bird hunting 2,900 70 2,030 8 2,030

Upland game hunting 10,000 75 7,500 8 7,500

Nonconsumptive use

Nature trails, other 

wildlife observation, 

office visits

87,100 70 60,970 4 30,485

Total 250,000 163,500 133,015

1

One visitor day equals 8 hours.
24

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 rationale for excluding local visitor 

spending is twofold. First, money flowing into the local area from visitors living outside the local area 

(hereinafter referred to as nonlocal visitors) is considered new money injected into the local economy. 

Second, if residents of local six-county area visit the Refuge more or less due to the management 

changes, they will correspondingly change the 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 visitors. Table 15 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. In this analysis, we use the average daily visitor spending profiles from the Banking on Nature 

report (Carver and Caudill, 2007) that were derived from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (NSFHWR). The NSFHWR reports trip-related spending of State 

residents and nonresidents for several different wildlife-associated recreational activities. For each 

recreation activity, spending is reported in the categories of lodging, food and drink, transportation, and 

other expenses. Carver and Caudill (2007) calculated the average per-person, per-day expenditures by 

recreation activity for each FWS region. Residents were defined as living within 30 miles of the refuge, 

and nonresidents were defined as living outside the 30-mile radius (Carver and Caudill, 2007). For our 

analysis, nonlocal visitors match the nonresident spending profile definition. Therefore, we used the 

spending profiles for nonresidents for FWS Region 6 (the region where the CMR is located).

Nonresident average daily spending profiles for big game hunting ($190,380 per day), small game 

hunting ($156,870 per day), migratory bird hunting ($67,620 per day), and freshwater fishing ($112,020 

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 ($140,460 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 visit as a full visitor day would 

overestimate the economic impact of Refuge visitation. In order to properly account for the amount of 

spending, the annual number of nonlocal refuge visits were 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 participate in other wildlife observation activities typically 

spend 4 hours (one-half of a visitor day) on the refuge. Table 15 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 16 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 more than $20.9 million in 

the 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.
25

Table 16. Annual impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for Alternative A (2007$).

Visitor activity 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

Direct effects total $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

Secondary effects total $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

Impacts from Other Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Management Activities—Grazing

FWS records indicate there were 42 cattle permits on the Refuge in 2008 (table 17). 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 Counties 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.

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 17. Refuge permits and Animal Unit Months (AUM) by county, 2008. 

County Permits Annual Unit Months

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
26

Table 18 summarizes the estimated economic impact of one AUM of Refuge grazing to the sixcounty 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 (or) calf operations in the Northern Great Plains region of the United States 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic Research Service, 2009), which includes the CMR area, 

and a 2006 University of Idaho cow and (or) 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 sixcounty 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 as a 

result of the production from one AUM of livestock grazing. As a result of this economic activity, it is 

estimated that $18.17 of labor income is 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. 

Table 18. Economic impact of refuge grazing (2007$). 

Grazing statistics Per AUM Total CMR 

AUMs permitted

Total CMR 

AUMs used

Total AUMs 1 24,000 18,872

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 (jobs) 0.000741 18 14

Average earning per job $24,532 $24,532 $24,532

Source: David Taylor, University of Wyoming, 2009. 

For Alternative A, the current level of permitted Refuge grazing (24,000 AUMs) would generate 

$986,200 of production in the six-county area annually. This production would account for $1.9 million 

in total economic output, $436,000 in labor earnings, and 18 jobs in the local economy (table 18). The 

current level of AUMs actually used on the Refuge (18,872 AUMs) would generate $775,500 of 

production in the six-county area annually. This production would account for $1.5 million in total 

economic output, $343,000 in labor earnings, and 14 jobs in the local economy (table 18). 

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative A

Table 19 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 about $23.1 million in local output, 282 jobs, and about $6.3 

million in labor income. In addition, grazing on Refuge lands generates $1.5 million in total output, 14 

jobs, and $343,000 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 

(table 19). Grazing will be on a prescriptive basis for all other Alternatives where the specific number of 

AUMs are unknown; therefore, grazing impacts were not analyzed. 
27

Table 19. Economic impacts of refuge management activities for Alternative A (2007$).

