Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Charles M. Russell UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge

Montana

September 2010 Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Airport Road Lewistown, 59457 406 /538 8706 and Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region Division of Refuge Planning 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 303 /236 8145

Abstract Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Type of Action: Administrative Lead Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible Official: Steve Guertin, regional director, region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Abstract: This draft comprehensive conservation plan ation with partners to emphasize abundant wildlife and environmental impact statement identifies the pur- populations using both (1) natural ecological processes pose and need for a management plan, outlines the legal such as fire and wildlife ungulate herbivory (grazing) foundation for management of two refuges in Montana, and (2) responsible synthetic methods such as farming Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL practices or tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public Bend National Wildlife Refuge, and describes and eval- use would be encouraged, but economic uses would uates four alternative plans for managing wildlife, habi- be limited when they compete for habitat resources. tat, and wildlife-dependent public use. This process has About 106 miles of road would be closed. involved the development of a vision, goals, objectives, Under alternative C’s public use and economic use and strategies that meet the legal directives of the U.S. emphasis, the Service would manage the landscape in Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and has considered cooperation with partners to emphasize and promote the input of interested groups and the public. maximum levels of compatible, wildlife-dependent Under the no-action alternative (A), few changes public use and economic use. Wildlife populations and would occur in managing existing wildlife populations habitats would be protected with various manage- and habitat. The habitat regime would be maintained ment tools that would minimize damaging effects to mostly through a fire suppression program with little wildlife and habitats while enhancing and diversify- use of prescribed fire. There would be continued empha- ing public and economic opportunities. sis on big game management, annual livestock grazing, Under the Service’s proposed action—alterna- fencing, invasive species control, and water develop- tive D’s ecological processes emphasis—the Service ment. Habitats would continue to be managed in 65 would work with partners to use natural, dynamic, units, and residual cover would be measured. Wildlife- ecological processes along with active management in dependent public use would occur at current levels, a balanced, responsible manner to restore and main- which includes , fishing, and limited interpreta- tain biological diversity, biological integrity, and en- tion and environmental education programs. About 670 vironmental health. Once natural processes were miles of road would remain open. The Service would con- restored, more passive approaches would be favored. tinue to manage the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wilderness The Service would provide for quality wildlife- and 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness in the Charles dependent public use and experiences and would M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. limit economic uses when they were injurious to eco- Under alternative B’s wildlife population emphasis, logical processes. About 23 miles of road would be the Service would manage the landscape in cooper- closed.

Commenting: Comments are due 60 days after the notice will be made available for inspection by the public, and of availability of this document is published in the Fed- copies may also be provided to the public. For further eral Register. Comments should be mailed to U.S. Fish information, contact Laurie Shannon at 303/236 4317. and Wildlife Service, Attention: Laurie Shannon, Plan- Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; ning Team Leader, Division of Refuge Planning, P.O. Box Bureau of Land Management; Montana Department 25486, Denver, Colorado 80225. In addition, comments of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Montana Department of can be delivered to 134 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, Natural Resources; Fergus, Garfield, McCone, Petro- Colorado 80228. Comments may also be sent by email leum, Phillips, and Valley Counties; and to [email protected]. All comments received from Council of Conservation Districts (for the previously the public and interested groups will be placed in the listed counties). agency’s record for this planning process. Comments

Summary Brett Billings/USFWS Low clouds hang over the Missouri river on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.

Encompassing nearly 1.1 million acres including Fort The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has Peck Reservoir and the UL Bend National Wildlife developed this draft comprehensive conservation plan Refuge, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and environmental impact statement (draft CCP and is one of the largest refuges in the lower 48 States. EIS) to provide alternatives and identify consequences This refuge in north-central Montana extends west for the management and use of the Charles M. Russell about 125 air miles along the Missouri River from National Wildlife Refuge and the UL Bend National Fort Peck Dam to the refuge’s western edge at Wildlife Refuge. The alternatives are the result of exten- the boundary of the Upper Missouri River Breaks sive public input and working closely with several coop- National Monument. A portion of the Missouri River erating agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau along the refuge’s western boundary is part of Upper of Land Management; Montana Department of Fish, Missouri National Wild and Scenic River. This expan- Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP); Montana Department of sive refuge covers portions of six counties: Fergus, Natural Resources and Conservation; counties of Fer- Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips. gus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips; Refuge habitat includes native prairie, forested and Missouri River Conservation Districts Council. coulees, river bottoms, and badlands. Wildlife is as Other tribal governments, governmental agencies, diverse as the topography and includes Rocky Moun- nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and pri- tain , mule deer, white-tailed deer, , vate citizens contributed substantial input to the plan. Rocky Mountain , sharp-tailed grouse, ______prairie dogs, and more than 236 species of birds. More than 250,000 visitors participate in a vari- ety of wildlife-dependent recreational activities every Refuge Background year. In particular, the refuge is renowned for its out- In 1805, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark first standing hunting opportunities. Other visitors enjoy detailed accounts of the abundant wildlife resources viewing and photographing wildlife along the refuge’s they found in the area now known as Charles M. extensive network of roads. The Fort Peck Inter- Russell National Wildlife Refuge (Moulton 2002). pretive Center showcases an aquarium of native and One hundred-thirty years later, Olaus J. Murie, a game fish, other wildlife, and several casts of dino- renowned wildlife biologist for the U.S. Biological saur fossils including a Tyrannosaurus rex. Still oth- Survey, made the first biological assessment of plant ers enjoy fishing along the Missouri River or on Fort and wildlife species for the proposed Fort Peck Mig- Peck Reservoir. ratory Bird Refuge (Murie 1935). xvi Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana xvii

