Glossary accessible: Pertaining to physical access to areas them, and the communities and ecosystems in and activities for people of different abilities, which they occur (The Fish and Wildlife Service especially those with physical impairments. Manual, 052 FW 1.12B). The National Wildlife active management: The direct manipulation of hab- Refuge System’s focus is on indigenous species, itats or wildlife populations to achieve specific biotic communities, and ecological processes. objectives. Actions could include planting food biological integrity: Biotic composition, structure, plots, managing water levels, prescribed grazing and function at genetic, organism, and community or fire, or wildlife relocations. levels. adaptive resource management: The rigorous appli- biotic: Pertaining to life or living organisms; caused, cation of management, research, and monitoring produced by, or comprising living organisms. to gain information and experience necessary to BLM: See Bureau of Land Management. assess and change management activities; a pro- Bureau of Land Management (BLM): A Federal agency cess that uses feedback from research, monitor- that was established in 1946 through consolida- ing, and evaluation of management actions to tion of the General Land Office and U.S. Grazing support or change objectives and strategies at Service. The agency has a multiple-use mandate all planning levels; a process in which policy deci- is responsible for a variety of programs for man- sions are carried out within a framework of sci- aging and conserving surface and subsurface min- entifically driven experiments to test predictions eral estates, mostly in the western United States. and assumptions inherent in management plan. canopy: A layer of foliage, generally the uppermost Analysis of results helps managers determine layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or under- whether current management should continue story vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy as is or whether it should be modified to achieve closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the desired conditions. amount of overhead vegetative cover. Administration Act: National Wildlife Refuge System CCP: See comprehensive conservation plan. Administration Act of 1966. CFR: See Code of Federal Regulations. alternative: A reasonable way to solve an identi- cervid: All members of the family Cervidae and fied problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR hybrids including deer, elk, moose, caribous, rein- 1500.2); one of several different means of accom- deer, and related species. plishing refuge purposes and goals and contribut- CFR: See Code of Federal Regulations. ing to the Refuge System mission (The Fish and cfs: Cubic feet per second. Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). CO2: Carbon dioxide. amphibian: A class of cold-blooded vertebrates Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The codification of including frogs, toads, or salamanders. the general and permanent rules published in the annual: A plant that flowers and dies within 1 year of Federal Register by the Executive departments germination. and agencies of the Federal Government. Each appropriate use: A proposed or existing uses on volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar national wildlife refuges that meet at least one year. of the following: (1) is a wildlife-dependent rec- compatibility determination: See compatible use. reational use; (2) contributes to fulfilling refuge compatible use: A wildlife-dependent recreational purposes, the Refuge System mission, or goals use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound and objectives outline in a CCP; or (3) the refuge professional judgment of the Director of the manager has evaluated the use and found it to be U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materi- appropriate. ally interfere with or detract from the fulfillment ATV: All-terrain vehicle. of the mission of the Refuge System or the pur- AUM: Animal-unit month. poses of the refuge (The Fish and Wildlife Service baseline: A set of critical observations, data, or infor- Manual, 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determi- mation used for comparison or a control. nation supports the selection of compatible uses BCR: Bird conservation region. and identified stipulations or limits necessary to biological control: The use of organisms or viruses to ensure compatibility. control invasive plants or other pests. comprehensive conservation plan (CCP): A document biological diversity, also biodiversity: The variety of that describes the desired future conditions of life and its processes including the variety of liv- the refuge and provides long-range guidance and ing organisms, the genetic differences among management direction for the refuge manager to 208 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute particular State within the near future if factors to the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet contributing to its decline continue. Populations of other relevant mandates (The Fish and Wildlife these species are at critically low levels or their Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). habitats have been degraded or depleted to a sig- concern: See issue. nificant degree. conservation district: Organized in the 1930s as a Enhancement Act: Title VIII of the Water Resources response to the severe erosion problems, a dis- Development Act of 2000. trict is often a political subdivision of a State. environmental assessment: A concise public docu- Money comes from assessments levied on real ment, prepared in compliance with the National property within the boundaries of the district. Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses It helps citizens in conserving renewable natural the purpose and need for an action and alterna- resources. tives to such action, and provides sufficient evi- conspecific: An individual belonging to the same dence and analysis of effects to determine whether species as another. to prepare an environmental impact statement or corridor: See travel corridor. finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). county road: In general, means any public highway environmental health: Composition, structure, and opened, established, constructed, maintained, functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic abandoned in accordance with State law. features. cover, cover type, canopy cover: Present vegetation. extinction: The complete disappearance of a species cultural resources: The remains of sites, structures, from the earth; no longer existing. or objects used by people in the past. fauna: All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals depredation: Destruction or consumption of eggs, of an area. broods, or individual wildlife due to a predatory Federal trust resource: A trust is something man- animal; damage inflicted on agricultural crops or aged by one entity for another who holds the own- ornamental plants by wildlife. ership. The Service holds in trust many natural DNRC: Montana Department of Natural Resources resources for the people of the United States as a and Conservation. result of Federal acts and treaties. Examples are DOI: Department of the Interior. species listed under the Endangered Species Act, EA: See environmental assessment. migratory birds protected by international trea- ecological resilience: The ability to absorb distur- ties, and native plant or wildlife species found on a bances, to be changed, and then to reorganize and national wildlife refuge. still have the same identity, that is, keep the same Federal trust species: All species where the Fed- basic structure and ways of functioning. A resil- eral Government has primary jurisdiction includ- ient system is forgiving of external shocks; a dis- ing federally endangered or threatened species, turbance is unlikely to affect the whole. A resilient migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain habitat (1) sustains many species of plants and marine mammals. animals and a highly variable structural compo- fire refugia: Those places within the landscape that sition; (2) is asymmetric; (3) exemplifies biological due to size, soils, or topography do not burn as integrity, biological diversity, and environmental often, as intensely, or at all with frequent light health; and (4) adapts to climate change. ground fire. In landscapes with frequent fire ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of return intervals, respect for fire refugia is essen- plant and animal communities and their associ- tial for protection of fire intolerant plant species. ated nonliving environment; a biological commu- flora: All the plant species of an area. nity, together with its environment, functioning as fire management plan (FMP): A plan that identifies a unit. For administrative purposes, the Service and integrates all wildland fire management and has designated 53 ecosystems covering the United related activities within the context of approved States and its possessions. These ecosystems gen- land and resource management plans. The plan erally correspond with watershed boundaries and defines a program to manage wildland fires (wild- their sizes and ecological complexity vary. fire and prescribed fire). ecosystem resilience: See ecological resilience. focal species: A multispecies approach where the eco- EIS: Environmental impact statement. logical needs of a suite of species are used to define endangered species, Federal: A plant or animal spe- an ideal landscape to maintain the range of habi- cies listed under the Endangered Species Act of tat conditions and ecological processes required by 1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction landbirds or other species. Focal species are con- throughout all or a significant part of its range. sidered most sensitive to or limited by certain eco- endangered species, State: A plant or animal species logical processes (such as fire or nest predation) in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a or habitat attributes (such as patch size or snags). Glossary 209

The needs of a suite of focal species are then used HDP: See height–density plot. to help guide management activities. height–density plot (HDP): Methods used to record forb: A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seed-pro- the height of visual obstruction of plant cover. A ducing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that measuring pole is observed at points along a line does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies transect from a set distance and angle. It provides down at the end of the growing season. information on the adequacy of nesting cover for fragmentation: The alteration of a large block of hab- sharp-tailed grouse. itat that creates isolated patches of the original herbivory: Grazing of grass and other plants by any habitat that are interspersed with a variety of animal. other habitat types; the process of reducing the heterogeneity: diversity or dissimilar species within size and connectivity of habitat patches, making a landscape movement of individuals or genetic information HMP: See habitat management plan. between parcels difficult or impossible. huntable: A species that can be hunted on the refuge Friends group: Any formal organization whose mis- in accordance with Federal and State regulations. sion is to support the goals and purposes of its IMPLAN: Impact Analysis for Planning. associated refuge and the National Wildlife Ref- impoundment: A body of water created by collection uge Association overall; Friends organizations and confinement within a series of levees or dikes, and cooperative and interpretive associations. creating separate management units although not FWS: See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. always independent of one another. geocaching: A high-technology scavenger hunt in Improvement Act: National Wildlife Refuge System which objects are hidden at secret outdoor loca- Improvement Act of 1997. tions for participants to find using Global Posi- indigenous: Originating or occurring naturally in a tioning System positions posted on the Internet. particular place. Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer inholding: Non-Service land owned by private, other system capable of storing and manipulating spa- agency, or other group landowners that is within tial data; a set of computer hardware and software the boundary of a national wildlife refuge. for analyzing and displaying spatially referenced integrated pest management: Methods of managing features (such as points, lines and polygons) with undesirable species such as invasive plants; educa- nongeographic attributes such as species and age. tion, prevention, physical or mechanical methods GIS: See geographic information system. of control, biological control, responsible chemical Global Positioning System (GPS): A navigational sys- use, and cultural methods. tem involving satellites that a allows a user with introduced species: A species present in an area due a receiver to determine precise coordinates for to intentional or unintentional escape, release, their location on the earth’s surface. dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem as goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad state- a result of human activity. ment of desired future conditions that conveys a invasive plant, also noxious weed: A species that is purpose but does not define measurable units (The nonnative to the ecosystem and whose introduc- Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 620 FW 1.5). tion causes, or is likely to cause, economic or envi- GPS: See Global Positioning System. ronmental harm or harm to human health. GS: General Schedule (pay rate schedule for certain invertebrates: An animal that lacks an internal skel- Federal positions). eton or backbone such as insects, butterflies, and habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions aquatic species like snails. required by an organism for survival and repro- inviolate sanctuary: A place of refuge or protection duction; the place where an organism typically where animals and birds may not be hunted. lives and grows. issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a manage- habitat disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat ment decision; for example, a Service initiative, structure or composition; may be natural (for opportunity, resource management problem, a example, wildfire) or human-caused events (for threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, example, timber harvest and disking). public concern, or the presence of an undesirable habitat management plan (HMP): A stepdown plan to resource condition (The Fish and Wildlife Service a comprehensive conservation plan that identi- Manual, 602 FW 1.5). fies in detail how the objectives and strategies for long-distance animal movement: The ability of a wild- uplands, riparian areas, river bottoms, and shore- life species to move greater distances in search of lines will be carried out. forage without fences. habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type: A land lotic: Flowing water wetlands are associated with classification system based on the concept of dis- rivers, streams and drainage ways. These riparian tinct plant associations. wetlands contain a defined channel and floodplain. 210 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana management alternative: See alternative. reation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System MFWP: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Administration Act of 1966. Parks. native species: A species that, other than as a result MIAG: Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. of an introduction, historically occurred or cur- migration: Regular extensive, seasonal movements rently occurs in that ecosystem. of birds between their breeding regions and their neotropical migrant: A bird species that breeds north wintering regions; to pass usually periodically of the United States and Mexican border and win- from one region or climate to another for feeding ters primarily south of this border. or breeding. nest success: The percentage of nests that success- migratory birds: Birds that follow a seasonal move- fully hatch one or more eggs of the total number ment from their breeding grounds to their winter- of nests initiated in an area. ing grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and nongovernmental organization: Any group that is not songbirds are all migratory birds. a Federal, State, tribal, county, city, town, local, or mission: Succinct statement of purpose or reason for other governmental entity. being. noxious weed, also invasive plant: Any living stage mitigation: Measure designed to counteract an envi- (including seeds and reproductive parts) of a par- ronmental impact or to make an impact less asitic or other plant of a kind that is of foreign ori- severe. gin (new to or not widely prevalent in the United mixed-grass prairie: A transition zone between the States) and can directly or indirectly injure crops, tallgrass prairie and the shortgrass prairie dom- other useful plants, livestock, poultry, other inter- inated by grasses of medium height that are ests of agriculture including irrigation, navigation, approximately 2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich as fish and wildlife resources, or public health. Accord- the tallgrass prairie and moisture levels are less. ing to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (Public Law monitoring: The process of collecting information to 93–639), a noxious weed (such as invasive plant) is track changes of selected parameters over time. one that causes disease or has adverse effects on national wildlife refuge: A designated area of land, humans or the human environment and, therefore, water, or an interest in land or water within the is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not the United States and to public health. include coordination areas; a complete listing of NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service of all units of the Refuge System is in the current the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the NWR: National wildlife refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” objective: An objective is a concise target state- National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System): ment of what will be achieved, how much will be Various categories of areas administered by the achieved, when and where it will be achieved, and Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of who is responsible for the work; derived from goals fish and wildlife including species threatened with and provide the basis for determining manage- extinction, all lands, waters, and interests therein ment strategies. Objectives should be attainable administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, and time-specific and should be stated quantita- areas for the protection and conservation of fish tively to the extent possible. If objectives cannot and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, be stated quantitatively, they may be stated qual- wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife manage- itatively (The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, ment areas, and waterfowl production areas. 602 FW 1.5). National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of patch: An area distinct from that around it; an area 1997 (Improvement Act): Sets the mission and the distinguished from its surroundings by environ- administrative policy for all refuges in the National mental conditions. Wildlife Refuge System; defines a unifying mis- patch burning: The use of prescribed fire each year in a sion for the Refuge System; establishes the legit- different location or patch within a larger unfenced imacy and appropriateness of the six priority landscape. With an ecology-driven purpose, public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, patch burning has high potential to increase bio- wildlife photography, environmental education, diversity and wildlife habitat. This management and interpretation); establishes a formal process practice creates a mosaic of heavily grazed and for determining appropriateness and compatibil- lightly grazed areas that provide a diverse veg- ity; establishes the responsibilities of the Secre- etative structure and increase diversity in the tary of the Interior for managing and protecting same grazing unit. the Refuge System; requires a comprehensive perennial: Lasting or active through the year or conservation plan for each refuge by the year through many years; a plant species that has a 2012. This act amended parts of the Refuge Rec- lifespan of more than 2 years. Glossary 211 plant community: An assemblage of plant species public domain: Lands that were not under private unique in its composition; occurs in particular or State ownership during the 18th and 19th locations under particular influences; a reflection centuries in the United States, as the country or integration of the environmental influences on was expanding. These lands were obtained from the site such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar the 13 colonies, Native American tribes, or pur- radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a chases from other counties. The domain was con- general kind of climax plant community, such as trolled by the Federal Government and sold to ponderosa pine or bunchgrass. States or private interests through the General preferred alternative: The Service’s final selection Land Office, which would eventually become the (after analysis of alternatives in a draft National Bureau of Land Management. Environmental Policy Act document) of a man- public involvement: A process that offers affected agement alternative to carry out, which is doc- and interested individuals and organizations an umented in a “record of decision” for an EIS or opportunity to become informed about, and to a “finding of no significant impact” for an envi- express their opinions on, Service actions and ronmental assessment and published in the Fed- policies. In the process, these views are studied eral Register. The decision is based on the legal thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of pub- responsibility of the Service including the mis- lic views is given in shaping decisions for refuge sions of the Service and the Refuge System, other management. legal and policy mandates, the purpose of the ref- purpose of the refuge: The purpose of a refuge is spec- uge, and the vision and goals in the final CCP. In ified in or derived from the law, proclamation, addition, the Service considers public, tribal, and Executive order, agreement, public land order, agency input along with land uses in the ecosys- donation document, or administrative memoran- tem, environmental effects, and budget projec- dum establishing authorization or expanding a tions. refuge, a refuge unit, or a refuge subunit (The prescribed fire: A wildland fire originating from a Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). planned ignition to meet specific objectives iden- pyric herbivory: Grazing promoted through fire. The tified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan fire–grazing interaction is critical in maintaining for which National Environmental Policy Act heterogeneity (dissimilar species resulting in requirements (where applicable) have been met variety) of grassland ecosystems. before ignition. These objectives could be hazard- quality wildlife-dependent recreation: Programs are ous fuel reduction, habitat- or wildlife-oriented, or based on 11 criteria that defined under 605 FW1, other objectives in the prescribed fire burn plan. “General Guidelines for Wildlife-Dependent Rec- prescriptive grazing: The planned application of live- reation.” Quality programs include the follow- stock grazing at a specified season, duration and ing: safety of participants and compliance with intensity to accomplish specific vegetation man- laws and regulations; minimized conflicts with agement objectives. The objectives are designed other goals or users; accessibility, stewardship, to achieve the broader habitat and wildlife goals. and availability to a broad spectrum of the Ameri- priority public use: One of six uses authorized by the can people; public understanding and appreciation National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement of the natural resources; reliable and reasonable Act of 1997 to have priority if found to be com- opportunities to experience wildlife; accessible patible with a refuge’s purposes. This includes facilities that blend in with the natural setting; hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife pho- and visitor satisfaction to help define and evalu- tography, environmental education, and interpre- ate programs. tation. raptor: A carnivorous bird such as a hawk, a falcon, proposed action: The alternative proposed to best or a vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on meat achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge taken by hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses). (contributes to the Refuge System mission, ad- R.S. 2477: Revised Statute 2477. Section 2477 of the dresses the significant issues, and is consistent with Revised Statutes emerged from section 8 of the principles of sound fish and wildlife management). Mining Act of 1866, which provided rights-of-way public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; offi- for the construction of highways over public lands, cials of Federal, State, and local government not reserved for public uses. It was repealed on agencies; Native American tribes; and foreign October 21, 1976, under the Federal Land Policy nations. It may include anyone outside the core and Management Act. planning team. It includes those who may or may refuge purpose: See purpose of the refuge. not have shown an interest in Service issues and Refuge System: See National Wildlife Refuge System. those who do or do not realize that Service deci- refuge use: Any activity on a refuge, except admin- sions may affect them. istrative or law enforcement activity, carried out 212 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