Type of effects Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(number full- and

part-time jobs)

Refuge revenue sharing

Direct effects $25.5 $5.0 0

Total effects $32.6 $7.0 0

Refuge administration1

Direct effects $2,098.9 $336.0 13

Total effects $2,548.1 $455.9 18

Public use activities

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 $6,261.1 282

Note: Economic impacts associated with grazing are not included.

1

Staff salary spending and work-related purchases.

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, Inc., 2007). Excluding 

grazing operations, 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. Total economic effects of refuge operations are more of a factor in the communities near the 

refuge such as Lewistown, Glasgow, Fort Peck, Jordan, and Malta where most of the Refuge public-userelated economic activity occurs. 

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 represent 1.4 

percent of total income and 1.6 percent of total employment in the overall six-county area economy. 

Total economic effects of refuge operations are more of a factor in the communities near the refuge such 

as Lewistown, Glasgow, Fort Peck, Jordan, and Malta, where most of the Refuge public-use related 

economic activity occurs.

Economic Impacts of Alternative B

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Revenue Sharing

Same as Alternative A.

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Administration

Staff—Personal Purchases 

Proposed staff for Alternative B includes all approved staff positions (Alternative A, table 12) 

plus five additional positions. The new positions are: an Outdoor Recreation Planner; a Law 
28

Enforcement Officer; a Refuge Operations Specialist; a Range Technician; and a Technician. Table 20 

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 $306,700 in labor income in the local economy. 

The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $415,100 in local output, four jobs, 

and $109,800 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 $416,500 in labor income. Due to the increased staffing levels for Alternative B, the 

associated economic effects of staff salary spending would generate $199,600 more in local output, two 

more jobs, and $40,400 more in labor income than Alternative A.

Table 20. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for Alternative B (2007$).

Type of effects Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(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 21 shows the economic impacts associated with workrelated expenditures in the six-county area for Alternative B. These estimates assume 40 percent of the 

nonsalary budget will 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 $660,300 

in local output, two jobs, and $65,100 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 $742,200 in local output, three jobs, and $88,400 in labor income. Due to the increased 

nonsalary expenditures for Alternative B, the associated economic effects of work-related purchases 

would generate $71,300 more in local output and $8,600 more in labor income than Alternative A. 

Table 21. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for Alternative B (2007$).

Type of effects 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
29

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy

Changes in refuge management activities can affect recreational opportunities offered and 

visitation levels. Table 22 shows the estimated visitation levels associated with each visitor activity for 

Alternative B. Under Alternative B, annual visitation is anticipated to increase for waterfowl hunting (3 

percent), upland game hunting (20 percent), and nonconsumptive-use activities (7 percent) compared to 

Alternative A (table 15). No change is anticipated for fishing activities, while big game hunting is 

anticipated to decrease by 6 percent, compared to Alternative A. 

Table 22. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative B.

Visitor activity Total number 

of visits

Percentage 

of nonlocal 

visits

Total number 

of nonlocal 

visits

Number of 

hours spent 

at refuge

Number of 

nonlocal 

visitor days1

Consumptive-use 

Fishing 60,000 50 30,000 8 30,000

Big game hunting 85,000 70 59,500 8 59,500

Waterfowl and 

migratory bird 

hunting 3,000 70 2,100 8 2,100

Upland game hunting 12,000 75 9,000 8 9,000

Nonconsumptive-use

Nature trails, other 

wildlife observation, 

office visits 93,000 70 65,100 4 32,550

Total 253,000 165,700 133,150

1

One visitor day equals 8 hours.

Table 23 summarizes the total economic impacts associated with current nonlocal fishing, 

hunting (all types), and nonconsumptive visitation for Alternative B. Nonlocal refuge visitors would 

spend more than $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 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 $54,900 in local output, one job, and $12,500 

in labor income. 
30

Table 23. Annual impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for Alternative B (2007$).