The refuge was established in 1936 as the Fort ■■ to ensure that management of the refuge consid- Peck Game Range for sustaining large numbers of ers other Federal, State, and county plans; sharp-tailed grouse, pronghorn, and other wildlife. ■■ to provide a basis for development of budget In 1963, it was designated as the Charles M. Russell requests for the operation, maintenance, and cap- National Wildlife Range in honor of famous western ital improvement needs of the refuge. painter Charlie Russell, and this “range” became a The Service is committed to sustaining the Nation’s “refuge” in 1976. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge fish and wildlife resources together through the com- was established in 1969 and lies within the bound- bined efforts of governments, businesses, and private ary of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge; citizens. these two Refuge System units are managed cohe- sively as one refuge. As part of the National Wildlife ______Refuge System, the refuge is managed for wildlife conservation above all else. UL Bend National Wild- National Wildlife life Refuge contains the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wil- derness, and Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge System Refuge has 15 proposed wilderness units totaling Like all national wildlife refuges, Charles M. Russell 155,288 acres. and UL Bend refuges are administered under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended in 1997.

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of

© Cornell Lab of Ornithology present and future generations of Americans. The Bullock’s oriole is a “sentinel species” (one of the first to respond to changed conditions) for the refuge’s river bottoms.

______Purpose and Need Refuge Purposes for the Plan Each national wildlife refuge is managed to fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as The purpose of this draft CCP and EIS is to iden- well as the specific purposes for which that refuge tify actions necessary to accomplish the purposes of was established. the refuges, identify the role the refuges will play in The purpose for a national wildlife refuge comes support of the mission of the National Wildlife Ref- from one or more authorities—law, proclamation, uge System and to provide long-term guidance for executive order, agreement, or other document—that management of refuge programs and activities. The establish or expand a refuge. In 1936, Charles M. CCP is needed Russell National Wildlife Refuge was established by ■■ to communicate with the public and other part- Executive Order 7509 for the following purpose: ners in efforts to carry out the mission of the “That the natural forage resources therein shall National Wildlife Refuge System; be first utilized for the purpose of sustaining in ■■ to provide a clear statement of direction for man- a healthy condition a maximum of four hundred agement of the refuge; thousand (400,000) sharp-tailed grouse, and ■■ to provide neighbors, visitors, and government one thousand five hundred (1,500) antelope, officials with an understanding of the Service’s the primary species, and such nonpredatory management actions on and around the refuge; secondary species in such numbers as may be ■■ to ensure that the Service’s management actions necessary to maintain a balanced wildlife pop- are consistent with the mandates of the National ulation, but in no case shall the consumption Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997; of the forage by the combined population of xvi Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana Summary xvii

the wildlife species be allowed to increase the burden of the range dedicated to the primary species: Provided further, That all the forage resources within this range or preserve shall be available, except as herein otherwise provided with respect to wildlife, for domestic livestock ... And provided further, That land within the exterior limits of the area herein described ... may be utilized for public grazing purposes only to the extent as may be determined by the said Secretary (Agriculture) to be compatible with the utilization of said lands for the purposes for which they were acquired.” UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1969 “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other

management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. USFWS 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act). The scoping process identified the qualities of the refuge and issues of concern. Other lands within both refuges subsequently have been acquired under a variety of transfer and acquisi- tion authorities or have different designations, giving HABITAT and WILDLIFE the refuges more than one purpose. The draft CCP and EIS addresses the following hab-