by or under the direction of an authorized Service special use permit: A permit for special authorization employee. from the refuge manager required for any refuge resident species: A species inhabiting a given locality service, facility, privilege, or product of the soil throughout the year; nonmigratory species. provided at refuge expense and not usually avail- resilience: The ability to absorb disturbances, to be able to the public through authorizations in Title changed and then to reorganize and still have the 50 CFR or other public regulations (Refuge Man- same identity (keep the same basic structure and ual, 5 RM 17.6). ways of functioning). species of concern: Those plant and animal species, rest: Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical while not falling under the definition of special manipulation, in reference to refuge lands. status species, that are of management interest restoration: Management emphasis designed to move by virtue of being Federal trust species such as ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, migratory birds, important game species, or sig- such as healthy upland habitats and aquatic sys- nificant keystone species; species that have doc- tems. umented or apparent populations declines, small Riparian and Wetland Research Program: A program or restricted populations, or dependence on through the University of Montana’s Department restricted or vulnerable habitats. of Forestry that the Service contracted with in stepdown management plan: A plan that provides the 1999–2000 to look at water quality on the refuge. details necessary to carry out management strat- riparian area or riparian zone: An area or habitat that egies identified in the comprehensive conservation is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosys- plan (Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). tems including streams, lakes, wet areas, and strategy: A specific action, tool, or technique or com- adjacent plant communities and their associated bination of actions, tools, and techniques used to soils that have free water at or near the surface; meet unit objectives (The Fish and Wildlife Ser- an area whose components are directly or indi- vice Manual, 602 FW 1.5). rectly attributed to the influence of water; of or suppression: All the work of extinguishing a fire or relating to a river; specifically applied to ecol- confining fire spread. ogy, “riparian” describes the land immediately target species: A species selected, because of spe- adjoining and directly influenced by streams. For cific biological or social reasons, for management example, riparian vegetation includes all plant and monitoring. A target species could be a focal, life growing on the land adjoining a stream and endangered, big game, or other species. directly influenced by the stream. TEA–21: 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st RLGIS: Refuge land geographic information system. Century. scoping: The process of obtaining information from TES: Threatened and endangered species. the public for input into the planning process. threatened species, Federal: Species listed under the seasonally flooded: Surface water is present for ex- Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that tended periods in the growing season, but is absent are likely to become endangered within the fore- by the end of the season in most years. seeable future throughout all or a significant part sediment: Material deposited by water, wind, and of their range. glaciers. threatened species, State: A plant or animal species sentinel plant species: Plant species that vanish first likely to become endangered in a particular State when the ecological processes that occur within an within the near future if factors contributing to ecosystem are out of balance (refer to appendix G). population decline or habitat degradation or loss Service: See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. continue. shorebird: Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds travel corridor: A landscape feature that facilitates such as a plover or a snipe that frequent the sea- the biologically effective transport of animals be- shore or mudflats. tween larger patches of habitat dedicated to con- spatial: Relating to or having the character of space. servation functions. Such corridors may facilitate special status species: Plants or animals that have several kinds of traffic including frequent forag- been identified through Federal law, State law, ing movement, seasonal migration, or the once in or agency policy as requiring special protection a lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. These are of monitoring. Examples include federally listed transition habitats and need not contain all the endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate habitat elements required for long-term survival species; State-listed endangered, threatened, can- or reproduction of its migrants. didate, or monitor species; Service’s species of trust resource: See Federal trust resource. management concern; or species identified by the trust species: See Federal trust species. Partners in Flight Program as being of extreme ungulate: A hoofed mammal such as horses, cattle, or moderately high conservation concern. deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep. Glossary 213

USACE: See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. WG: Wage grade schedule (pay rate schedule for cer- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): The Federal tain Federal positions). agency whose mission is to provide vital public wild bison: In Montana, wild buffalo are defined as engineering services in peace and war to strength- buffalo or bison that have not been reduced to en the Nation’s security, energize the economy, captivity per Montana Code Ann. §87–2–101(16). and reduce risks from disasters. Bison that are free roaming and held in public U.S.C.: United States Code. trust are classified as a game species in Montana. USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. The State of Montana’s legal classification of bison U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS, FWS): changes based on whether they are found on com- The principal Federal agency responsible for con- mercial farms or in private conservation herds or serving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wild- whether they are found in the wild. life and their habitats for the continuing benefit wildfire: An unplanned ignition of a wildland fire of the American people. The Service manages the (such as a fire caused by lightning, volcanoes, and 93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System unauthorized and accidental human causes) and comprised of more than 530 national wildlife refuges any escaped prescribed fire. and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It wildland fire: Any nonstructure fire that occurs in the also runs 65 national fish hatcheries and 78 eco- wildland including wildfire and prescribed fire. logical service field stations, the agency enforces wildland–urban interface: The line, area, or zone Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird where structures and other human development populations, restores national significant fisher- meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland ies, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such and vegetative fuel. as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species wilderness review: The process used to identify and Act, and helps foreign Governments with their recommend for congressional designation Ref- conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal uge System lands and waters that merit inclu- aid program that distributes millions of dollars in sion in the National Wilderness Preservation excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to System. It is a required element of a CCP and State wildlife agencies. includes three phases: inventory, study, and rec- USFS: USDA Forest Service. ommendation. USFWS: See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. wilderness, also designated wilderness: An area des- U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): A Federal agency whose ignated in legislation and administered as part of mission is to provide reliable scientific information the National Wilderness Preservation System. to describe and understand the earth; minimize loss wilderness, proposed: An area of the Refuge Sys- of life and property from natural disasters; manage tem that the Secretary of the Interior has rec- water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; ommended to the President for inclusion in the and enhance and protect our quality of life. National Wilderness Preservation System. USGS: See U.S. Geological Survey. wilderness, recommended: An area of the Refuge viability: Ability to survive and developing ade- System that the Director of the Service has recom- quately. For a plant, the ability to survive and mended to the Secretary of the Interior, through bear fruits or seeds without being fenced. the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and vision statement: A concise statement of the desired Parks, for inclusion in the National Wilderness future condition of the planning unit, based pri- Preservation System. marily on the Refuge System mission, specific ref- wilderness study area (WSA): An area the Service uge purposes, and other relevant mandates (The is considering for wilderness designation, which Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). has been is identified and established through the visual obstruction: Pertaining to the density of a plant inventory component of a wilderness review. community; the height of vegetation that blocks wildlife-dependent recreational use: Use of a refuge the view of predators and conspecifics to a nest. involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, waterfowl: A category of birds that includes ducks, wildlife photography, environmental education, or geese, and swans. interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge Sys- watershed: The region draining into a river, a river tem Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these system, or a body of water. are the six priority public uses of the Refuge Sys- wetland management district: Land that the Ref- tem. uge System acquires with Federal Duck Stamp woodland: Open stands of trees with crowns not usu- money for restoration and management primar- ally touching, generally forming 25–60 percent ily as prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl cover. and other wetland birds. WSA: Wilderness study area.

Appendix A Record of Decision

Record of Decision for the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge July 2012

INTRODUCTION REFUGE BACKGROUND This record of decision provides the basis for man- The planning area is located in Fergus, Petroleum, agement decisions for the final comprehensive con- Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips Counties in servation plan and environmental impact statement Montana. The refuge headquarters is in Lewistown, for Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and Montana. Encompassing nearly 1.1 million acres, UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge (together, “the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge is one of refuge”), Montana. We, the Fish and Wildlife Service the largest refuges in the lower 48 States. It extends (Service) manage these two national wildlife refuges west about 125 air miles along the Missouri River as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. UL from Fort Peck Dam to the refuge’s western edge Bend National Wildlife Refuge lies within Charles M. at the boundary of the Upper Missouri River Breaks Russell National Wildlife Refuge; these two units are National Monument. managed cohesively as one refuge. Unless otherwise Refuge habitat includes native prairie, forested specified in this record of decision, they are referred coulees, river bottoms, and badlands. Wildlife is as to as Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. diverse as the topography and includes Rocky Moun- As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the tain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge is man- Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, sharp-tailed grouse, aged for wildlife conservation above all else. prairie dogs, endangered black-footed ferrets, and The comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) was over 236 species of birds. prepared along with an environmental impact state- More than 250,000 visitors take part in a variety ment (EIS) in compliance with the National Envi- of wildlife-dependent recreational activities every ronmental Policy Act and relevant planning policies. year. In particular, the refuge is renowned for its We published a notice of availability for the final outstanding hunting opportunities. Other visitors CCP and EIS in the Federal Register on May 7, 2012 enjoy viewing and photographing wildlife along the (FR 77 (88):26781–84). refuge’s extensive network of roads. The Fort Peck In preparing the final CCP and EIS, we worked Interpretive Center showcases many exhibits. Still closely with several cooperating agencies and part- others enjoy fishing along the Missouri River. ners including: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Land Management; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Montana Department of Natural Resources; counties of Fergus, Petroleum, PURPOSE AND NEED Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips; and Mis- souri River Conservation Districts council (for the FOR THE PLAN six districts that surround the refuge). Other tribal The purpose of this final CCP and EIS is to identify governments, Federal, State and local agencies, non- actions necessary to accomplish the purposes of both governmental organizations, and individuals con- refuges, identify the role the refuges will play in sup- tributed input to the plan. port of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to provide long-term guidance for man- agement of refuge programs and activities. 216 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