Visitor activity 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

Direct effects total $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

Secondary effects total $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

Impacts from Other Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Management Activities—Grazing 

For Alternative B, Refuge management will move towards a prescriptive grazing regime in order 

to meet specific wildlife and (or) habitat goals and objectives. Within 4 to 7 years, a prescriptive grazing 

plan would be developed for 50 to 75 percent of the refuge. As a result, the level of grazing could be 

reduced or increased during short time periods. 

As shown in table 7, the Refuge supplies less than 1 percent of total AUMs in the six-county 

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 

18 assume that the only effect on the ranching operation from Refuge grazing is the direct production 

associated with the Refuge AUMs. Although most ranches are typically only partly 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 and others, 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 and others, 

2008). The level of an increased impact above the direct production associated with Refuge AUMs 

would depend on a number of 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 and others, 2008). 

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative B

Table 24 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, 
31

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 economy. Total economic 

effects of Refuge operations are a greater factor in the communities near the refuge such as Lewistown, 

Glasgow, Fort Peck, Jordan, and Malta, where most of the Refuge public-use-related economic activity 

occurs.

Table 24. Summary of all refuge management activities for Alternative B (2007$).

Visitor activity 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 administration1

Direct effects $2,322.1 $371.8 15

Total effects $2,819.1 $504.9 20

Public use activities

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

1

Staff salary spending and work-related purchases.

Table 25 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 $216,000 more in local output, $36,400 more in labor 

income, and one more job as compared to Alternative A. 

Economic Impacts of Alternative C

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Revenue Sharing

Same as Alternative A. 

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildllife Refuge Administration

Staff—Personal Purchases 

Proposed staff for Alternative C includes all current staff positions (Alternative A, table 12) plus 

seven additional positions. The new positions are: two Outdoor Recreation Planners; two Maintenance 

Workers; a Law Enforcement Officer; a Station Manager (UL Bend NWR); and a Range Technician. 

Table 26 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 
32

Table 25. Change in economic impacts under Alternative B compared to Alternative A (2007$).

Visitor activity 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 administration1

Direct effects +$223.2 +$35.8 +2

Total effects +$270.9 +$48.9 +2

Public use activities

Direct effects -$46 -$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

1

Staff salary spending and work-related purchases.

Table 26. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for Alternative C (2007$).

Type of effects 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

directly account for about $1.7 million in local output, 13 jobs, and $321,500 in labor income in the 

local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $435,100 in local 

output, four jobs, and $114,700 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 $436,200 in labor income. Due to the increased staffing levels for 

Alternative C, the associated economic effects of staff salary spending would generate $300,000 more in 

local output, two more jobs, and $60,100 more in labor income than Alternative A. 

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 27 shows the economic impacts associated with workrelated expenditures in the six-county area for Alternative C. These estimates assume 40 percent of the 

nonsalary budget will 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 $692,200 

in local output, two jobs, and $68,200 in labor income in the local economy. Accounting for both the 
33

direct and secondary effects, work-related purchases for Alternative C would generate a total economic 

effect of $778,000 in local output, three jobs, and $92,600 in labor income. Due to the increased 

nonsalary expenditures for Alternative B, the associated economic effects of work-related purchases 

would generate $107,200 more in local output and $12,800 more in labor income than Alternative A. 

Table 27. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for Alternative C (2007$).

Type of effects Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(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

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy

Table 28 shows the estimated visitation levels associated with each visitor activity for 

Alternative C. Under Alternative C, visitation increases are anticipated for all activities expect fishing as 

compared to Alternative A (table 15). 

Table 28. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative C.

Visitor activity Total number 

of visits

Percentage of 

nonlocal visits

Total number 

of nonlocal 

visits

Number of 

hours spent 

at refuge

Number of 

nonlocal 

visitor days1

Consumptive use 

Fishing 60,000 50 30,000 8 30,000

Big game hunting 100,000 70 70,000 8 70,000

Waterfowl and 

migratory bird hunting 3,500 70 2,450 8 2,450

Upland game hunting 15,000 75 11,250 8 11,250

Nonconsumptive use

Nature trails, other 

wildlife observation, 

office visits 117,585 70 82,310 4 41,155

Total 296,085 196,010 154,855

1

One visitor day equals 8 hours.