______itat and wildlife issues: ■■ The use and role of wildfire, livestock grazing (in- Public Involvement cluding water resources needed to support live- stock), hunting, fencing, and other management In fall 2007, the Service initiated the public scoping tools for the preservation and restoration of habi- for this project with the publication of a public involve- tat conditions on the refuge. ment summary and a planning update that described ■■ Habitat and wildlife management in the context the CCP process and anticipated schedule (FWS of the larger landscape that includes adjacent pri- 2007a). The Service published a notice of intent to pre- vate, State, tribal, and Federal lands. pare the draft CCP and EIS in the Federal Register ■■ Species reintroductions and management of species on December 4, 2007. Since then, the Service has con- that could move onto the refuge: American bison, ducted 14 public meetings during scoping and devel- opment of the draft alternatives, mailed four planning gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Rocky Mountain big- horn sheep. updates, posted information on the web page for the CCP, and coordinated with Federal, State, and local ■■ Special consideration of threatened and endan- agencies, and Native American tribes. gered species and species of concern. ■■ Invasive species and noxious weed management ______including the management tools used to combat Significant Issues invasive species. ■■ Predator management. The scoping process identified many qualities of the refuge along with issues and recommendations. Based WATER RESOURCES on this information as well as guidance from the Wildlife populations, both on and off the refuge, are Improvement Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and planning policy, the Service identified seven affected by water quality and access to water. Live- stock grazing has degraded habitat, particularly near significant issues to address in the draft CCP and EIS: water sources. Furthermore, stock watering ponds ■■ Habitat and wildlife can affect stream flow, fish, and riparian areas cond- ■■ Water resources itions. The draft CCP and EIS addresses the following ■■ Public use and access important water issues: ■■ Wilderness ■■ Water quality and quantity ■■ Socioeconomics ■■ Water development ■■ Partnerships and collaboration ■■ Missouri River riparian ecosystem ■■ Cultural values, traditions, and resources ■■ Water rights xviii Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana xix

PUBLIC USE and ACCESS for the Service to collaborate with refuge neighbors and to establish partnerships with interested agen- The Service allows the public uses of hunting, fishing, cies and groups. Wildlife populations and movements wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and are greatly affected by conditions both outside and environmental education. In addition, the Service sup- inside the refuge. Similarly, invasive species are one ports these uses by providing associated access and of the biggest threats facing State, Federal, and facilities such as roads, motorized access, and camp- private landowners. Changes in the ownership of ing. The draft CCP and EIS addresses the following private lands adjacent to the refuge may change public use and access issues: conditions for habitat, wildlife, and public access. ■■ Priority public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife Privately owned mineral rights, future energy devel- observation, photography, interpretation, and en- opment, and rights-of-way influence the future con- vironmental education. ditions and use of the refuge and adjacent lands. The ■■ Motorized and nonmotorized access and law en- draft CCP and EIS addresses the following partner- forcement. ship and collaboration issues: ■■ Roads including number, location, types, and main- ■■ Adjacent land management related to habitat, tenance. wildlife, and public use ■■ Nonpriority uses such as camping and bicycling. ■■ Consultation and coordination with Federal, State, ■■ Facilities, programs, and infrastructure to support and local partners public uses and access. ■■ Climate change and development of minerals, in- ■■ Permitted uses such as livestock grazing or other cluding recommendations for reducing effects on commercial recreation or uses. refuge resources ■■ Priorities for future land acquisition WILDERNESS Planning policy requires refuges to review special CULTURAL VALUES, designation areas such as wilderness and address the TRADITIONS, and RESOURCES potential for any new designations. Concurrent with The refuge has significant archaeological resources the comprehensive conservation planning and envi- and rich prehistoric and historic values to the local ronmental analysis process, the Service is conducting and regional community. The western traditions and a wilderness review and will make final recommen- practices of livestock grazing have affected the lives dations in the final environmental impact statement. of ranchers and their families for many generations. The draft CCP and EIS addresses the following wil- Of unique value are the significant paleontological derness issues: resources (fossilized plants and animals). The draft ■■ Existing proposed wilderness units—consolidation, CCP and EIS addresses the following cultural, tra- addition, or reduction. ditions, and resource issues: ■■ Identification of potential for any new designations. ■■ Refuge values and qualities ■■ Access, infrastructure, and use of management tools. ■■ Land management designations ■■ Traditions and lifestyles SOCIOECONOMICS ■■ Cultural and paleontological resources It is important to manage refuge resources and public use in ways that protect the resources, that are finan- cially responsible, and that are integrated with the economic viability of the surrounding communities. The draft CCP and EIS addresses the following socio- economics issues: ■■ Benefits of the refuge and promotion of refuge values. ■■ Range of alternatives and effects of those alter- natives on the local economy and community. PARTNERSHIPS and COLLABORATION Because of the long, narrow extent of the refuge boundary, the subsequent amount and variety of ad- jacent land uses not only affect, but also are inter- USFWS related with, refuge resources. Therefore, it is crucial Dotted Gayfeather xviii Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana Summary xix

______THREATENED and ENDANGERED Vision SPECIES and SPECIES OF CONCERN The Service developed a vision for the refuge at the Contribute to the identification, preservation, and beginning of the planning process. The vision describes recovery of threatened and endangered species and the focus of refuge management and portrays a picture species of concern that occur or have historically of the refuge in 15 years. occurred in the northern Great Plains.