The CCP is needed: this range or preserve shall be available, except as ■■ to communicate with the public and other part- herein otherwise provided with respect to wildlife, ners in efforts to carry out the mission of the for domestic livestock…And provided further, That National Wildlife Refuge System; land within the exterior limits of the area herein described…may be utilized for public grazing pur- ■■ to provide a clear statement of direction for man- agement of the refuge; poses only to the extent as may be determined by the said Secretary (Agriculture) to be compatible ■■ to provide neighbors, visitors, and government with the utilization of said lands for the purposes for officials with an understanding of the Service’s which they were acquired.” management actions on and around the refuge; UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge was estab- ■■ to ensure the Service’s management actions are lished in 1969 “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge any other management purpose, for migratory birds” Improvement Act of 1997; (16 U.S.C. 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act). ■■ to ensure that management of the refuge consid- Other lands within both refuges subsequently ers other Federal, State, and county plans; have been acquired under a variety of transfer and ■■ to provide a basis for development of budget acquisition authorities or have different designa- requests for the operation, maintenance, and cap- tions including designated and proposed wilderness, ital improvement needs of the refuge. giving both refuges more than one purpose. We are committed to sustaining the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources through the combined efforts of governments, businesses, and private citizens. VISION At the beginning of the planning process, we devel- NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM oped a vision for the refuge that describes the focus Like all national wildlife refuges, Charles M. Russell of refuge management and portrays a picture of the and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges are admin- refuge in 15 years: istered under the National Wildlife Refuge System. Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Ref- The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge uge’s expansive badlands, cottonwood river System is to administer a national network of bottoms, old-growth forested coulees, sage- lands and waters for the conservation, man- brush steppes, and mixed-grass prairies agement, and where appropriate, restoration appear out of the sea that is the northern Great of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and Plains. their habitats within the United States for the Encompassing more than a million acres, benefit of present and future generations of the refuge affords visitors solitude, serenity, Americans. and unique opportunities to experience nat- ural settings and wildlife similar to what REFUGE PURPOSES Native Americans and, later, Lewis and Clark Each national wildlife refuge is managed to fulfill the observed. The diversity of plant and animal mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as communities found on the refuge stretch from well as the specific purposes for which that refuge the high prairie through the rugged breaks, was established. along the Missouri River, and across Fort In 1936, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Peck Reservoir. The refuge is an outstanding Refuge was established by Executive Order 7509 for example of a functioning, resilient, and intact the following purpose: landscape in an ever-changing West. “That the natural forage resources therein shall Working together with our neighbors and be first utilized for the purpose of sustaining in a partners, the Service employs adaptive man- healthy condition a maximum of four hundred thou- agement rooted in science to protect and sand (400,000) sharp-tailed grouse, and one thousand improve the biological integrity, biological five hundred (1,500) antelope, the primary species, diversity, and environmental health of the ref- and such nonpredatory secondary species in such uge’s wildlife and habitat resources. numbers as may be necessary to maintain a balanced wildlife population, but in no case shall the consump- tion of the forage by the combined population of the wildlife species be allowed to increase the burden MANAGEMENT GOALS of the range dedicated to the primary species: Pro- We developed eight goals for the refuge based on the vided further, That all the forage resources within National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 Appendix A—Record of Decision 217

and the refuge purposes, and we refined these goals CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL as the planning process progressed. The goals direct work toward achieving the vision and purposes of RESOURCES the refuge and outline approaches for managing ref- Identify, value, and preserve the significant paleon- uge resources. tological and cultural resources of the refuge to con- nect refuge staff, visitors, and the community to the HABITAT CONSERVATION area’s prehistoric and historic past. Conserve, restore, and improve the biological integ- rity, environmental health, and ecological diver- REFUGE OPERATIONS sity of the refuge’s plant and animal communities AND PARTNERSHIPS of the Missouri river Breaks and surrounding prai- Through effective communication and innovative ries to support healthy populations of native pop- use of technology and resources, the refuge uses ulations of native plants and wildlife in a changing funding, personnel, partnerships, and volunteer pro- climate. Working with others, reduce and control grams for the benefit of natural resources while rec- the spread of nondesirable, nonnative, invasive plant ognizing the social and economic connection of the and aquatic species for the benefit of native commu- refuge to adjacent communities. nities on and off the refuge. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Contribute to the identification, preservation, and In the EIS, we disclosed the effects of four manage- recovery of threatened and endangered species and ment alternatives that were developed to address species of concern that occur or have historically significant issues, which were derived from the scop- occurred in the northern Great Plains. ing process. The significant issues in the final CCP and EIS include: RESEARCH AND SCIENCE ■■ habitat and wildlife Advance the understanding of natural resources, ■■ water resources ecological processes, and the effectiveness of man- ■■ public use and access agement actions in a changing climate in the north- ■■ wilderness ern Great Plains through compatible scientific ■■ socioeconomics investigations, monitoring, and applied research. ■■ partnerships and collaboration FIRE MANAGEMENT ■■ cultural values, traditions, and resources Manage wildland fire using a management response that promotes fire’s natural role in shaping the land- scape while protecting values at risk. DECISION (Alternative D) PUBLIC USE AND EDUCATION We select to implement Alternative D—Ecological Provide all visitors quality education, recreation, Processes Emphasis. This alternative is selected for and outreach opportunities that are appropriate and management because it will enable the Service to compatible with the purpose and goals of the ref- use natural, dynamic, ecological processes and man- uge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge agement activities in a balanced responsible man- System while maintaining the remote and primitive ner to restore and maintain the biological diversity, experience unique to the refuge. biological integrity, and environmental health of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and WILDERNESS the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. Once natu- ral processes are restored, a more passive approach Conserve, improve, and promote the wilderness (less human assistance) will be favored. There will character and associated natural processes of desig- be quality wildlife-dependent public uses and expe- nated and proposed wilderness areas and wilderness riences. Economic uses will be limited when they are study areas within the refuge for all generations. injurious to ecological processes. Alternative D addresses the significant manage- ment issues raised during the planning process. This alternative best meets the purposes of the refuges, 218 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, organizations; and others to conduct the neces- and the vision and management goals set for the ref- sary biological, social, and economic research to uge while adhering to the management policies of determine the feasibility of restoration for wild the Service. Additionally, this alternative balances bison on the surrounding landscape. Before any the interests and perspectives of many agencies, wild bison reintroduction could proceed, we would organizations, tribes, and the public. work with others to complete a cooperative wild Alternative D was revised from the proposed bison management plan developed and agreed-on action in the draft CCP and EIS after our consid- by all involved parties. A wild bison plan would eration of many comments received from agencies, address population objectives and management, tribes, other stakeholder organizations, and the pub- movement of animals outside restoration areas, lic, many of whom supported this approach, during genetic conservation and management, disease the comment period. management, and conflict-resolution procedures. The key actions of alternative D follow: ■■ We will cooperate with Montana Department of ■■ We will apply management practices that mimic Fish, Wildlife and Parks to provide hunting expe- and restore natural processes on the refuge to riences that keep game levels that meet or exceed manage for a diversity of plant species and wild- State objectives, sustain ecological health, and life species in uplands, riparian areas, and river provide opportunities not found on other public bottoms. This will involve a concerted manipu- lands. We will develop cooperative programs lation of habitats or wildlife populations (using with Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and prescribed fire, grazing, hunting, and other tools) Parks for monitoring big game populations and through coordinated objectives. Management habitat. During development of habitat manage- will evolve toward more passive approaches that ment plans, we will establish population levels, allow natural processes such as fire, grazing, and sex and age composition targets, and harvest flooding to occur with less human aid or money. strategies that are jointly agreed to and tailored ■■ We will maintain plant diversity and health using to the varied habitat potential on the refuge. To fire in combination with wild ungulate herbiv- provide a variety of quality recreational opportu- ory or prescriptive livestock grazing, or both, nities, hunting regulations will include population to ensure the viability of populations of sentinel objectives with diverse male age structures not plants (those plant species that decline first when generally managed for on other public lands. management practices are injurious). Prescrip- ■■ Refuge access will be managed primarily to bene- tive livestock grazing will be implemented across fit natural processes, but some improvements will 50–75 percent of the refuge within 6–9 years. We be made to provide quality visitor experiences. will communicate with permittees as new habitat Initially, we will close about 21 miles of roads, management plans are developed. implement a seasonal closure along 2.4 miles of ■■ In collaboration with the Montana Department road 315 (Petroleum County), and designate 13 of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and others, we will miles of roads on the northeast side of the refuge maintain the health and diversity of all species’ as game retrieval roads where seasonal closures populations—including focal birds, migratory will be applied. Other closures or modifications birds, threatened and endangered species, spe- could be necessary after further review of the cies of concern, game species, and nongame spe- road program. This will encourage free move- cies—by restoring and maintaining balanced, ment of wildlife, permit prescribed fire or wild- self-sustaining populations. This could include fire suppression, and increase effective harvest of manipulating livestock grazing and wildlife num- wild ungulates. Additionally, we will consider (1) bers, or both, if habitat monitoring determined upgrading about 5 miles of roads to all-weather conditions were declining or plant species were access (gravel) to allow for additional winter fish- being affected by overuse. Predators will be man- ing access, and (2) adding trails, viewing blinds, aged to benefit the ecological integrity of the ref- and a science interpretive center to expand uge. Limited hunting for mountain lion or other opportunities for quality wildlife observation, furbearers or predators will be considered only interpretation, and environmental education. after monitoring verified that population levels ■■ We will expand or adjust existing proposed wil- could be sustained with a hunt. derness units by 19,942 acres in Alkali Creek, ■■ If the State of Montana moves forward with a Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, East Seven plan to restore wild bison in Montana, we will Blackfoot, Mickey Butte, Sheep Creek, Wagon cooperate with Montana Department of Fish, Coulee, and West Hell Creek. UL Bend Wilder- Wildlife and Parks; Montana Department of Nat- ness Area will remain protected. ural Resources and Conservation; conservation Appendix A—Record of Decision 219

and education, wilderness, and refuge operations and partnerships. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Although alternative A would continue the tran- CONSIDERED sition toward implementing prescriptive fire and grazing strategies, it would largely maintain the cur- The final CCP and EIS evaluated two other action rent management emphasis of fire suppression and alternatives and the no-action alternative. annual livestock grazing. The Great Plains evolved through a complex interaction of fire and grazing, and ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION the continued emphasis on constant grazing and fire Few changes would occur in the management of suppression across the uplands would greatly limit existing wildlife populations and habitat. Wildlife- the composition, structure, and function of vegeta- dependent public uses and economic uses would con- tion, resulting in the continued loss of plant diversity tinue at current levels. Key actions of alternative A and habitat function. Although the gradual transi- follow: tion toward implementing prescriptive grazing over ■■ There would be a continued emphasis on big game annual grazing has resulted in some minor benefits management, annual livestock grazing, use of in localized areas across the refuge, these benefits fencing for pastures, invasive species control, and have not resulted in a recovery of sentinel plants and water development. Habitat would continue to be may be offset by increases in native ungulates. managed in the 65 habitat units that the Bureau There would be few specific strategies under- of Land Management established for livestock taken to restore riparian areas and wetlands out- grazing purposes. Prescriptive grazing would be side of what is currently done (keeping livestock implemented gradually as units became available away from riparian areas where possible and lim- and habitat evaluations were completed (antici- ited invasive species control). The continued tran- pated to be 50-percent implemented by year 15). sition toward implementing prescriptive grazing ■■ Big game would be managed to achieve target would result in minor incremental benefits to the levels as described in a 1986 record of decision overall health of riparian areas; however, localized on an earlier environmental impact statement for sites would continue to experience a negative trend. resource management. Similarly, the continued use of water impoundments ■■ Select stock ponds would be maintained and under this alternative would result in minor long- rehabilitated. Riparian habitat would be restored term impacts to riparian areas. where possible, and standard watershed manage- Alternative A would meet basic elements of the ment practices would be enforced. threatened, endangered, and species of concern goal. ■■ Access would be allowed on 670 miles of refuge However, it would only maintain or continue exist- roads. ing efforts toward recovery or monitoring of special status species with limited efforts made at increas- ■■ About 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness ing protection efforts for special status species. Simi- within 15 units of the Charles M. Russell Refuge larly, existing research programs would continue but would be managed in accordance with Service would not increase. policy. UL Bend Wilderness Area would be pro- There would not be a designated staff member to tected. support public use and education. There would con- Alternative A was not selected for implemen- tinue to be limited environmental education oppor- tation, because it would not meet the goals of the tunities and few improvements for nonconsumptive, CCP for habitat and wildlife management. The con- wildlife-dependent users. tinuation of existing management objectives and Alternative A would maintain the status quo strategies would not restore biological integrity, for wilderness protection but would not improve or environmental health, or ecological diversity (a pri- promote these qualities on the refuge. This alter- mary element in the vision for the refuge) nor would native would satisfy the goal for cultural and pale- it enable the refuge to manage wildlife and habitat ontological resource protection. We would continue in a comprehensive manner as was intended by the to work with many partnership organizations; how- National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. ever, there would not be a volunteer program or the There would be continued emphasis on managing ability to increase conservation strategies across the wildlife habitats within the confines of the 65 habitat landscape. units that were originally established for domestic Some stakeholder agencies, organizations, and grazing purposes and not for wildlife. This alterna- the public expressed support for all or elements of tive would only partially satisfy the goals for threat- alternative A, primarily because it would maintain ened and endangered species and species of concern, the emphasis on annual livestock grazing, wildland research and science, fire management, public use fire suppression, stock pond management, and inte- 220 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana rior fencing. Many oppose road closures, increases in stock grazing to reduce competition and to provide wilderness protection, potential bison restoration, adequate forage and space for native ungulates with- species reintroductions, and an increase in preda- out adversely affecting habitat quality and condi- tors on the refuge. However, many stakeholders and tions for other wildlife species. the public did not support a continuation of existing The closing of 106 miles of roads would have many management on the refuge and were emphatic about benefits for wildlife security as well as for those hunters the need to manage the refuge for wildlife purposes. who desire more roadless hunting opportunities, but it could also limit harvest effectiveness in some locations or have other unintended consequences on access. ALTERNATIVE B: WILDLIFE Alternative B would add one outdoor recreation POPULATION EMPHASIS planner, which would enable the refuge to improve We would manage the landscape, in cooperation with visitor services over current conditions, but it our partners, to emphasize the abundance of wildlife would still be limited and would not increase wild- populations using balanced natural ecological pro- life-dependent public uses or environmental educa- cesses such as fire and herbivory by wild ungulates tion programs to any degree. Visitation would likely and responsible farming practices and tree planting. remain stagnant over 15 years. Wildlife-dependent public use would be encouraged, A large number of stakeholder organizations and and economic uses would be limited when they com- the public expressed support for alternative B, pri- pete for habitat resources. marily because of its emphasis on maximizing wild- We would actively manipulate habitat, thus cre- life populations, increasing wilderness protection, and ating a diverse plant community of highly productive closing of 106 miles of roads. However, many local wildlife food and cover. The management emphasis citizens and agencies oppose any road closures and would be on habitat for target wildlife species, includ- many of the objectives and strategies in alternative B. ing focal bird species, in separate parts of the ref- uge. We would consolidate the 65 habitat units and write new habitat management plans based on field ALTERNATIVE C: PUBLIC USE AND station boundaries and habitat evaluation for tar- ECONOMIC USE EMPHASIS get species. We would work with others to develop We would manage the landscape in cooperation with methods to monitor and evaluate target or focal spe- our partners to emphasize and promote the max- cies and habitat needs. Prescriptive grazing would imum, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use be implemented across 50–75 percent of the refuge and economic uses while protecting wildlife popula- within 4–7 years. tions and habitats to the extent possible. Damaging We would close about 106 miles of roads and effects on wildlife habitats would be minimized by would work with partners to develop a travel man- using a variety of management tools to enhance and agement plan and to secure access to the refuge diversify public and economic opportunities. through other lands. Alternative C was not selected for implemen- We would expand or adjust by 25,869 acres the tation; while it would enable us to take some steps existing proposed wilderness units: Alkali Creek, toward improving existing conditions, it would only Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, East Seven Black- minimize damaging effects in other localized areas. It foot, Mickey Butte, Sheep Creek, Wagon Coulee, would not restore biological integrity, environmen- West Beauchamp Creek, and West Hell Creek. tal health, or ecological diversity. Furthermore, this Alternative B was not selected for implementa- alternative would not advance the understanding of tion. The overall effects on habitat quality, biologi- ecological processes or promote fire’s natural role. cal integrity, and ecological resilience (health) would With increased staff levels for outdoor recreation vary geographically based on the target and focal planners, the refuge could provide more visitors species and the management tools that were used. educational, interpretive, and recreational opportu- This management approach would improve habi- nities, although the emphasis would be on moderate tat conditions and habitat function, although max- increases in visitor numbers and not necessarily an imizing wildlife populations would not necessarily emphasis on providing quality experiences. improve biological diversity, biological integrity, or As with alternative A, alternative C would main- environmental health across the refuge. For exam- tain the status quo for wilderness protection, but it ple, potential increases in elk populations or inva- would not promote additional wilderness protection. sive species could offset benefits in riparian areas, Therefore, this alternative would not fully satisfy depending on livestock management and the inter- the goal for wilderness. actions between wild and domestic ungulates and Alternative C would fully satisfy the goals for cul- riparian habitat. Maximizing big game populations tural and paleontological resources and an increase would likely necessitate further reductions in live- in partnerships across the landscape. Appendix A—Record of Decision 221