Table 29 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 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 
34

Table 29. Annual Impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for Alternative C (2007$).

Type of effects 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

Direct effects total $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

Secondary effects total $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

fishing) under Alternative C, the associated economic effects of visitor spending would generate $3.5 

million more in local output, 46 more jobs, and $999,200 more in labor income than Alternative A. 

Impacts from Other Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Management Activities—Grazing

For Alternative C, Refuge management will gradually move toward a prescriptive grazing 

regime in order to promote ecological resilience, biological diversity, integrity, and heterogeneity across 

the landscape. Prescriptive grazing will be implemented across 50 to 75 percent of the refuge within 6 to 

9 years. As a result, the level of grazing could probably be reduced from the current level but could 

possibly increase for short periods of time. 

As shown in table 7, the Refuge supplies less than 1 percent of total AUMs in the six-county 

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 

18 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 partly 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 and others, 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 and others, 

2008). The level of an increased impact above the direct production associated with Refuge AUMs 

would depend on a number of 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 and others, 2008). 
35

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative C

Table 30 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 

Table 30. Summary of refuge management activities for Alternative C (2007$).

Type of effects 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 administration1

Direct effects $2,434.2 $389.7 15

Total effects $2,955.1 $528.8 20

Public use activities

Direct effects $17,113.5 $4,953.4 240

Total effects $24,017.4 $6,797.3 310

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects $19,573.2 $5,348.1 255

Total effects $27,005.1 $7,333.1 330

1

Staff salary spending and work-related purchases.

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 operations are a 

larger factor in the communities near the refuge such as Lewistown, Glasgow, Fort Peck, Jordan, and 

Malta, where most of the Refuge public-use-related economic activity occurs.

Table 31 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.

Economic Impacts of Alternative D

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Revenue Sharing

Same as Alternative A. 

Impacts from Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Administration

Staff—Personal Purchases 

Proposed staff for Alternative D includes all current staff positions (Alternative A, table 12) plus 

seven additional positions. The new positions are: two Outdoor Recreation Planners; a Maintenance 
36

Table 31. Change in economic impacts under Alternative C compared to Alternative A (2007$).

Type of effects 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 administration1

Direct effects +$335.3 +$53.7 +2

Total effects +$407.0 +$72.8 +2

Public use activities

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

1

Staff salary spending and work-related purchases.

Worker; a Law Enforcement Officer; a Station Manager (UL Bend NWR); a Range Technician; and a 

Technician. Table 32 shows the economic impacts associated with spending of salaries in the sixcounty area by Refuge employees under Alternative D. For Alternative D, salary spending by Refuge 

personnel would directly account for $1.7 million in local output, 13 jobs, and $321,000 in labor 

income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional 

$434,400 in local output, four jobs, and $114,500 in labor income. Accounting for both the direct and 

secondary effects, salary spending by the Refuge personnel for Alternative D would generate total 

economic impacts of $2.2 million in local output, 17 jobs, and $435,500 in labor income. Due to the 

increased staffing levels for Alternative D, the associated economic effects of staff salary spending 

would generate $296,000 more in local output, two more jobs, and $59,000 more in labor income than 

Alternative A.

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 Alternative C shown in table 27. 

Table 32. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for Alternative D (2007$).

Type of effects Local output

($ thousands)

Labor income

($ thousands)

Employment 

(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
37

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy

Table 33 shows the estimated visitation levels associated with each visitor activity 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 (table 15). 

Table 33. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative D.