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge’s RESEARCH and SCIENCE expansive badlands, cottonwood river bottoms, Advance the understanding of natural resources, eco- old-growth forested coulees, sagebrush steppes, logical processes, and the effectiveness of manage- and mixed-grass prairies appear out of the sea ment actions in the northern Great Plains through compatible scientific investigations, monitoring, and that is the northern Great Plains. applied research. Encompassing more than a million acres, the refuge affords visitors solitude, serenity, and unique opportunities to experience natu- FIRE MANAGEMENT ral settings and wildlife similar to what Native Manage wildland fire using a management response Americans and, later, Lewis and Clark observed. that promotes fire’s natural role in shaping the land- The diversity of plant and animal commu- scape while protecting values at risk. nities found on the refuge stretch from the high prairie through the rugged breaks, along the PUBLIC USE and EDUCATION Missouri River, and across Fort Peck Reser- Provide all visitors quality education, recreation, and voir. The refuge is an outstanding example outreach opportunities that are appropriate and com- of a functioning, intact landscape in an ever- patible with the purpose and goals of the refuge and changing West. the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System Working together with our neighbors and while maintaining the remote and primitive experi- ence unique to Charles M. Russell National Wildlife partners, the Service employs adaptive manage- Refuge. ment rooted in science to protect and improve the biological integrity, biological diversity, and environmental health of the refuge’s WILDERNESS wildlife and habitat resources. Conserve, improve, and promote the wilderness qual- ity and associated natural processes of designated and proposed wilderness areas within Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge for all generations. ______Goals CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Service developed eight goals for the refuge based on the Improvement Act, the refuge purposes, Identify, value, and preserve the significant paleon- and information developed during planning. The tological and cultural resources of Charles M. Russell goals direct work toward achieving the vision and National Wildlife Refuge to connect refuge staff, vis- purposes of the refuge and outline approaches for itors, and the community to the area’s prehistoric managing refuge resources. and historic past. HABITAT and WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT REFUGE OPERATIONS and Conserve, restore, and improve the biological integ- PARTNERSHIPS rity, environmental health, and ecological diversity Through effective communication and innovative use of the refuge’s plant and animal communities of the of technology and resources, the refuge uses funding, Missouri River breaks and surrounding prairies to personnel, partnerships, and volunteer programs for support healthy populations of native plants and wild- the benefit of natural resources while recognizing the life. Working with others, reduce and control the social and economic connection of the refuge to adja- spread of nondesirable, nonnative, invasive plant and cent communities. aquatic species for the benefit of native communities on and off the refuge. xx Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana xxi © Rick and Susie Graetz A range of alternatives was identified for managing the 1.1 million-acre refuge.

______The Service will manage public use to provide opportunities for a variety of wildlife-dependent rec- Alternatives reation and programs. Following the initial scoping process in 2007 and 2008, the Service held meetings and workshops with the ALTERNATIVE A–NO ACTION cooperating agencies and the public and identified a reasonable range of preliminary alternatives. The Few changes would occur in the management of exist- Service carried forward the following four alterna- ing wildlife populations and habitat. Wildlife-depen- tives and analyzed them in detail in this environmen- dent public uses and economic uses would continue at tal impact statement: current levels. Key actions of alternative A include the following: ■■ Alternative A–No Action ■■ There would be a continued emphasis on big game ■■ Alternative B–Wildlife Population Emphasis management, annual livestock grazing, use of ■■ Alternative C–Public Use and Economic Use fencing for pastures, invasive species control, Emphasis and water development. Habitat would continue ■■ Alternative D–Ecological Processes Emphasis to be managed in the 65 habitat units that were (Proposed Action) established by Bureau of Land Management for These alternatives examine different ways for pro- grazing purposes. Prescriptive grazing would be viding permanent protection and restoration of fish, implemented gradually as units became available wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources and for and habitat evaluations were completed. providing opportunities for the public to engage in ■■ Big game would be managed to achieve target lev- compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Each al- els in the 1986 environmental impact statement ternative incorporates specific actions intended to record of decision: 160 bighorn sheep, 10 mule deer achieve the goals. However, the no-action alterna- per square mile, and 2.5 elk per square mile. This tive represents the current, unchanged refuge man- would include a more restrictive rifle season for agement and may not meet every aspect of every mule deer in some State hunting districts as com- goal. The no-action alternative provides a basis for pared with the State season. comparison of the action alternatives B–D. ■■ Select stock ponds would be maintained and re- habilitated. Riparian habitat would be restored ELEMENTS COMMON where possible and standard watershed manage- to all ALTERNATIVES ment practices would be enforced. Water rights would be adjudicated and defined. The Service will manage the 20,819-acre UL Bend ■■ Access would be allowed on 670 miles of refuge Wilderness as a class 1 air shed. Roads in proposed roads. wilderness units will remain closed except for roads that provide access to private land within the refuge. ■■ About 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness within 15 units of the Charles M. Russell refuge would be managed in accordance with Service policy. xx Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana Summary xxi