Some stakeholder agency or organizations and and six additional planning updates and other project the public expressed support for some elements of information have been added to the Web site. We have alternative C but, overall, it was not widely sup- mailed all planning updates to the project mailing list. ported by agencies, organizations, or the public. During the initial scoping period, we received Many organizations and stakeholders felt it went too nearly 24,000 written responses. Hundreds of people far in providing for economic uses, in spite of the fact attended seven public meetings across Montana and that all public and economic uses are subject to com- provided many verbal comments. patibility requirements. In the fall of 2008, we again reached out to the public and the cooperating agencies and sought additional input on four potential draft alternatives before fully developing and analyzing these alterna- tives. We held seven additional public meetings dur- TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT ing this time and received hundreds of additional AND CONSULTATION written and oral responses. At the start of the planning process in 2007, we sent notification letters including an invitation to par- COMMENTS ON THE ticipate on the CCP planning team to the following DRAFT PLAN AND EIS tribes: Arapahoe Business Council, Chippewa Cree A notice of availability for the draft CCP and EIS Tribe, Crow Tribal Council, Fort Belknap Tribal was published in the Federal Register on September Council, Fort Peck Tribal Council, and Northern 7, 2010 (FR75 (172): 54381–84) announcing the avail- Cheyenne Tribe. In early July 2009, we reached out ability of the draft CCP and draft EIS, our intention to several of the closest tribes to the refuge—Fort to hold public meetings, and a request for comments. Peck Tribes and Fort Belknap Tribes—and made We published another notice in the Federal Register arrangements to initiate government-to-govern- on November 1, 2010 (FR75 (210):67095), extending ment consultation (July 8–9, 2009). Subsequently, we the comment period by 24 days to December 10, 2010. advised the Fort Peck Tribes and the Fort Belknap We held seven public meetings on the draft CCP and Tribes on the important aspects of the plan. During EIS. During the subsequent comment period, we the comment period for the draft CCP and EIS, a received 20,600 letters, emails, or verbal comments. representative from the Fort Peck Tribes attended All substantive issues raised in the comments were a public hearing held in Glasgow, Montana (October addressed in volume 2 of the final CCP and EIS. 2010), and we also received comments from the Fort Peck Tribes on the draft CCP and EIS. On June 5–6, 2012, we continued our government- COMMENTS ON THE to-government consultation process with the Fort FINAL PLAN AND EIS Peck Tribes and the Fort Belknap Tribes for briefing The notice of availability for the final CCP and EIS the tribes about important aspects of the final CCP was published in the Federal Register on May 7, and EIS. 2012 (FR77 (88): 26781–84). Subsequently, the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency published on May 18, 2012, its list of the environmental impact state- ments filed the previous week, and the 30-day wait- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ing period ended on June 18, 2012. We received one letter from the Environmen- AND OUTREACH tal Protection Agency and one individual comment The formal scoping period began on December 4, 2007, about the changes made to the final CCP and EIS with the publication of a notice of intent in the Federal and about the responses to comments. Register (FR72 (232):68174–76). Before this and early in the preplanning phase, we outlined a process that would be inclusive of diverse stakeholder interests SUMMARY OF COMMENTS and would involve a range of activities for keeping In general, we received support for the changes that the public informed and ensuring meaningful pub- were made in the final CCP and EIS. The only new lic input. This process was summarized in a planning concern raised was whether alternative B was the update titled Public Involvement Summary (Octo- environmentally preferred alternative, which we ber 2007). Soon after, we created a project Web site, discuss below. 222 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

grazing in a faster timeframe (4–7 years versus 6–9 years in alternative D); therefore, riparian areas ENVIRONMENTALLY could be restored at a slightly more aggressive rate PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE (85 percent of the streams versus 75 percent in alter- native D). However, with some exceptions, most of The environmentally preferable alternative is the roads found on the refuge are two-track roads defined as the “alternative that will promote the that are lightly used, most often during hunting sea- national environmental policy as expressed in sec- son. Therefore, closing roads may not equate to sub- tion 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. stantially less impact. Many areas of the refuge are Typically, this means the alternative that causes the inaccessible during the winter months or prolonged least damage to the biological and physical environ- wet periods. None of the more heavily used roads ment. It also means the alternative that best pro- (all-season gravel) would be closed under any of the tects, preserves and enhances historic, cultural action alternatives. By taking a slower approach to and natural resources” (Forty Most Asked Ques- closing roads as identified under alternative D, we tions Concerning Council of Environmental Quali- believe it will enable the refuge to achieve many of ty’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, the same objectives as in alternative B for protect- 1981). We believe Alternative D—Ecological Pro- ing habitat and wildlife. We will begin by developing cesses Emphasis is the environmentally preferable a step-down transportation plan that includes moni- alternative. toring boat use on the river, increasing wildlife secu- The primary focus of alternative D is to restore and rity, and addressing future access needs. If future maintain the biological diversity, biological integrity, road closures are necessary, either through perma- and environmental health of the refuge. This alterna- nent or seasonal closures, we will have better infor- tive will promote ecological resilience, restore pyric mation to make those determinations. herbivory, promote animal movement with long peri- Conversely, we believe the magnitude of negative ods of abandonment, increase landscape species and effects has the potential to be greater under alterna- structure heterogeneity, and improve wildlife diver- tive B than under alternative D. Maximizing wildlife sity. This will be accomplished by (1) writing new populations in alternative B would not necessarily habitat management plans including inventory and increase biological diversity, integrity, and environ- monitoring plans based on soil characteristics, his- mental health nor would it increase the resiliency of torical fire occurrence, and hunting district boundar- the refuge due to climate change, drought, and inva- ies; and (2) monitoring the focal bird species found on sive species. Although careful management of wild the uplands, river bottoms, riparian areas, and wet- ungulates under alternative B should benefit habi- lands of the refuge. There will be increased efforts tat conditions overall if the objectives and strategies to reduce invasive species and restore degraded were implemented successfully, it could also result riparian areas. We will increase wilderness protec- in minor to moderate negative effects due to over- tion on 19,942 acres, initially close 21 miles of roads, grazing by all ungulates. Closing roads could have and seasonally close 15 miles of roads if needed to negative effects, particularly in riparian areas, if protect wildlife. We will work with others to restore harvest objectives were not met. The attraction of or establish new populations of species like Rocky wild ungulates to these areas could add to any neg- Mountain bighorn sheep. ative effects that have occurred in the past. Over- Alternative B shares many similar, if not identi- browsing by all ungulates, both domestic livestock cal, strategies as alternative D for improving habi- and wild ungulates, has been found to negate efforts tat for wildlife populations. Nonetheless, there are to restore riparian and wetland health on the refuge. several key differences in management approaches. In addition, the planting of nonnative monoculture Alternative D emphasizes the importance of building crops to restore the river bottoms in alternative B diverse and healthy habitats, which in turn should could reduce the plant diversity in some areas in the provide for diverse and abundant wildlife popula- river bottoms, limiting or reducing the availability of tions, whereas, under alternative B, we would tar- diverse habitats for some wildlife species. get key wildlife species together with maximizing an abundance of wildlife. Some aspects of alternative B could be consid- MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ered to be more environmentally preferable than ENVIRONMENTAL HARM under alternative D. For example, more roads would Throughout the planning process, we took into be closed (106 miles versus 21 miles in alternative account all practical measures to avoid or minimize D), and more acres of wilderness would be protected environmental impacts that could result from the (25,869 acres versus 19,942 acres in alternative D). implementation of alternative D. These measures Alternative B would also implement prescriptive include the following: Appendix A—Record of Decision 223

■■ To reduce the refuge’s carbon footprint (carbon ■■ Mitigation measures for cultural resources will be emissions), we will use strategies such as driv- addressed with the State Historic Preservation ing fuel-efficient vehicles, considering more road Office if required as a result of an undertaking. closures, upgrading offices to make them more energy-efficient, conducting more teleconfer- CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS: ences, and recycling. SECTION 7 OF THE ■■ We will minimize emissions and particulates by following the best management practices when ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT using motorized equipment and conducting res- Several wildlife species with populations or habitat toration activities. Reducing fuel buildup and on the refuge are listed as threatened or endangered restoring a more natural fire regime will reduce species under the Endangered Species Act or are the risk of larger wildfires. candidate species being considered for listing. These ■■ Successful revegetation in the river bottoms and species were documented through an intra-Service restoration of closed roads will reduce the effects section 7 consultation. Three endangered species— of invasive species. black-footed ferret, least tern, and pallid sturgeon— and the threatened piping plover are found on the ■■ Prescribed fire will be carried out under an approved fire plan and stringent smoke manage- refuge. Two species, the endangered whooping crane ment plans. We will consider the application and and the threatened grizzly bear, are not found on timing of prescribed fire to reduce wildlife mor- the refuge but have been found nearby: (1) whoop- tality, particularly during breeding seasons. Lim- ing cranes migrate through McCone, Valley, and Phil- iting the use of prescribed fire during drought lips Counties; and (2) several grizzly bears found on conditions and using ignition techniques that the east side of the Rocky Mountain Front have ven- lessen the intensity of the burn (small spot fires) tured toward the Missouri River corridor. Candidate will reduce soil erosion following fires. species are greater sage-grouse and Sprague’s pipit. The intra-Service consultation concluded that the ■■ We will reduce potential negative effects on preferred alternative (D) may affect but is not likely water quality by limiting the amount of bare soil to adversely affect any protected species. Similarly, using soil erosion barriers, limiting the use of her- the preferred alternative may affect but is not likely bicides, hardening popular public use areas, and to jeopardize candidate or proposed species or criti- implementing a prescriptive fire and grazing pro- cal habitat for greater sage-grouse or Sprague’s pipit. gram. ■■ Careful planning in locating and building visitor facilities or road improvements will minimize dis- SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL turbances to wildlife, particularly during critical HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT breeding periods. Undertaking further studies Activities outlined in alternative D have the poten- to fully assess the effects of boating and fishing tial to negatively affect cultural resources, either along the Missouri River will enable us to find by direct disturbance during construction of hab- ways to work with partners to reduce distur- itat projects and facilities related to public use or bances to threatened and endangered species and administrative operations or indirectly by exposing species of concern including many bird species. cultural and historic artifacts during management ■■ Moving toward a greater reliance on prescrip- activities such as habitat restoration or prescribed tive grazing will enable us to fully assess the burning. Before any undertaking that is subject to effects on plants by all ungulates. Soil erosion and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation impacts to water quality will be lessened with Act, activities that could negatively affect cultural lighter grazing levels, limiting livestock grazing resources will be identified. Options for minimizing during the hot season, and fencing livestock out negative effects will be discussed before implemen- of riparian areas. The plan will incorporate the tation of the preferred alternative including entering following measures: (1) controlling the numbers into consultation with the State Historic Preserva- of domestic and wild ungulates; (2) using fire to tion Officer and other parties as appropriate. We will move ungulates to other areas; (3) making reduc- protect all known gravesites. tions in livestock grazing; (4) expanding boundary fencing; (5) removing fencing, and (6) managing water structures. These actions will also benefit PROTECTION OF RIPARIAN AREAS other species of concern including greater sage- AND WETLANDS grouse and Sprague’s pipit. Many of the refuge’s streams and riparian areas ■■ Permittees for paleontological excavations will have seen improvements in overall health and func- be required to reclaim areas. tion since 1995, when the University of Montana’s 224 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Riparian and Wetland Research Program evaluated riparian areas. However, not all riparian areas have improved equally, and problems remain. Activities FINDING AND BASIS FOR outlined in alternative D are aimed at restoring sev- DECISION eral riparian areas and wetlands that were identi- fied as nonfunctioning or functioning at risk during I have considered the environmental and relevant the most recent study completed by Ecological Solu- concerns presented by agencies, tribes, organiza- tions Group in 2009. Restoration measures will vary tions, and individuals on the proposed action to depending on the conditions and trends of riparian develop and implement a comprehensive conserva- habitat. Most management actions identified in the tion plan for Charles M. Russell National Wildlife preferred alternative (D) will provide many benefits Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. The and improvements to degraded riparian areas: substantive issues and comments raised have been establishing stream gauges on the refuge; restoring addressed in the final CCP and EIS. Comments and eroded streambanks; planting vegetation; fencing responses on the final CCP and EIS are addressed riparian areas; reducing livestock grazing or wild above. ungulate grazing in these areas; reducing invasive Based on the above information, I have selected species; and restoring the function of streams that alternative D for implementation, because it achieves were once perennial. When water right issues for a reasonable balance between significant resource the refuge have been fully adjudicated (outside the management issues, the refuge purposes, National scope of this record of decision) and the stock ponds Wildlife Refuge System mission, management poli- provide no other wildlife benefit, we will eliminate cies of the Service, and the interests and perspectives stock ponds that are negatively affecting riparian of all stakeholders. areas downstream and are reducing the flow regime. We will incorporate applicable regulatory compli- ance such as wetland permitting and dam safety into any stock pond removal efforts. Stephen D. Guertin Date Regional Director, Region 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lakewood, Colorado Appendix B List of Preparers and Contributors

This document is the result of the extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the plan- ning team, cooperating agencies, and other Service or agency contributors listed below.