Visitor activity Total number 

of visits

Percentage of 

nonlocal visits

Total number 

of nonlocal 

visits

Number of 

hours spent 

at refuge

Number of 

nonlocal 

visitor days1

Consumptive-use 

Fishing 60,000 50 30,000 8 30,000

Big game hunting 95,000 70 66,500 8 66,500

Waterfowl and

migratory bird 

hunting 3,000 70 2,100 8 2,100

Upland game hunting 10,000 75 7,500 8 7,500

Nonconsumptive-use

Nature trails, auto 

tour, other wildlife 

observation, office 

visits 95,810 70 67,067 4 33,534

Total 263,810 173,167 139,634

1

One visitor day equals 8 hours.

Table 34 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 multiplier 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 $497,500 more in labor 

income than Alternative A.
38

Table 34. Annual impacts of nonlocal visitor spending for Alternative D (2007$).

Type of effects 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

Direct effects total $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

Secondary effects total $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

Impacts from Other Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Management Activities—Grazing

For Alternative D, Refuge management will gradually move towards a prescriptive grazing 

regime in order to promote ecological resilience, biological diversity, integrity, and heterogeneity across 

the landscape. Prescriptive grazing will be implemented across 50 to 75 percent of the refuge within 6 to 

9 years. As a result, the level of grazing could probably be reduced from the current level but could 

possibly increase for short periods of time. 

As shown in table 7, the Refuge supplies less than one percent of total AUMs in the six-county 

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 

18 assume that the only effect 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 and others, 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; and Taylor and 

others, 2008). The level of an increased impact above the direct production associated with Refuge 

AUMs would depend on a number of 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 and others, 2008). 
39

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative D

Table 35 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. Total economic 

effects of refuge operations are a larger factor in the communities near the refuge such as Lewistown, 

Glasgow, and Malta, where most of the Refuge public-use-related economic activity occurs. 

Table 36 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 $2.1 million more in local output, 25 additional jobs, and $569,600 more 

in labor income when compared to Alternative A. 

Table 35. Summary of all refuge management activities for Alternative D (2007$).

Type of effects 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 administration1

Direct effects $2,431.4 $389.2 15

Total effects $2,951.6 $528.1 20

Public use activities

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

1

Staff salary spending and work-related purchases.
40

Table 36. Change in economic impacts under Alternative D compared to Alternative A (2007$).

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 administration1

Direct effects +$332.5 +$53.2 +2

Total effects +$403.5 +$72.1 +2

Public use activities

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

1

Staff salary spending and work-related purchases.

Summary and Conclusions

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 $343,000 in labor 

income in the six-county area economy. Excluding grazing operations, total economic impacts 

associated with refuge operations under Alternative A represent 1.4 percent of total income and 1.6 

percent of total employment in the overall six-county area economy. 

 Due to increases in overall visitation and Refuge administration, Alternatives B, C, and D 

would generate more economic activity than Alternative A. The largest increase in economic activity 

would occur under Alternative C. 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 operations 

will be a larger factor in the communities near the refuge such as Lewistown, Glasgow, Fort Peck, 

Jordan, and Malta, where most of the Refuge CMR public-use-related economic activity occurs. 

References Cited

American Prairie Foundation, 2008, 2008 annual report: 

http://www.americanprairie.org/about/annual_reports/Annual_Report_2008.pdf. 

Carver, E., and Caudill, J., 2007, Banking on nature 2006—The economic benefits to local communities 

of National Wildlife Refuge visitation: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of Economics, 

Washington, D.C., accessed September 2008, at 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/about/msWord/BankingonNature_2006_11-23.doc
41

Destination Lewistown, Montana, 2009, Economic Development Opportunities, 

http://www.destinationlewistownmontana.com/wp/community-resources/economic-developmentopportunities/, last accessed December 2009. 

Duffield, J. and Neher, C. 2002. The Prairie Foundation: Socioeconomic impacts on Valley and Philips 

Counties. Prepared for The Prairie Foundation by Bioeconomics, Inc. 

Egan, A.F., and Luloff, A.E., 2000, The exurbanization of America’s forests—Research in rural social 

sciences: Journal of Forestry, v. 99, no. 3. p. 26–30. 