ALTERNATIVE B–WILDLIFE on the MFWP’s modeling and transplant criteria. The Service would work with MFWP to provide POPULATION EMPHASIS quality hunting opportunities as a management The Service would manage the landscape, in cooper- tool that maintains both sustainable populations ation with our partners, to emphasize the abundance of big game and habitat for nongame species. of wildlife populations using balanced natural eco- ■■ In managing the hunting program, the Service logical processes such as fire and herbivory by wild would seek to benefit wildlife populations and ungulates and responsible synthetic methods such as promote harvest experiences that are not always farming and tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public achieved on other public lands. An example would use would be encouraged, and economic uses would be providing opportunities to hunt big game ani- be limited when they compete for habitat resources. mals with all age classes represented (i.e., mule Key actions of alternative B include the following: deer in the 8- to 10-year class). ■■ The Service would actively manage and manipu- ■■ The Service would close about 106 miles of road late habitat, thus creating a diverse plant commu- and would work with partners to develop a travel nity of highly productive wildlife food and cover plan and secure access to the refuge through plants. The management emphasis would be on other lands. Nonmotorized access would be pro- habitat for target species of wildlife in separate moted, but the Service would consider allowing parts of the refuge. The Service would consolidate motorized access on existing roads only for game the 65 habitat units. Subsequently, the refuge retrieval and restricting access on a seasonal staff would write new habitat management plans basis to sensitive areas by the river and roads. based on field station boundaries and habitat eval- ■■ Opportunities for expanding hunting programs uation for target species. The Service would work would be considered to encourage and facilitate with others to develop methods to monitor and young hunters and mobility-impaired hunters. evaluate target species and habitat needs. Limited hunts for furbearers or other predators ■■ Desired habitat conditions may be created using would be considered only if monitoring verified natural ecological processes (such as fire, grazing that population levels could be sustained. by wildlife, or flooding) or through management ■■ The Service would expand the acreage of proposed practices (such as prescriptive livestock grazing, wilderness by 25,037 acres in six existing units. agricultural plantings or managed fire). ■■ An aggressive approach to reduction of invasive plants in the river bottoms would be based on funding and other staffing priorities. Work would include use of prescribed fire, spraying with her- bicides, and planting of wildlife food crops to clear invasive plants. In addition, the Service would collaborate with others to combat invasive plants in shoreline habitat. Where feasible and combined with research, the Service would restore the func- tioning condition of riparian areas and preserve fire refugia (places where fire rarely burns). ■■ Through cooperation and collaboration with the MFWP and adjoining landowners, the Service would use wildlife- and habitat-based objectives USFWS and strategies that consider natural densities, The alternatives address the management of big game social structures, and population dynamics at the such as mule deer. landscape level. The Service and cooperators would mutually agree on population levels that ALTERNATIVE C–PUBLIC USE and can be tolerated by adjoining landowners and provide quality recreational experiences without ECONOMIC USE EMPHASIS negatively affecting habitat or other wildlife. The The Service would manage the landscape, in cooper- Service would collaborate with others to manage ation with our partners, to emphasize and promote wildlife to benefit all species in and around the the maximum, compatible, wildlife-dependent public refuge; actions could include conservation ease- use and economic uses while protecting wildlife pop- ments or other incentives. ulations and habitats to the extent possible. Damaging ■■ The Service would identify habitat suitable for big- effects on wildlife habitats would be minimized while horn sheep and establish new populations based using a variety of management tools to enhance and xxii Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana xxiii