U.S. FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE STAFF on the PLANNING TEAM Name Agency, position, and location Education and experience Contribution Laurie Shannon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service B.S. recreation resources Project coordination, (USFWS) region 6 planning team management; 27 years organization, writing and leader; Lakewood, Colorado review Barron Crawford Charles M. Russell Refuge project B.S. and M.S. wildlife and Project oversight, writing leader until 2010; Lewistown, fisheries science; 18 years and review Montana Rick Potts Charles M. Russell Refuge project B.S. animal science, M.S. Project oversight and leader from 2010; Lewistown, animal nutrition and wildlife review Montana management; 33 years Bill Berg Charles M. Russell Refuge deputy B.S. wildlife management and Writing, review, and project leader; Lewistown, zoology; 29 years oversight Montana Trina Brennan Charles M. Russell Refuge wildlife B.S. fisheries and wildlife Help with project refuge specialist; Lewistown, management; 5 years coordination, organization Montana and writing Matt Derosier Charles M. Russell Refuge, Sand B.S. wildlife management; Writing and review Creek Field Station manager; 21 years Lewistown, Montana JoAnn Dullum Charles M. Russell Refuge wildlife B.S. zoology, M.S. wildlife Writing and review biologist; Lewistown, Montana biology; 15 years

Mike Granger Charles M. Russell Refuge fire B.S. and M.S. wildlife biology; Writing and review management officer; Lewistown, 25 years Montana Paula Gouse Charles M. Russell Refuge, Fort B.S. biology; 13 years Writing and review Peck Field Station wildlife refuge specialist; Fort Peck, Montana Dan Harrell Charles M. Russell Refuge habitat B.S. fish and wildlife Writing and review biologist; Lewistown, Montana management; 18 years Nathan Hawkaluk Charles M. Russell Refuge, Jordan B.S. fish and wildlife Writing and review Field Station manager; Jordan, management; 7 years Montana Aaron Johnson Charles M. Russell Refuge, Fort B.S. wildlife management; Writing and review Peck Field Station manager; Fort 12 years Peck, Montana Neil Kadrmas Charles M. Russell Refuge wildlife B.S. and M.S. wildlife and Writing and review biologist; Lewistown, Montana fisheries science; 5 years Danielle Kepford Charles M. Russell Refuge realty B.S. wildlife and fisheries Realty and land acquisition specialist; Lewistown, Montana sciences; 10 years review 226 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

U.S. FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE STAFF on the PLANNING TEAM Name Agency, position, and location Education and experience Contribution Randy Matchett Charles M. Russell Refuge senior B.S. and M.S. wildlife biology; Writing and review wildlife biologist; Lewistown, 27 years Montana Beverly Charles M. Russell Refuge; wildlife B.S. and M.S. wildlife Writing and review Roedner Skinner refuge specialist, Lewistown, management; B.S. agriculture Montana and horticulture; teacher certificate (science for grades 5–12); 20 years Bob Skinner Charles M. Russell Refuge habitat B.S. zoology, M.S. wildlife Writing and review biologist; Lewistown, Montana management, Ph.D. wildlife management; 30 years

COOPERATING AGENCY MEMBERS Name Agency, position, and location Education and experience Contribution* Rich Adams BLM HiLine district field manager; B.S. range and forest Planning team member Malta, Montana management; 31 years Gary Benes BLM district manager, Central B.A. geography and history, Planning team member Montana; Lewistown, Montana B.S. natural resource conservation John Daggett USACE operations project B.S. civil engineering; Planning team member manager; Fort Peck, Montana 20 years at Fort Peck Lee Iverson Petroleum County commissioner; B.S. animal husbandry; Planning team member Winnett, Montana 12 years Vicki Marquis Missouri River Conservation B.A. chemistry; 5 years on Planning team member District Council coordinator; Great council Falls, Montana Darin McMurry USACE lake manager; Fort Peck, B.S. wildlife science; 23 years Planning team member Montana Chris Pileski** DNRC, Eastern Land Office, B.S. forestry; 14 years Planning team member acting area manager; Miles City, Montana Laurie Riley Missouri River Conservation 2 years on council Planning team member District Council coordinator; Great Falls, Montana Lesley Robinson Phillips County commissioner; 5 years Planning team member Malta, Montana Clive Rooney DNRC, Northeastern Land B.A. business administration; Planning team member Office, area manager; Lewistown, 20 years Montana Tom Stivers MFWP wildlife biologist; B.S. wildlife biology, M.S. fish Planning team member Lewistown, Montana and wildlife management; 30 years Mark Sullivan MFWP region 6 wildlife program B.S. biology, M.S. fish and Planning team member manager; Glasgow, Montana wildlife management; 20 years *Primary representative of respective agency at meetings: participated on planning team; helped identify issues; provided input on alternatives, objectives, and strategies; reviewed planning documents; and provided information as requested. **Replaced Rick Strohmyer.

Appendix B — List of Preparers and Contributors 227

OTHER SERVICE or AGENCY CONTRIBUTORS Name Agency, position, and location Contribution John Chaffin DOI Office of the Solicitor attorney Legal advisor to the Service advisor; Billings, Montana Erin Clark Charles M. Russell Refuge wilderness Writing and review of the wilderness review fellow; Lewistown, Montana Richard Coleman, USFWS region 6 assistant regional Refuge System policy guidance Ph.D. director; Lakewood, Colorado Mark Ely USFWS region 6 GIS specialist; GIS map preparation for document Lakewood, Colorado Patti Fielder USFWS region 6 hydrologist; Help with writing water resources section Lakewood, Colorado Jackie Fox Charles M. Russell Refuge biological Help with document preparation science technician; Lewistown, Montana Shannon Heath USFWS region 6 outdoor recreation Help with developing public use objectives and planner; Helena, Montana overview of visitor services Wayne King USFWS region 6 wildlife biologist; Review of region 6 fish and wildlife priorities Lakewood, Colorado Brant Loflin USFWS region 6 zone archaeologist; Help with cultural resources and paleontology Bozeman, Montana information David Lucas USFWS region 6 chief, division of Planning guidance refuge planning; Lakewood, Colorado

Dean Rundle USFWS region 6 refuge supervisor Refuge System policy guidance (Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado); Lakewood, Colorado Michael Spratt USFWS region 6 chief, division of Planning guidance refuge planning (retired); Lakewood, Colorado Meg Van Ness USFWS region 6 archaeologist; Help with cultural resources objectives Lakewood, Colorado

OTHER CONSULTANTS Name Agency and position Contribution Roxanne Bash Federal Highways Administration, Help with transportation planning Western Federal Lands Office; Vancouver, Washington Jessica Clement Colorado State University; Fort Help in facilitation of public use objectives workshop Collins, Colorado George Fekaris Federal Highways Administration, Help with transportation planning Western Lands Office; Vancouver, Washington Lynne Koontz, USGS Fort Collins Science Center Analysis of socioeconomic impacts Ph.D. economist; Fort Collins, Colorado Mimi Mather Shapins–Belt Collins planner; Boulder, Facilitation of planning team and public meetings; help Colorado with document preparation 228 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

OTHER CONSULTANTS Name Agency and position Contribution Bill Mangle ERO Resources natural resources Help with analysis and research for reasonably foreseeable planner; Denver, Colorado activities and cumulative impacts, and other environmental analysis documentation USGS Fort Collins Science Center Facilitation and help with public use objectives and Natalie Sexton wildlife biologist (human dimensions); analysis of socioeconomic impacts Fort Collins, Colorado USGS Fort Collins Science Center Help with vision and goals; provided input on writing Rick Schroeder biologist (retired); Fort Collins, biological objectives Colorado

Many other individuals also provided invaluable help with the preparation of this CCP. The Service acknowl- edges the efforts of the following individuals and groups toward the completion of this plan. The diversity, tal- ent, and knowledge contributed and dramatically improved the vision and completeness of this document. —— Mark Albers, BLM field manager; Malta, Montana —— Mary Bloom, BLM assistant field manager; Miles City, Montana —— Katie Butts, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana —— Clayton Christensen, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana —— John Esperance, USFWS region 6 planning branch chief (retired); Lakewood, Colorado —— Jim Forsythe, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana —— Kim Greenwood, USFWS region 6 tribal liaison; Lakewood, Colorado —— Glenn Guenther, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Fort Peck, Montana —— Pat Gunderson, MFWP; Glasgow, Montana —— Scott Haight, BLM assistant field manager; Lewistown, Montana —— Brian Haugen, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana —— Asuka Ishizaki, formerly with USGS Fort Collins Science Center; Fort Collins, Colorado —— Jody Jones, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana —— Bob King, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana —— Chris King, Petroleum County commissioner; Winnett, Montana —— Gerry Majerus, BLM; Lewistown, Montana —— Paul Pallas, Charles M. Russell Refuge; Lewistown, Montana —— Margaret Raper, BLM field manager; Miles City, Montana —— John Ritten, Ph.D., University of Wyoming professor; Laramie, Wyoming (helped USGS with the socioeconomic analysis) —— Carl Seilstad, Fergus County commissioner; Lewistown, Montana —— David Taylor, Ph.D., University of Wyoming professor; Laramie, Wyoming (helped USGS with the socioeconomic analysis) —— Dale Tribby, BLM; Miles City, Montana Appendix C Public Involvement Summary

Following the guidance found in the National Envi- ronmental Policy Act, the Improvement Act, and the Service’s planning policy, the planning team has made sure all that all interested groups and the public have had an opportunity to be involved in the plan- ning process. The term “stakeholder” is commonly used to refer to individual citizens; organizations; busi- nesses; Native American tribes; Federal, State, and local governmental agencies; and others who have expressed an interest in the issues and outcomes of the planning process. USFWS Refuge staff talk about refuge management with the public. C.1 PUBLIC SCOPING outlined the planning process, draft vision and goals for ACTIVITIES the CCP, and dates, times and locations of the public The formal scoping period began on December 4, scoping meetings. Refuge staff handed out the updates 2007, with the publication of a notice of intent in the at various local agency meetings. The planning update Federal Register (FR 23467). The notice of intent distribution list consisted of individuals, agencies, and notified the public of the Service’s intent to begin the organizations who had previously expressed an inter- CCP and EIS process and solicited public comments. est in refuge activities. Following the close of the public comment period for scoping, Planning Update, Issue 2, May 2008 (FWS 2007a) was mailed and posted to the OUTREACH ACTIVITIES planning Web site. This update summarized the com- Early in the pre-planning phase and before publica- ments and key findings from scoping. tion of the notice of intent in the Federal Register, the Service outlined a process inclusive of diverse News Release stakeholder interests and involving a range of activ- A news release announcing the planning process and ities for keeping the public informed and ensure notifying the public of the schedule and location of the meaningful public input. This process was summa- public meetings was sent to nearly 270 media organi- rized in a planning update titled Public Involvement zations throughout Montana including congressional Summary (FWS 2007a) and posted to the project offices, other Federal and State agency offices, and Web site. The full report, titled “Charles M. Russell tribal agencies. Several news articles featured the National Wildlife Refuge Public Involvement Pro- planning processed in newspapers, radio, TV, and cess,” was included as an appendix to the scoping online publications before the meetings. The Service report (FWS 2008b), which was posted on the proj- distributed a second news release when one of the ect Web site. Throughout scoping, the planning team meetings (Bozeman) had to be rescheduled due to used various methods to solicit guidance and feed- inclement weather. back from interested groups and the public. These methods included a variety of outreach materials, Paid Advertisements public meetings, cooperating agency meetings, brief- The Service placed paid advertisements in nine ings and presentations, as well as personal conversa- newspapers to publicize the project and invite the tions, letters, email and telephone calls. public to the scoping meetings. The advertisements, 3.75×6 inches, were placed in the Billings Gazette Planning Updates (January 24), Bozeman Daily Chronicle (January A planning update (issue 1, January 2008) (FWS 24), Great Falls Tribune (January 24), Circle Ban- 2007a) was mailed to the initial mailing list of 625 ner (January 17), Glasgow Courier, Glendive Ranger people and businesses before the first round of pub- Review (January 17), Jordan Tribune (January 25), lic meetings. The planning update, together with the Lewiston News–Argus (January 16), and Phillips earlier Planning Involvement Summary (FWS 2007a), County News (January 16). 230 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Project Web Site The Service established a project Web site in January 2008 (FWS 2007a). From the Web site, interested groups and the pub- and TRIBAL COORDINATION lic could learn about meetings, download documents, In accordance with the Service’s planning policy (FWS get their name added to the project mailing list, and 2000c), the pre-planning and scoping process began provide comments. with formal notification to Native American tribes and Public Scoping Meetings other Federal and State agencies with a land manage- Approximately 210 people attended one of seven pub- ment interest and inviting them to participate as coop- lic scoping meetings across Montana from January 29– erating agencies and members of the planning team. February 21, 2008 in Great Falls, Fort Peck, Malta, Lewistown, Jordan, Billings, and Bozeman. The plan- NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES ning team listened to many ideas and concerns that The Service sent letters of notification about the were expressed and answered questions from a vari- planning process including an invitation to partic- ety of interested groups and the public. The initial ipate on the planning team to the following tribes: comment period was scheduled to end on February 4, Arapahoe Business Council, Chippewa Cree Tribe, 2008, but was extended to February 29, 2008. Crow Tribal Council, Fort Belknap Tribal Council, Following a brief welcome and introduction, Ser- Fort Peck Tribal Council, and Northern Cheyenne vice staff made a 15-minute presentation that outlined Tribe. In July 2009, the Service reached out again to the following points: several of the closest tribes to the refuge, Fort Peck