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., 2007, Off-farm income, technology adoption, and farm economic performance: 

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Report no. 36, 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err36/err36.pdf, retrieved September 24, 2008. 

Freese, C., Montanye, D., and Dabrowska, K., 2009, New directions for the prairie economy—

Connecting conservation and rural development in the Northern Great Plains: World Wildlife Fund, 

August, http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/ngp/WWFBinaryitem14039.pdf, last 

accessed May 2010. 

Gruenert, J.C., 1999, Second job entrepreneurs: Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall, p. 18–26. 

Johnson, J., 2004, The state of the land—Analysis of land use change in Montana and the three regions: 

www.mt.gov, last accessed October 2009.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 2007, 2007 IMPLAN data files, 

http://implan.com/V4/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=15, last accessed March 2009. 

Montana Department of Commerce, 2008, Census and Economic Resources: 

http://commerce.mt.gov/censusresources.asp, last accessed December 2009.

Montana Department of Labor and Industry, 2009, State and county economic fliers, 

http://www.ourfactsyourfuture.org/cgi/databrowsing/?PAGEID=4&SUBID=273, last accessed 

December 2009. 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 2007, 2007 annual review—Oil and Gas 

Conservation Division, http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/AR_2007.pdf, last accessed March 2010.

National Agricultural Statistics Service, Quick Stats, U.S. & All States County Data – Livestock, 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/Create_County_All.jsp, last accessed March 2010.

Norman C. Wheeler and Associates, 2008, Newsletter: www.ncwheeler.com, accessed October 2008. 

NPA Data Services, Inc., 2007, 2007 Regional Economic Projections Series: Census and Economic 

Information Center, Montana Department of Commerce, 

http://ceic.mt.gov/Demog/project/NPActy_total_and_65+_1107_web.pdf, last accessed March 2010.

Olson, D., and Lindall, S., 2009, IMPLAN professional software, analysis and data guide: Minnesota 

IMPLAN Group, Inc., 

http://implan.com/V4/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=61&Itemid=7, last 

accessed March 2010. 

Oschell, C., and Nickerson, N., 2006a, Niche news—Missouri River country traveler characteristics: 

http://www.itrr.umt.edu/NicheNews06/MissouriRiverCountryChar.pdf, last accessed December 2009.

Oschell, C., and Nickerson N., 2006b, Niche news–Russell Country traveler characteristics: 

http://www.itrr.umt.edu/NicheNews06/RussellCountryChar.pdf, last accessed December 2009.

Rademaker, L., and Nickerson, N., 2006, Niche news–2005 nonresident traveler characteristics: Institute 

for Tourism and Recreation Research, The University of Montana—Missoula, Montana, 

http://www.itrr.umt.edu/NicheNews06/2005TravChar.pdf, last accessed December 2009.

Ranchers Stewardship Alliance, 2008, http://www.ranchersstewardshipalliance.org/index.asp. 

Rasker, R., 2006, An exploration into the impact of industrial development versus conservation on 

western public lands: Society and Natural Resources, v. 19, p. 191–207. 
42

Rasker, R., and Hansen, A., 2000, Natural amenities and population growth in the Greater Yellowstone 

Region: Human Ecology Review, v. 2, p. 30–40. 

Red Lodge Clearinghouse, 2008, Matador Ranch Grass Bank, 

http://rlch.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=223, retrieved July 15, 2008. 

Rowe, H.I., and Bartlett, E.T., 2001, Development and federal grazing policy impacts on two Colorado 

counties—A comparative study, in Torell, L.A., E.T. Bartlett, E.T., and Larranaga, R., eds., Current 

issues in rangeland resource economics: Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by Western 

Coordinating Committee 5: annual meeting of the Society for Range Management, Kailua-Kona, 

Hawaii, February 17-23, 2001, New Mexico State University.

Rudzitis, G., 1999, Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural west: Rural Development 

Perspectives, v. 14, no. 2, p. 9–13. 