diversify public and economic opportunities. Key riparian habitat. Camping areas would be man- actions of alternative C include the following: aged to limit expansion and further degradation ■■ In addition to the habitat elements in alternative A, of riparian habitat. the Service would generally manage habitats to ■■ Through collaboration with MFWP and others, the provide more opportunities for wildlife-dependent Service would maintain a balance between num- recreation. In places, the refuge staff would man- bers of big game and livestock to sustain habitats age for plant communities that could necessitate a and populations of big game and sharp-tailed compromise between providing wildlife food and grouse. Similar balancing could be necessary when cover and livestock forage needs. Where needed, managing populations of nongame or migratory fencing and water gaps would be used to manage birds and livestock needs. For example, it could be livestock use and prevent further degradation of necessary to balance needs with public and economic uses such as livestock grazing or with needs of other wildlife. ■■ Working with MFWP, the Service would expand and maximize the following hunting opportunities: (1) programs to include new species and traditional or niche (primitive weapon) hunting; (2) mule deer season; (3) predator hunting; (4) trapping; and (5) opportunities for young hunters. ■■ Refuge access would be managed to benefit public and economic uses. The Service would improve access to boat ramps and consider establishing new roads in some areas and seasonally closing other areas, such as those around Fort Peck, to protect habitat and to provide for a diversity of experience. ■■ The Service would recommend eliminating four proposed wilderness units of about 35,881 acres in the East Beauchamp Creek, West Beauchamp Creek, East Hell Creek, and Burnt Lodge units. ALTERNATIVE D–ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES EMPHASIS (Proposed Action) In cooperation with our partners, the Service would USFWS The alternatives address a variety of public uses use natural, dynamic, ecological processes and man- including hunting and access. agement activities in a balanced, responsible manner to restore and maintain the biological diversity, bio- logical integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. Once natural processes are restored, a more passive approach (less human assistance) would be favored. There would be quality wildlife-dependent public uses and experiences. Economic uses would be limited when they are injurious to ecological pro- cesses. Key actions of alternative D include the fol- lowing: ■■ Where feasible, the Service would apply manage- ment practices that mimic and restore natural processes on the refuge, managing for a diversity of plant species in upland and riparian areas. This would include a concerted manipulation of habitats or wildlife populations (using prescribed fire and grazing and hunting) through coordinated objec- tives. Management would evolve toward more passive approaches—allowing natural processes USFWS The alternatives address several recommendations on such as fire, grazing, and flooding—to occur with proposed wilderness areas and the use of handcarts. less human assistance or funding. xxii Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana Summary xxiii

■■ The Service would maintain plant diversity and that also provide opportunities not found on other health using fire in combination with wild ungu- public lands. For example, the Service and MFWP late herbivory (wildlife feeding on plants) or pre- would manage for natural sex and age ratios of scriptive livestock grazing, or both, to ensure the big game species and provide reasonable oppor- viability of populations of sentinel plants (those tunities for hunting success in a remote setting. plant species that decline first when management ■■ Refuge access would be managed to benefit natural practices are injurious; see appendix F). processes and habitat. The Service would evalu- ■■ In collaboration with MFWP and others, the ate roads and implement permanent or seasonal Service would maintain the health and diversity road closures on 23 miles of road as needed to of all species’ populations including game, non- encourage free movement of animals, permit pre- game, and migratory bird species by restoring and scribed fire activities, harvest wild ungulates, or maintaining balanced, self-sustaining populations. allow other activities that contribute to ecological This could include manipulating livestock grazing health. and wildlife numbers, or both, if habitat monitoring ■■ In addition to the wilderness elements in alterna- determined conditions were declining or plant tive A, the Service would recommend expanding species were being affected by overuse. Preda- six of the proposed wilderness units—a total of tors would be managed to benefit the ecological 18,559 acres in the Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, integrity of the refuge. Limited hunting for moun- Alkali Creek, Wagon Coulee, West Hell Creek, and tain lion or other furbearers or predators would Sheep Creek units—and eliminating three units be considered only after monitoring verified that for a reduction of 26,744 acres in the East Beau- population levels could be sustained with a hunt. champ Creek, West Beauchamp Creek, and East ■■ The Service would cooperate with MFWP to pro- Hell Creek units. This would accommodate more vide hunting experiences that maintain game public access in some areas and increase protec- species at levels that sustain ecological health but tion of wilderness values in other areas. USFWS The use of prescribed fire and grazing by wild ungulates and livestock is addressed in the draft CCP and EIS. xxiv Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana xxv