■■ description of the Service and the purpose of the and Fort Belknap and made arrangements for a for- Refuge System mal briefing and consultation (July 8–9, 2009). ■■ key points of the legislation establishing the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL AGENCIES ■■ CCP and EIS process In addition to notifying the tribes, the Service sent ■■ project schedule letters about the planning process including an invi- tation to participate on the planning team to the fol- The remainder of the meeting was broken up into lowing agencies: USACE, BLM, MFWP, and DNRC. two components: (1) a question and answer session; The Service sent notification letters to the Mon- and (2) an opportunity for participants to make offi- tana State Historic Preservation Office and to the cial public comments. six counties (Fergus, Garfield, McCone, Petroleum, Phillips, and Valley). In September 2007, Service SCOPING SUMMARY and UPDATE staff met with representatives from the conserva- During the comment period for scoping, the Service tion districts and the counties to inform them of the received 23,867 (FWS 2008b) written responses in the CCP and EIS process and discuss the project. form of letters, emails, or from the handout sheet pro- As a result, the Service received formal letters vided at the public meeting. Twenty-three organiza- requesting cooperating agency status from the six tions submitted comments. counties, the Garfield County Conservation Dis- Following the comment period, the planning team trict, and the Missouri River Conservation District prepared a scoping report summarizing the scoping Council. The Service granted the six counties coop- phase. Copies of the report were provided to the coop- erating agency status. Two representatives attended erating agencies and posted to the project Web site. The planning team meetings on behalf of all the counties. comments were placed into a spreadsheet and included Additionally, the Service granted the six conserva- in the scoping report. Additionally, the team summa- tion districts that surround the refuge cooperating rized the key activities in a second planning update agency status, allowing for one representative to (issue 2, January 2008) (FWS 2007a), which was mailed attend meetings on behalf of all the conservation dis- out to the entire mailing list and posted to the project tricts. Web site. In summary, the cooperating agencies included The comments were consolidated into seven sig- USACE, BLM, MFWP, DNRC, Fergus, Garfield, nificant topics of concern with several subtopics. The McCone, Petroleum, Phillips, and Valley Counties, seven primary topics are habitat and wildlife, pub- and the Missouri River Conservation Districts. A lic uses and access wilderness, socioeconomic issues, memorandum of understanding was signed by all the water resources, adjacent lands and partnerships agencies, and the signed document was posted to the and cultural values, traditions, and resources. These planning Web site (FWS 2007a). are addressed in more detail in chapter 1. Appendix C —Public Involvement Summary 231

project began in spring 2008, and public input ended in late fall 2008. Following input by the cooperat- C.3 PLANNING TEAM ing agencies and the public on the draft alternatives, MEETINGS detailed objectives and strategies for all the alterna- tives were developed in early 2009 with input by the In November 2007, the planning team met with the cooperating agencies. Federal and State agencies. Following the addi- tion of the counties and Missouri River Conserva- tion Districts as cooperating agencies, in April 2008 OUTREACH ACTIVITIES the entire planning team met twice. The first meet- In August 2008, the planning team presented four ing occurred April 15 for bringing all the cooperat- draft alternatives to the public including a no-action ing agencies together, as several agencies had been alternative. One alternative (D) was identified as the added since the first meeting in the fall of 2007. Key proposed action. The Service’s planning policy (FWS topics included developing of the Memorandum of 2000c) requires that one alternative be identified as Understanding, discussion of the Scoping Report, the the proposed action in an environmental analysis upcoming alternatives development workshop, and document per the National Environmental Policy a preliminary discussion about alternative scenarios. Act. It is the alternative that the Service believed A second meeting occurred when the refuge best fulfills the refuge purpose, mission, vision, and staff met for a 3-day alternatives workshop, which goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. At this included representation from most of the cooperat- stage, the alternatives were described as conceptual ing agencies involved in the project. At this work- approaches or themes including the type of manage- shop preliminary alternative concepts were further ment actions that would occur under each approach. developed. Some agency representatives chose For a planning process such as for the Charles M. instead to take part in a 2-day briefing held June Russell and UL Bend Refuges, where an EIS is 17–18, 2008, to discuss the concepts that had been being prepared, the Service often solicits feedback further refined and to go out onto the refuge to dis- on the draft alternatives before full development of cuss specific issues. For this meeting, the Service them. While not required under the National Envi- mailed all of the cooperating agencies a copy of the ronmental Policy Act, this allowed the public an revised draft alternatives table before the meeting. opportunity to provide input earlier into the alterna- The cooperating agencies offered substantial input tives process. It also gave the refuge staff a chance and feedback on the initial draft alternatives dur- to talk about what they wanted to achieve. ing the June briefing including written comments Planning Updates that were submitted by McCone County. The Ser- Planning Update, Issue 3, August 2008, was mailed vice incorporated many of those comments and con- or handed out in the refuge headquarters to over 720 cerns before publishing the entire alternatives chart persons and businesses during the comment period for the public on the Web site in early August. with most of the updates mailed the week of August In early January and February 2009, the plan- 4, 2008 (FWS 2007a). This planning update outlined ning team met twice to develop preliminary objec- the initial draft alternatives developed by the plan- tives and strategies for all the alternatives. In May of ning team and provided the dates, times, and loca- 2009, the Service held another planning team meet- tions of the public workshops. The distribution list ing, which included all the county commissioners for consisted of individuals, agencies, and organizations the purposes of discussing roads and the accuracy of who had previously expressed an interest in ref- the data the Service had acquired to date. uge activities. In addition, the planning update was The Service provided the cooperating agencies handed out at the meetings. with copies of the internal review document in April The Service followed up with another update 2010. Following a 5-week review period, the Service (Planning Update, Issue 4, January 2009), which met with the cooperating agencies in June 2010 to summarized what had been learned during the com- discuss the significant issues identified during their ment period. Both updates and a more detailed sum- review. Before release of the public draft, the Ser- mary of comments were posted on the project Web vice met again with the cooperating agencies to site. advise them of any significant changes to the docu- ment. News Release On August 18, 2008, the Service issued a news release ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT notifying the public of the schedule and location of The Service considers alternatives development as the public meetings to nearly 270 media organiza- part of an iterative process in the development of the tions throughout Montana including congressional draft CCP and EIS (FWS 2000c). This phase of the offices, other Federal and State agency offices, and 232 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana tribal agencies. Several news articles about the plan- the requirements set forth in the National Environ- ning process appeared in newspapers, radio, TV, and mental Policy Act in addition to departmental and online publications before the meetings. bureau policies during the scoping process. Paid Advertisements Other Meetings with Individuals and Groups The Service placed paid advertisements in nine When asked, refuge staff provided briefings and sta- newspapers to announce the 2008 meetings. The tus updates to stakeholder groups including the Con- advertisements, 3.75×6 inches, were placed in the servation Districts, the Wilderness Society, World Billings Gazette (August 21), Bozeman Daily Chron- Wildlife Fund, Ranchers Stewardship Alliance, Mon- icle (August 21), Great Falls Tribune (August 18), tana Association of State Grazing Districts, Kalispell Circle Banner (August 21), Glasgow Courier, Glen- Sportsmen group, Gallatin Wildlife Association, and dive Ranger Review (August 20–21), Jordan Tribune others. (August 20–21), Lewiston News–Argus (August 20), The Service held several seminars during the and Phillips County News (August 20). development of the draft CCP and EIS to provide information about the Service’s plans to use pre- Public Workshops scribed fire and grazing to meet the objectives of One hundred and eighty-eight people attended one the draft CCP. These seminars included presenta- or more of the seven workshops from September tions by Dr. Sam Fuhlendorf and Dr. Cecil Frost, 2–17, 2008, in Lewistown, Jordan, Malta, Glasgow, who helped the Service in developing information for Billings, Bozeman, and Great Falls. the analysis in the draft CCP and EIS. Many Fed- Following a brief welcome and introduction, the eral, State, and local agencies, conservation organi- project leader made a short presentation highlighting zations, and members of the public attended one or the following: more of these sessions. ■■ project schedule Other one-on-one discussions, briefings, and field ■■ mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System trips occurred throughout the planning process. Ser- and purposes of the refuge vice representatives engaged in many conversations with individuals that called or stopped by the refuge ■■ process for alternatives development offices. ■■ definitions of reasonable alternatives, alternative concepts, objectives and strategies, and definition of proposed action versus preferred alternative (not until end of project) C.4 COMMENT PERIOD ■■ overview of the alternatives The Service accepted comments from early August ■■ common issues 2008 through October 31, 2008, but also informed the Following the presentation, the planning team public that comments were welcome throughout the used the remainder of the meeting to solicit feed- development and writing of the draft CCP and EIS back on the alternatives. For the first four meetings until the formal comment period on the draft CCP (Lewistown, Glasgow, Malta, and Jordan) partici- and EIS ended. The Service established an ending pants broke into small working groups and rotated date for comments on the draft alternatives to use every 20–25 minutes through a discussion specific to the information learned to fully develop each alter- each alternative. During the second week of meet- native with detailed objectives and strategies that ings, audiences were small (average 15–25 people), would form the basis of the environmental analysis. and the Service held the discussions as one group. The Service received one written request from the For all meetings, refuge staff presented information Six County Fort Peck Road Group, a group formed about each of the alternatives, and participants were earlier by the six counties next to the refuge, to asked to provide feedback and ask questions. extend the deadline for submitting comments on the The Service did not use a public hearing format draft alternatives. The Service denied the request for public testimony, as the intent of the workshop and reiterated that comments were welcome past the format was to facilitate smaller group discussions October 31 deadline, but that the process needed to during this phase of the project. Many participants move forward, and sufficient time had been provided liked this format, but others raised concerns in their for review of the preliminary draft alternatives. The written comments about not having an opportunity Service made all of its information available to the to provide scoping comments in a legal hearing for- public in early August 2008, providing the public over mat. The Service appreciates any feedback includ- 60 days to provide input. In addition, representatives ing criticism about the format used for meetings. of the cooperating agencies provided input into the A hearing format was used for the meetings on the alternatives concepts during several meetings held in draft CCP and EIS. The Service has fully followed April and June of 2008, and during the development Appendix C —Public Involvement Summary 233

of objectives and strategies in early 2009. Members field County Conservation District and sent to live- of the Six County Fort Peck Road Group (a group of stock owners and published in at least some of the county commissioners that address roads) were also local papers. Nine people submitted a second form- given an opportunity to take part in a meeting that type letter and, while the affiliation is not known, specifically addressed roads in May 2009. most came from the Glasgow area. The key issues identified in both form letters follow:

METHODS for COMMENT ■■ the importance of livestock grazing and general COLLECTION and ANALYSIS opposition to prescriptive grazing The Service’s primary objective in providing the ■■ opposition to wildlife reintroduction public an early opportunity to review the alterna- ■■ opposition to removal of interior fences tives was to gather more input before writing the ■■ support for more water development in uplands objectives and strategies and conducting the envi- and maintenance of current structures ronmental analysis. The planning team made every ■■ desire for access for recreation, fire suppression, effort to document all issues, questions, and con- and livestock management cerns. Regardless of whether comments and ques- ■■ concern that Payment in Lieu of Tax payments tions were general in nature or about specific points are too low and do not represent fair market value of concern, they were identified. All comments were considered to be of equal ■■ desire for reevaluation of proposed wilderness importance. While the planning team valued the units comments made in support or opposition to a spe- ■■ desire to keep wildlife on the refuge cific alternative or issue, the team also was seek- ■■ support for increased predator control ing feedback on the range of alternatives, whether ■■ concern that the refuge is the largest source of there were other reasonable alternatives that should invasive plants be included in the analysis, and whether any of the ■■ desire for increased fire suppression and opposi- alternatives should be changed in some way. tion to use of prescribed fire The comments, whether from written submis- sions or recorded at the public meetings, were orga- An action alert by the Montana Wilderness Asso- nized by topic into a spreadsheet and coded for ciation generated many individual letters and emails organizational purposes. Volume 2 of the final CCP containing the following key issues: and EIS contains the Service’s summarization and ■■ support for alternative D response to public comments and testimony received ■■ support for reducing the 700-mile road network during the public review of the draft CCP and EIS. or limiting off-road travel ■■ support for wilderness values particularly the NUMBER and SOURCE of proposed wilderness units COMMENTS RECEIVED ■■ support for prescriptive grazing and restricting During the course of the comment period, the plan- livestock grazing where needed to maintain wild- ning team received hundreds of questions and com- life habitat ments during the seven public meetings held across ■■ desire for removal of obsolete fencing and letting Montana and nearly 300 written responses in the wildlife move more freely form of letters, emails, and from the handout sheet ■■ desire for a ban on hot-season grazing in the river provided at the public meetings. Twenty-six agen- bottoms and limiting livestock grazing in riparian cies and organizations submitted comments; the areas breakdown of type and number of comments follows. In addition, many other individuals and organi- Type of Comment Number of Comments zations voiced their concerns about other topics. Examples included concerns about boat access and Public meetings hundreds types of boats, and hunting and general recreational Form letters 123 access or the type of expertise the Service was using Individuals letters, in the preparation of the CCP and EIS. 134 emails, questionnaires Agency, organizations SUMMARY of COMMENTS (included two legal 27 Commenters expressed highly varied opinions in letters) support of or opposition to a range of topics includ- ing alternative preferences, habitat and wildlife There were two distinct form-type letters. While management, prescriptive livestock grazing, wil- similar in content, one was generated from the Gar- derness, wildlife reintroductions, public access, 234 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana roads, commercial recreation, interior fencing, water Falls, 33 at Lewistown, 55 at Jordan, 51 at Glasgow, development, and prescribed fire. A summary of the and 46 at Malta. The public hearings began with a comments was posted on the project Web site, and short presentation by the project leader, followed by another planning update (issue 4) was mailed to the an opportunity for all who wished offer public tes- mailing list (FWS 2007a). timony 3 minutes to speak. Comment sheets were Volume 2 of the final CCP and EIS contains available for anyone who preferred to submit com- detailed descriptions of the public comments and the ments in writing. On request, the Service briefed associated responses provided by the Service. several agencies and stakeholder groups on the draft CCP and EIS. COMMENTS on the DRAFT CCP and EIS C.5 CHANGES to the Throughout the comment period, the Service received DRAFT ALTERNATIVES more than 1,700 comments from 919 individual sub- mittal documents (primarily emails, letters, and ver- From a review of all of the comments, no new sig- bal comments during public meetings), 53 letters from nificant topics or issues were identified that had not Federal, State, or local government agencies and been identified during scoping (refer to chapter 1). organizations, and 19,627 form letters. Refer to vol- All of the action alternatives were clarified or refined ume 2 of the final EIS and CCP for an indepth descrip- in some way as a result of the comments. tion of the comments and the Service responses.