Rudzitis, G., and Johansen, H., 1989, Migration to western wilderness counties—Causes and 

consequences: Western Wildlands, v. 15, p. 19–23. 

Salant, P., Dillman, D., and Carley, L., 1997, Who’s moving into the nonmetropolitan counties—

Evidence from Washington State: Pullman, Washington, Social and Economic Sciences Research 

Center, Washington State University. 

State and County Quick Facts, 2007, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/30000.html, last accessed 

March 2010. 

Stynes, D., 1998, Guidelines for measuring visitor spending: Department of Park, Recreation and 

Tourism Resources, Michigan State University, 

https://www.msu.edu/course/prr/840/econimpact/pdf/ecimpvol3.pdf, last accessed April 2009.

Taylor, D., Coupal, R., Foulke, T., Rashford, B., and Olson, D., 2008, An economic profile of the 

Bridger‐Teton National Forest: University of Wyoming, Department of Agricultural and Applied 

Economics. 

Teel, T.L., Dayer, A.A., Manfredo, M.J., and Bright, A.D., 2005, Wildlife values in the west—Project 

report no. 58 for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Fort Collins, Colorado State 

University, Department of Human Dimensions in Natural Resources. 

Thackeray, 2006, Landowners seek security agreements, agreements usually ban surface mining, 

subdivision. The Billings Gazette, February 26. 

Travel MT, 2009, Jordan Montana, http://www.travelmt.com/mt-cities-Jordan.html, last accessed 

December 2009. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008, USA Counties, Civilian Labor Force, 

http://censtats.census.gov/usa/usa.shtml, last accessed March 2010. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2009, USA counties, http://censtats.census.gov/usa/usa.shtml, last accessed 

October 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, 2009, Annual estimates of the resident population for 

counties of Montana: April 1, 2000, to July 1, 2008 (CO-EST2008-01-30), release date, March 19. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007a, 2007 Census of Agriculture, Table 46—Selected Operation and 

Operator Characteristics: 2007 and 2002, 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/

Montana/index.asp, last accessed March 2010.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007b, 2007 Census of Agriculture, Table 11—Cattle and Calves, 

Inventory and Sales: 2007 and 2002, 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/

Montana/index.asp, last accessed March 2010.
43

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007c, 2007 Census of Agriculture, Table 16—Sheep and Lambs , 

Inventory, Wool Production, and Number Sold: 2007 and 2002, 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/

Montana/index.asp, last accessed March 2010.

U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic Research Service, 2009, Commodity Costs and Returns: 

Data, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/TestPick.htm#historic2.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2008, Bureau of Economic Analysis—Regional economic information 

system: www.bea.gov, last accessed December 2009. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2009, Bureau of Economic Analysis—Regional economic information 

System: http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?selTable=CA25, last accessed December 2009.

U.S. Department of Labor, 2008, Local area unemployment statistics, http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables, 

last accessed March 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a, 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated 

recreation: March.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008b, Scoping report—Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge 

and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge: April.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge: www.fws.gov/cmr/, 

last accessed October 2009.

Van Tassell, L.W., and J.W. Richardson, 1998, Impact of federal grazing reductions on 

Wyoming ranches: Oregon State University Extension Service, Bulletin 682–E, May. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2009, Bureau of Economic Analysis—Regional economic information 

System: http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?selTable=CA25, last accessed December 2009.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a, 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated 

recreation: March.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008b, Scoping report—Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge 

and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge: April.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge: www.fws.gov/cmr/, 

last accessed October 2009.

Vias, A.C., 1999, Jobs follow people in the rural Rocky Mountain west: Rural Development 

Perspectives, v. 14, no. 2, p. 14–23. 

Young, D.J., and Martin, L., 2003, Moving in or moving out—Migration patterns vary by age and 

region: Montana Business Quarterly, Winter.

Publishing support provided by: 

Denver Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact: 

Center Director, USGS Fort Collins Science Center

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. C

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118

(970) 226-9398

Or visit the Fort Collins Science Center Web site at:

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/