______OBJECTIVES and STRATEGIES Based on the vision and goals for the refuge, the Affected Environment Service has developed objectives and strategies for The draft CCP and EIS describes the characteristics each alternative. An objective is a general statement and resources of the refuge and how existing or past about what the Service wants to achieve on the ref- management or other influences have affected these uge, while a strategy is a specific action or tool that resources. The affected environment addresses the is used to achieve an objective. Because each alter- physical, biological, and social aspects of the refuge native has a different emphasis, objectives vary by that could be affected by management under the alternative. The following summarizes key objective four alternatives. These aspects include the physi- topics addressed for each alternative in the draft cal and biological environment, special management CCP and EIS: areas, visitor services, cultural and paleontological ■■ Management of four broad categories of vegeta- resources, and the socioeconomic environment. The tion found on the refuge: uplands, river bottoms, Service used published and unpublished data, as riparian areas, and shoreline vegetation. noted in the bibliography, to quantify what is known ■■ Use of fire (both prescribed and wildfire), grazing about the refuge. by wildlife and livestock, restoration, predation, and hunting in managing refuge’s uplands, river ______bottoms, riparian areas, and shoreline. Environmental ■■ Managing for climate change and controlling in- vasive species. Consequences ■■ Management of big game; furbearers; small pred- The alternatives for refuge management would pro- ators; threatened and endangered species or spe- vide a variety of positive effects (benefits) and negative cies of concern; and other fish, reptiles, amphib- effects (impacts) to resources at Charles M. Russell ians, mammals, and birds. National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National ■■ Public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife ob- Wildlife Refuge. Some of the greatest benefits would servation, photography, and interpretation. Man- come from consolidating habitat units and managing agement of commercial outfitting, recreation acres, the upland vegetation to create a mosaic of habitats and public access. using prescribed fire, naturally occurring wildfires, ■■ Management of wilderness, other special area des- and prescriptive grazing to support a diversity of ignations; protection of significant cultural and species and improve the overall health of the refuge. paleontological resources. The Service would restore numerous former agri- ■■ Refuge operations and partnerships. cultural river bottoms by reducing invasive plant infestations and planting native species. Another sig- nificant benefit would be the improved function and quality of riparian areas for wildlife using prescrip- tive grazing, possible water impoundment removal or modification, and restoration projects. The greatest impact to refuge resources would be the continuation of current fire suppression strate- gies and constant grazing pressure over large por- tions of the refuge under alternative A. While the overall economic effects of any alternative would be positive, implementation of new grazing and habi- tat management approaches in alternatives B or D would result in impacts to individual livestock per- mittees. From a habitat perspective, action alterna- tives (B, C, and D) would benefit upland and riparian habitats, with alternatives B and D resulting in mod- erate to major long-term benefits to both habitat and wildlife. These and other effects, including a description of the context, intensity, and duration are described in detail in Chapter 5–Environmental © Judy Wantulok The affected environment in the draft CCP and EIS Consequences of the draft CCP and EIS. The degree describes the characteristics of resources at the refuge, of effect was quantified using known numeric or including the sage-grouse. modeled estimates or where extensive monitoring or xxiv Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana Summary xxv

research provided the information. Where sufficient ian areas and wetlands. Over the long term, these numeric information was not available, qualitative benefits would be minor under alternative A, mod- or relative assessments were made using scientific erate under alternative B, minor to moderate under literature or professional field experience. alternative C, and moderate to major under alterna- tive D. In all alternatives, localized moderate impacts from grazing on riparian habitat would persist in some areas. While the approaches and timeframe would vary, river bottom restoration in all alternatives would result in minor to moderate long-term benefits. Effects of the alternatives on shoreline habitat would be negligible. While the big game management emphases and ap- proaches would vary, all alternatives would benefit big game populations. Over the long term, these ben- efits would be minor under alternative A, minor to moderate under alternative B, and moderate under alternatives C and D. As the Service is required to manage for the benefit of special status species, alternative A, with no specific objectives, would have

USFWS negligible effects. More active management of threat- The 670 miles of roads that crisscross the refuge result in ened and endangered species and species of concern effects to the physical, biological, and public environment. under the action alternatives (B–D) would have mod- erate to major long-term benefits to those species. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Continued management of furbearers and small The use of prescribed fire in any alternative would predators would have negligible effects. Alternative B generally result in short-term negligible impacts on would have major long-term benefits to furbearers air quality, visual resources, and soils. The effects of and small predators due to reintroductions, while large wildfires on these resources would be major alternative C would have minor to major impacts due under alternative A and have minor to moderate to increased harvest. The effects of alternative D effects under alternatives B, C, and D. would be negligible. Livestock grazing in some areas would result in Under alternative A, continued impacts to bird moderate to major impacts on soils under alterna- habitat would generally offset the benefits of protec- tives A and C, while prescriptive grazing in alter- tion and enhancement efforts, resulting in negligible natives B and D would reduce those effects over the effects. Habitat protection and management efforts long term. The aesthetic effects of livestock graz- in the action alternatives (B–D) would benefit birds ing and prescribed fire on visual resources for some on the refuge. These long-term benefits would be refuge visitors would be negligible to minor under moderate to major under alternatives B and D, and alternatives A and C, with alternatives B and D hav- minor under alternative C. In all alternatives, mod- ing moderate benefits. erate to major localized impacts would continue to The overall effects of motorized use on sound- occur in some areas due to grazing. scapes would be negligible to minor under all alter- natives. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT The continuation of current management of uplands under alternative A would have minor short-term impacts, with moderate to major long-term impacts. The localized effects of alternative B on upland habitat would be variable but overall would result in moder- ate long-term benefits. Increased prescriptive graz- ing and balanced ungulate use under alternative C would result in minor long-term benefits. Efforts to restore natural processes under alternative D would result in major long-term benefits to uplands. USFWS Implementation of the action alternatives (B–D) would Ongoing habitat protection and water impound- benefit riparian areas, although the amount would vary ment removal or improvement would benefit ripar- by alternative. xxvi Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana xxvii