C.6 RELEASE of the C.7 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DRAFT CCP and EIS to the FINAL CCP and EIS The draft CCP and EIS was released to the public for The following discussion summarizes significant a 60-day review and comment period on September changes that were made in the process of developing 7, 2010, following publication of a notice of availabil- the final CCP and EIS. ity in the Federal Register (75 FR 54381). A 60-day comment period for the document closed on Novem- WILDERNESS ber 16, 2010, and then was extended to December 10, Several changes were made to the wilderness inven- 2010, following publication of a notice for extension tory and review (appendix F). The acreage for the in the Federal Register (75 FR 67095). new wilderness study areas (alternatives B and D) was modified slightly due to a mapping error in the OUTREACH ACTIVITIES draft CCP and EIS (640 acres within East Seven A planning update (Issue 5, September 2010) was Blackfoot were previously mislabeled as State mailed to everyone on the project mailing list. The lands). Under alternative D, Mickey Butte (550 draft CCP and EIS was mailed to the entities listed acres) was added (previously in alternative B only). in section C.10 below and to others who requested As a result, 25,879 acres under alternative B and one. Before publishing the draft CCP and EIS, the 19,942 acres under alternative D were identified in Service mailed out a postcard to the mailing list ask- the final CCP and EIS. No areas were added in alter- ing recipients to identify their needs for reviewing native C. In consideration of significant public com- the document (compact disc, full document, or execu- ment on the proposed wilderness areas and a review tive summary). News releases, the project Web site, of the Service’s wilderness policy (FWS 2008c), the and paid newspaper advertising were also used to Service found that the wilderness characteristics of announce the availability of the document and the the 15 proposed wilderness areas have not declined public hearing schedule. in any measurable way since 1974 when they were The Service held public hearings in Montana in originally proposed. There is not sufficient justifica- the following cities: Billings on September 28, 2010; tion for recommending to Congress the removal of Bozeman on September 29, 2010; Great Falls on Sep- any of the existing proposed wilderness. As a result, tember 30, 2010; Lewistown on October 12, 2010; this consideration was rejected for both alternatives Jordan on October 13, 2010; and Glasgow and Malta C and D. on October 14, 2010. The meetings were recorded by a court reporter and transcripts from those meetings ACCESS ROADS are included in volume 2 of the final EIS and CCP. Several changes were made to alternative D, which Three hundred twelve people attended the meet- included changing road 315 from closed to season- ings with 39 at Billings, 51 at Bozeman, 37 at Great ally closed from its junction with road 838 to its end. Appendix C —Public Involvement Summary 235

About 13 miles of roads on the north side will be des- broader range of species with similar conservation ignated as game retrieval roads. These include roads needs and are often part of a larger landscape conser- 440, 331, 332, and 333. These roads will be open for vation effort (FWS 2011c; refer to “Bird Conservation” retrieval of game for about 4 hours per day during under section 1.4 in chapter 1). Greater connectivity hunting season. This will provide for greater wild- between the focal bird species and the sentinel plant life security and as a result will likely enhance elk monitoring program was made, particularly in alter- harvest in these areas. It will also provide greater native D and to a lesser extent in alternative B. Focal accessibility particularly for hunters with disabili- birds were identified for each type of habitat: uplands, ties to be able to retrieve game. river bottoms, and riparian areas and wetlands. Focal birds were not identified for shoreline areas due to its WILDLIFE OBJECTIVES highly dynamic nature. In response to public and agency comments on the draft CCP and EIS, the big game objectives were RIPARIAN AREAS adjusted to clarify that big game management on The riparian area objectives were modified to better the refuge will meet or exceed the objectives in define the restoration goals and the measurements approved State conservation plans. In accordance for achieving them within a 15-year timeframe based with national policy striving to the extent practica- on emphasis of the alternative. ble to achieve consistency with State management objectives and regulations, refuge-specific abun- MINERALS dance and population composition objectives could Several clarifications were made about mineral with- be established through the HMPs and will be tai- drawals on the refuge. The current mineral with- lored to regional habitat conditions, productivity and drawal applies to locatable minerals (diatremes or other considerations. Those objectives will consider gems) and does not apply to leasable minerals (oil naturally functioning ecosystem processes, biolog- and gas). To date, no leasable minerals have been ical integrity, hunting opportunities and quality of developed on the refuge. Currently, the Service is recreational experiences. seeking an extension of the 20-year mineral with- Information on threatened and endangered spe- drawal. Only Congress can designate a permanent cies and species of concern was updated as a result withdrawal and the Service will seek this for protec- of status changes of several species including north- tion of refuge habitat and wildlife values. ern gray wolf, Sprague’s pipit, mountain plover, and northern leopard frog. LAND ACQUISITION HABITAT OBJECTIVES and STRATEGIES Clarification was made that under all alternatives Several organizational changes were made to clar- the Service would continue to acquire lands within ify how the Service will achieve its habitat-based its authorized boundary and in accordance with the goals and objectives on the refuge. The definition of Enhancement Act (refer to section 1.9 in chapter 1) and use of prescription grazing as a management tool based on a willing seller and buyer relationship. was clarified and expanded, and more details were provided. The Service has been transitioning away LEGAL MANDATES from annual grazing in favor of a habitat-based or Additional clarification and information was pro- prescriptive component for nearly 20 years and this vided on the passage of the Improvement Act, Ser- will continue. Alternatives B and D would carry out vice policies, other legal mandates, and the refuge’s this transition more quickly to adhere to Service history. legal mandates and policies. The timeframe for mov- ing toward implementing prescriptive grazing was WATER QUALITY and AIR MONITORING moved from the objective level to the strategy level, Additional information and clarification were pro- which is more consistent with Service planning policy. vided on water quality and air monitoring on the ref- The objectives identify the specific measurable objec- uge. Other factual errors were corrected and updates tives for enhancing the diversity, viability, and resil- were made where appropriate. iency of plant species on the refuge. FOCAL BIRD SPECIES The Service added a discussion and several tables C.8 RELEASE of the describing focal bird species and included a descrip- tion in the glossary and in “Appendix G, List of Plant FINAL CCP and EIS and Animal Species.” Previously, potential bird spe- The Service responded to all substantive comments cies were identified. These bird species represent a that were received about the draft CCP and EIS. 236 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

The final CCP and EIS was released to the pub- ■■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: region 6 programs lic on May 7, 2012, following publication of a notice of in Lakewood, Colorado; Invasive Strike Team in availability in the Federal Register (77 FR 26781). Great Falls, Montana; Ecological Services in Hel- All interested groups and the public on the project ena, Montana; region 9 in Washington, DC mailing list (more than 800 names) received a copy ■■ National Park Service, Lewis and Clark National of Planning Update, Issue 6, which summarized the Trail: Omaha, Nebraska; regional office in Lake- contents of the final CCP and EIS. wood, Colorado COMMENTS on the FINAL CCP and EIS TRIBES and TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS The Service received two comments on the final CCP ■■ Arapaho Business Council and EIS during the 30-day waiting period that ended ■■ Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Tribes (Fort Belknap) June 18, 2012. These comments are addressed in the ■■ Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes (Fort Peck) record of decision (appendix A). ■■ Chippewa Cree Tribe ■■ Northern Cheyenne Tribe C.9 RECORD of DECISION ■■ Crow Tribe The Regional Director for region 6 signed the record MONTANA ELECTED OFFICIALS of decision on July 16, 2012 (appendix A), selecting ■■ Governor Brian Schweitzer alternative D of the final EIS to implement as the ■■ Representative Ed Butcher CCP. ■■ Representative Dave Kastin ■■ Representative Wayne Stahl ■■ Senator Jim Peterson C.10 LIST of ENTITIES ■■ Senator John Brenden RECEIVING the DRAFT ■■ Senator Johnathan Windy Boy and FINAL CCP and EIS MONTANA STATE AGENCIES The following Federal and State agencies, along with ■■ Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks: director nonprofit organizations, grazing or outfitting per- in Helena; region 4 in Great Falls; Lewistown Area mittees, and other businesses received copies of the Resource Office; region 6 in Glasgow; region 7 in draft CCP and EIS and the final CCP and EIS. Miles City; State Wildlife Grants in Great Falls ■■ Department of Natural Resources: director in Hel- FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS ena; Lewistown; Miles City ■■ Department of Transportation, Lewistown ■■ U.S. House of Representatives, Montana Repre- sentative Dennis Rehberg ■■ Montana Historical Society and Preservation Office ■■ U.S. Senate, Montana Senator Max Baucus ■■ Natural Heritage Program, Helena ■■ U.S. Senate, Montana Senator Jon Tester COUNTY and LOCAL FEDERAL AGENCIES GOVERNMENTS and AGENCIES ■■ Fergus County Commissioners ■■ Bureau of Land Management: Field offices in Lewistown, Malta, and Miles City; Montana State ■■ Garfield County Commissioners Office in Billings ■■ McCone County Commissioners ■■ Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource ■■ Petroleum County Commissioners Conservation Service, Bozeman, Montana; For- ■■ Phillip County Commissioners est Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, ■■ Valley County Commissioners Ogden, Utah ■■ Missouri River Council of Conservation Districts ■■ Environmental Protection Agency, Helena, Mon- in Great Falls: Fergus County Conservation Dis- tana trict, Garfield County Conservation District, ■■ Federal Highways Administration, Western Lands McCone County Conservation District, Petroleum Office, Vancouver, Washington County Conservation District, Phillips County ■■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Peck Conservation District, Valley County Conserva- tion District Appendix C —Public Involvement Summary 237

ORGANIZATIONS and ■■ National Trappers Association, New Martins- EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ville, West Virginia ■■ National Wildlife Federation: Reston, Virginia; ■■ American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia Northern Rockies Project Office in Missoula, Mon- ■■ American Prairie Reserve, Bozeman, Montana tana ■■ Defenders of Wildlife, Bozeman, Montana, Mis- ■■ National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washing- soula, Montana, Washington, DC ton, DC ■■ Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Curator ■■ Nature Conservancy, Matador Ranch, Dodson, of Vertebrate Paleontology, Denver, Colorado Montana ■■ Department of Natural Resource Ecology and ■■ Our Montana, Inc., Billings, Montana Management, Iowa State University, Iowa ■■ Ranchers Stewardship Alliance, Malta, Montana ■■ Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, Tennessee ■■ Sierra Club, San Francisco, California ■■ Environmental Defense Center for Conservation ■■ The Wilderness Society, Bozeman, Washington, DC Incentives, Boulder, Colorado ■■ University of Montana, Missoula, Montana ■■ Fort Peck Lake Association, Fort Peck, Montana ■■ Upper Missouri Breaks Audubon, Great Falls, ■■ Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Cody, Montana Wyoming ■■ U.S. Humane Society, Washington, DC ■■ Friends of the Missouri River Breaks, Lewis- ■■ Walleyes Unlimited of Montana, Big Sandy, Mon- town, Montana tana; Crooked Creek Chapter, Malta, Montana ■■ Gallatin Wildlife Association, Bozeman, Montana ■■ Western Watersheds Project, Inc., Mendon, Utah ■■ Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, Missoula, Montana ■■ Wild Sheep Foundation, Montana Chapter ■■ Izaak Conservation League, Gaithersburg, Mary- ■■ Wildlife Conservation Society, Bozeman Montana land ■■ World Wildlife Fund, Bozeman, Montana ■■ Maryland Ornithological Society, Ellicott City, Maryland ■■ Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation, Bozeman, Mon- tana ■■ Missouri River County, Wolf Point, Montana ■■ Yellowstone Valley Audubon, Bozeman, Montana ■■ Montana Audubon, Helena, Montana ■■ Montana Farm Bureau, Bozeman, Montana ■■ Montana Mountain Bike Alliance, Bozeman, Mon- PUBLIC LIBRARIES tana ■■ Colorado State University, Morgan Library, Fort ■■ Montana Petroleum Association, Helena, Montana Collins, Colorado ■■ Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association, Great ■■ Garfield County Library, Jordan Montana Falls, Montana ■■ Glasgow Library, Glasgow, Montana ■■ Montana Trappers Association, Winnett, Montana ■■ Great Falls Public Library, Great Falls, Montana ■■ Montana Wildlife Federation, Helena, Montana ■■ Lewistown Public Library, Lewistown, Montana ■■ Montana Wilderness Association, Great Falls, ■■ McCone County Library, Circle, Montana Helena, Montana ■■ Montana State University Libraries: Billings, ■■ Montana Wildlands Association, Central and East- Bozeman, Havre, Montana ern Association, Lewistown and Billings, Montana ■■ Phillips County Library, Malta, Montana ■■ Mule Deer Foundation, Eastern, Bismarck, ■■ Petroleum County Library, Winnett, Montana North Dakota ■■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Conser- ■■ Museum of the Rockies, Montana State Univer- vation Training Center Library, Shepherdstown, sity, Bozeman, Montana West Virginia ■■ National Audubon Society: New York, Washing- ton, DC

Appendix D Compatibility Determinations

D.1 USES D.2 REFUGE NAMES This appendix contains compatibility determinations ■■ Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge for the uses below: (Montana) ■■ Hunting (section D.5) ■■ UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge (Montana) ■■ Fishing (D.6)

■■ Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation (D.7)

■■ Camping (D.8)

■■ Geocaching (D.9)

■■ Guided hunting (outfitting)(D.10)

■■ All-terrain vehicle, bicycle, and snowmobile use (D.11)

■■ Prescriptive grazing (D.12)

■■ Research (D.13) 240 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

■■ “Shall be administered by him [Secretary of the Interior] directly or in accordance with coopera- D.3 ESTABLISHING and tive agreements ... and in accordance with such ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES rules and regulations for the conservation, main- tenance, and management of wildlife, resources The following laws and Executive order established thereof, and its habitat thereon.” (16 U.S.C. 664, the refuges and authorized acquisition of refuge lands. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) ■■ “Suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-ori- CHARLES M. RUSSELL ented recreational development, (2) the protec- NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE tion of natural resources, (3) the conservation ■■ Executive Order 7509, dated December 11, 1936 of endangered species or threatened species” (16 U.S.C. 460k–1), “ the Secretary ... may accept ■■ Refuge Recreation Act and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may ■■ Bankhead–Jones Farm Tenant Act be accomplished under the terms and conditions ■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 of restrictive covenants imposed by donors.” (16 U.S.C. 460k–2,Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 460k–460k–4], as amended) ■■ ■■ Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act “Purposes of a land-conservation and land-utili- zation program.” (7 U.S.C. 1011, Bankhead-Jones ■■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act Farm Tenant Act) ■■ Fish and Wildlife Act 1956 ■■ “Particular value in carrying out the national ■■ Refuge Administration Act migratory bird management program.” (16 ■■ Wilderness Act legislation U.S.C. 667b, An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife) ■■ “Conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their D.4 REFUGE PURPOSES habitats ... for the benefit of present and future Each refuge was established for specific purposes, as generations of Americans.” (16 U.S.C. 668dd [a] [2], described below. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act) ■■ “For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any CHARLES M. RUSSELL other management purpose, for migratory birds.” NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (16 U.S.C. 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act) ■■ “For the conservation and development of natu- UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ral wildlife resources and for the protection and improvement of public grazing lands and natural ■■ “For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any forage resources: Provided, That nothing herein other management purpose, for migratory birds.” contained shall restrict prospecting, locating, devel- (16 U.S.C. § 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation oping, mining, entering, leasing, or patenting the Act), “reserved for the UL Bend National Wildlife mineral resources of the lands under the applicable Refuge” (Public Land Order 4588, dated March laws: … Provided, however, That the natural forage 25, 1969), “for the protection of lands for migra- resources therein shall be first utilized for the pur- tory waterfowl management.” (Public Land Order pose of sustaining in a healthy condition a maximum 4826, dated May 15, 1970) of four hundred thousand (400,000) sharp-tailed ■■ “Shall be administered by him [Secretary of the grouse, and one thousand five hundred (1,500) ante- Interior] directly or in accordance with coopera- lope, the primary species, and such nonpredatory tive agreements ... and in accordance with such secondary species in such numbers as may be rules and regulations for the conservation, main- necessary to maintain a balanced wildlife popula- tenance, and management of wildlife, resources tion but, in no case, shall the consumption of forage thereof, and its habitat thereon.” (16 U.S.C. § 664, by the combined population of the wildlife species Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) be allowed to increase the burden of the range dedi- ■■ “Particular value in carrying out the national cated to the primary species: Provided further, That migratory bird management program.” (16 all the forage resources within this range or pre- U.S.C. § 667b, An Act Authorizing the Transfer serve shall be available, except as herein provided of Certain Real Property for Wildlife) with respect to wildlife, for domestic livestock.” (Executive Order 7509, dated December 11, 1936) Appendix D—Compatibility Determinations 241