Continued habitat degradation under alterna- tive C would have minor to moderate benefits. The tive A would have minor incremental impacts on benefits of higher quality hunting opportunities under small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish, while alternative D would be minor to moderate, depend- habitat improvements under the action alternatives ing on the preferences of individual hunters. None of would benefit those species. Benefits would be mod- the alternatives would affect fishing. erate under alternative B, minor under alternative C, Alternative A would have negligible effects on and moderate to major under alternative D. wildlife observation and photography. Increases in personnel, facilities, and programs would result in SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS negligible to minor benefits under alternative B and moderate benefits under alternatives C and D. Lim- Alternative A would keep the current and proposed ited environmental education, interpretation, and out- wilderness configurations. Expansion of proposed reach under alternative A would have negligible wilderness units under alternative B would result in effects. Alternative B would have negligible benefits minor benefits, while reduced units in alternative C due to additional staff and program and facility im- would have minor impacts. Although alternative D provements. Alternatives C and D would have minor would reduce the overall area of proposed wilder- benefits due to expanded staff and facilities. Effects ness, it would have an overall minor beneficial effect on commercial uses would be negligible under all due to consolidated units that are more logical and alternatives except for alternative C, which would efficient for management. None of the alternatives have minor benefits due to additional permits and would affect the designation or management of other efforts to reduce conflicts. special management areas. Under alternative A, access would remain as it is currently with 670 miles of road open to visitors. VISITOR SERVICES Alternative B would result in minor impacts to vehi- Continuation of current hunting opportunities and cle access, with 106 miles of road closures, while the management under alternative A would have negligi- 23 miles of closed road in alternative D would have ble effects, while the action alternatives (B–D) would negligible impacts. The effects of specific road clo- have varying benefits to hunting. Expanded hunting sures would be greater for individuals who prefer to opportunities under alternative B would have negli- access the refuge by those particular routes. Road gible to minor benefits, while an expanded emphasis improvements in alternative C would result in minor on hunting opportunities and harvest under alterna- benefits. Brett Billings/USFWS Fishing would continue to be a popular activity under all alternatives. xxvi Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana Summary xxvii

______CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES What Happens Next While alternative A would have negligible effects, all The draft CCP and EIS will be available for a 60-day of the action alternatives (B–D) would have negligi- public review. The Service may change the alterna- ble to minor benefits on cultural and paleontological tives, the impact analysis, or other features as a result resources due to improved resource identification, of the comments received during the review. The protection, law enforcement, and interpretation. Service will then select a preferred alternative for management of the refuge. The selected alternative’s SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT goals, objectives, and strategies will become the pri- mary components of a stand-alone CCP. The regional economic impacts of refuge manage- Revision of the draft document will produce the ment activities, including local economic output and final CCP and EIS, which will identify the preferred jobs, would be negligible under alternatives A and B. alternative. The Service’s final decision will be doc- Alternatives C and D would result in minor benefits: umented in a record of decision that is published in alternative C would generate $3.9 million in local out- the Federal Register, no sooner than 30 days after put and 48 additional jobs, and alternative D would filing the final CCP and EIS with the U.S. Envi- generate $2.1 million in local output and 25 additional ronmental Protection Agency and distributing it to jobs. the public. The Service will begin to implement the As the refuge currently supplies less than 1 per- final CCP immediately on publication of the deci- cent of total animal unit months in the six-county sion in the Federal Register. Selected management area, any changes in grazing management would activities and projects will be implemented as funds have negligible economic effects. However, refuge become available. The final plan does not constitute management changes would affect individual live- a commitment for funding, and future budgets could stock permittees. The impacts on permittees would influence implementation priorities. be negligible to minor under alternatives A and C and potentially moderate to major impacts under alternatives B and D.