■■ “For the development, advancement, management, leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoy- conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife ment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the resources.” (16 U.S.C. § 742f [a] [4]) protection of these areas, the preservation of ■■ “For the benefit of the United States Fish and their wilderness character, and for the gathering Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and and dissemination of information about their use services. Such acceptance may be subject to the and enjoyment as wilderness.” (16 U.S.C. 1131, terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, Wilderness Act) or condition of servitude.” (16 U.S.C. § 742f [b] [1], Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) NATIONAL WILDLIFE ■■ “Conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION habitats ... for the benefit of present and future The mission of the Refuge System is to admin- generations of Americans.” (16 U.S.C. § 668dd [a] [2], ister a national network of lands and waters National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act) for the conservation, management and, where ■■ “To secure for the American people of present appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and future generations the benefits of an endur- ing resource of wilderness … wilderness areas ... and plant resources and their habitats within shall be administered for the use and enjoyment the United States for the benefit of present and of the American people in such manner as would future generations of Americans. 242 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn. These monitoring surveys help in managing the overall D.5 DESCRIPTION of USE: health of the populations, which could be used to Hunting establish limits or expand the hunting program. To The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge help enforcement on the refuge, all four of the dual- hunting program allows for the take of elk, pronghorn, function officers participate in a weekend rotation white-tailed deer and mule deer, waterfowl (ducks conducting law enforcement duties. The refuge cur- and geese), upland gamebirds (turkey, ring-necked rently has only one full-time officer. Additional needs pheasant, mourning dove, sage-grouse, sharp-tailed are addressed in the CCP. grouse, Hungarian partridge) and coyotes. Season A refuge hunting regulation brochure is available dates, limits, and harvest methods are generally con- to inform the public of hunting opportunities, refuge sistent with State regulations, with the exception regulations, and safety precautions. Maps are also of mule deer and coyotes. Both have refuge-specific available, which show the location of roads, recre- restrictions at the time of publishing. Specific regu- ation areas, and those areas closed to hunting. lations are available to the public at the Web site at www.fws.gov/cmr or at any office of the refuge (Lew- ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE istown, Sand Creek, Jordan, and Fort Peck). Temporary disturbance will exist to wildlife near In 2009, there was an estimated 103,000 hunter the activity. Animals surplus to populations will be visits on the refuge, which is about 41 percent of the removed by hunting. A temporary decrease in pop- annual visitation for the refuge (annual visitation is ulations of wildlife might help ensure that carry- about 250,000). The refuge is one of the most notable ing capacity (especially for big game species) is not areas in the State of Montana for big game hunting. exceeded. Closed areas will provide some sanctuary The refuge staff observes a small number of water- for game and nongame species, minimize conflicts fowl and upland bird hunters each year. Hunting is between hunters and other visitors, and provide a one of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses safety zone around communities and administrative on the refuge. Managed hunting is a tool used by the areas. The harvest of these species will be compen- Refuge System for control of wildlife populations to satory mortality, with minimal impact to the overall maintain biological diversity and mimic natural pro- health of their populations. cesses that are missing or diminished. Temporary negative effects on the habitat are Hunting takes place refugewide with the excep- expected due to the use of camping grounds, tree tion of administrative areas, closed areas (Slippery stands, and possible illegal off-road travel. To miti- Ann Elk View Area), and recreational areas. Dual gate the possible impacts, the refuge has established collateral refuge officers and currently one full-time camping areas providing parking and vault toilets. refuge officer monitor hunters and their take. Espe- The Service also enforces a pack-in, pack-out policy cially during the big game rifle season when use on encouraging folks to remove their trash. the refuge reaches its peak, refuge officers work in coordination with other Federal officers and State PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT game wardens to ensure the use of safe and legal Public review and comment was solicited through hunting practices. posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspapers and the Federal Register, public meet- AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES ings held during the CCP process, and formal public Adequate resources are available to manage the exist- review of this compatibility determination as part of ing hunting program at the current level of participation. the draft CCP and EIS for the refuge. The current road system provides access for hunters onto the refuge for hunting. Most refuge roads become DETERMINATION impassible with only a minimal amount of precipitation. Public hunting is compatible. During the hunting season, this may cause clustering of Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure hunters in localized, accessible areas of the refuge. compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission Increased use of the river as a motorway for access of the National Wildlife Refuge System, hunting can has provided many the opportunity for solitude and a occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are primitive and unconfined hunt. This allows for access met: to resources that cannot be attained via the road sys- tem or easily on foot. Several wilderness units are 1. Hunting is prohibited in all administrative sites, only accessible on foot or via the Missouri River. closed areas, and recreational areas. Aerial big game surveys are used during the year 2. Target shooting with firearms is prohibited at all to establish counts and population statistics on elk, times on the refuge. Appendix D—Compatibility Determinations 243

3. Collection of antlers, artifacts, and fossils is pro- nated as one of the priority public uses as specified hibited. in the Improvement Act. Infrastructure is already in 4. All boats, trailers, and ATVs must be properly place to support hunting programs, and current per- licensed from the State of origin. In addition, all sonnel levels and money are adequate. Special reg- ATVs must be street-legal, which requires brake ulations are in place to minimize negative effects on lights and rear mirror in addition to licensing. the refuges and associated wildlife. Montana State law further controls hunter activities. Hunting is a 5. All vehicles including ATVs are only allowed on legitimate wildlife management tool that can be used open, numbered roads. to control wildlife populations. Hunting harvests a 6. Nonmotorized game carriers are allowed on the small percentage of the renewable resources, which refuge except on the UL Bend Wilderness. is in accordance with wildlife management objec- 7. The use of firewood is allowed for those dead and tives and principals. downed trees. No live cutting is permitted. Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date: 2027. Justification. Public hunting is a historical wildlife- dependent use of the refuge complex, and is desig- 244 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

dent priority public uses identified by Service pol- icy. These uses are encouraged when compatible D.6 DESCRIPTION of USE: with refuge purposes. The disturbance is expected Fishing to be limited in scope and duration. All motor vehi- The refuge allows public fishing in accordance with cle use is restricted to numbered routes and park- the State fishing regulations and seasons, and in ing areas, which reduces disturbance to wildlife. The coordination with refuge and USACE regulations. vast size of the nearly 250,000-acre Fort Peck Res- The uses covered in the determination will be fishing ervoir allows for a large number of anglers and an on refuge reservoirs, fishing on the Missouri River, opportunity for solitude. and fishing on the Fort Peck Lake as well as the use The CCP recommends establishing clear access of boat ramps, parking areas, fishing areas, and other for ice fishing. This recommendation could help structures maintained to facilitate the refuge’s fish- divert potential violators from disturbing shore- ing program. line and upland habitat to access the ice for fishing. During the months that ice fishing is available, Anglers occasionally violate regulations; however, icehouses are permitted on the Fort Peck Reservoir these incidents usually have only minor negative December 1 to March 31. The owner’s name and address effects on fish populations or refuge resources. must be attached to the outside wall of the structure. In 2009, the refuge had more than 60,000 visitors PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT for fishing. Lake trout, salmon, bass and upriver pad- Public review and comment was solicited through dle fish are some of the more popular species sought posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local news- after. Fishing is allowed throughout the year; however, papers and the Federal Register, public meetings held access is variable based on road conditions. Licensed during the CCP process, and formal public review of vehicles and licensed ATVs are allowed on refuge this compatibility determination as part of the draft numbered routes and the ice surface of Fort Peck Lake. CCP and EIS for the refuge. Snowmobiles are only allowed to travel on the surface of Fort Peck Lake. Travel off Fort Peck Lake and num- bered routes is not allowed with any vehicle (i.e., travel DETERMINATION along the shoreline). Public fishing is compatible. Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission Anglers use the existing network of roads to access of the National Wildlife Refuge System, fishing can the river, lake, and various reservoirs of the refuge occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are for fishing. There are twelve locations for launching met: boats; however, with the water level fluctuation of 1. This use must be conducted in accordance with the Fort Peck Reservoir some boat ramps may be State and Federal regulations and applicable spe- inaccessible to the water. The refuge complex has cial refuge regulations published. adequate administrative and management staff to manage its fishing program. 2. Travel is only permitted on numbered routes with Annual funding is needed for seasonal workforce licensed motor vehicles. salary and for supplies to maintain fishing facilities 3. Travel is permitted on the surface of Fort Peck (including mowing, painting, and repairing facili- Reservoir with licensed motor vehicles and snow- ties; litter pick up; restroom cleaning supplies; and mobiles. periodic pumping costs of vaulted toilets). Money is 4. Shoreline travel is not permitted on the refuge. needed for law enforcement staff salaries, fuel costs, repairs, maintenance of patrol vehicles, and associ- Justification. Fishing is a historical wildlife-dependent ated costs to support the law enforcement program. use at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Routine law enforcement patrols occur year-round. and is one of the priority public uses as specified in the The refuge is currently hiring an additional law Improvement Act. Infrastructure is already in place enforcement officer at the Fort Peck Field Station to facilitate this activity. Current personnel levels and and part of their duties will be to patrol fishing on funding resources are adequate. Special refuge regula- the refuge. tions are in place to minimize negative effects on refuge habitat and wildlife. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date: 2027. The anticipated impacts of fishing are considered minimal. Fishing is one of the six wildlife-depen- Appendix D—Compatibility Determinations 245

temporary and local, such as running off feeding deer and elk or the flushing of upland bird species. The D.7 DESCRIPTION of USE: benefits of educating the public and providing for a Wildlife Observation, Photography, quality outdoor recreational experience are consid- Environmental Education, and ered to outweigh the potential impacts of disturbing Interpretation wildlife and the associated habitat. Currently, the Service estimates the number of visi- PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT tors who take part in nonconsumptive uses at about 87,100. This includes participants in wildlife observa- Public review and comment was solicited through tion, wildlife photography, environmental education, posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local interpretation and other recreational participants. newspapers and the Federal Register, public meet- These activities may take place on foot, bicycle, auto- ings held during the CCP process, and formal public mobile, motorized boat, canoe, horse, cross-county review of this compatibility determination as part of skis and snowshoes. The refuge complex is open from the draft CCP and EIS for the refuge. dawn to dusk, and entry into closed areas is allowed through a special use permit and special conditions DETERMINATION that are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Wildlife observation, photography, environmental With four of the above accounted uses being one education, and interpretation is compatible. of the six priority public uses of the Refuge System, these uses are to be encouraged when found to be Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure compatible with the refuge purpose. compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission Refuge staff will help with activities when avail- of the National Wildlife Refuge System, wildlife able. Organized groups, such as schools, Scouts, and observation, photography, environmental education, 4–H organizations, may have instructors or leaders and interpretation can occur on the refuge if the fol- who will use refuge habitat and facilities to conduct lowing stipulations are met: compatible programs. Ages of participants range 1. Managers need to monitor use patterns and den- from preschool to college and beyond. sities and make adjustments in timing, location, and duration as needed to limit disturbance. AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES 2. Use should be directed to public use facilities (both The refuge provides outstanding opportunities for the existing and in the future) or those areas ap- above uses due to the abundance of deer, elk, eagles, propriate for the use, which will not be within prairie dogs, and other unique species that people find sensitive areas. interesting. The opportunity for solitude and premier 3. Observation areas need to provide wildlife infor- landscape views are numerous across the entire refuge. mation and safe areas for the public to pull the The CCP recommends expanding interpretation main roadway for view and photography. and environmental education and maintaining wild- life observation programs and facilities. The inter- Justification. Public use for wildlife observation, pho- pretation and environmental education programs tography, environmental education, and interpre- will emphasize the principles of natural plant and tation is a historical wildlife-dependent use of the animal communities and ecological processes and refuge. These activities are designated as priority restoration. public uses as specified in the Improvement Act. Implementing improvements or expanding pub- Special regulations are in place to minimize negative lic use opportunities will be addressed in future step- effects on the refuges and associated wildlife. The down management plans and through future money CCP supports the addition of two outdoor recreation requests. Program expansion will require increased specialists to help in the area of public use. Distur- money for operations and maintenance. When money bance to wildlife is limited by the size and remote is not adequate to run and maintain programs, they nature of large parts of the refuge. Disturbance is will be reduced in scope or discontinued. Information also generally short-term and only temporarily dis- kiosks, interpretive signs, and other infrastructure are places wildlife and the adjacent wildlife habitat. in place for the present level of public use activities. Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date: 2027. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE The disturbance of wildlife is considered a minimal impact of public use. The disturbance is considered 246 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

camping for a maximum of 14 days within any 30-day period, these effects will be short term, and areas are D.8 DESCRIPTION of USE: expected to recover back to a natural state with little Camping to no restoration conducted by refuge staff. Camping is defined as erecting a tent or shelter, pre- Long-Term Impacts: Due to the high number of camp- paring a sleeping bag or other bedding material for ers during the hunting season, certain locations on use, parking of a motor vehicle or camper trailer fit the refuge receive a higher concentration of users. for occupancy. The use of camping on the refuge is These areas have consistent use and require lon- not considered one of the wildlife-dependent uses ger to recover back to a natural state. In these areas, established in the Improvement Act, but it facilitates not only is the refuge vegetation and wildlife heavily the use of all six uses considered wildlife-dependent. impacted, but refuge regulation violations can be high Due to the remote location of the refuge, it is neces- as well. During fishing and hunting season, it is more sary for the health and safety of those who are recre- common to find violations due to dogs off leash, intox- ating on the refuge to be allowed to establish a location ication, illegal drugs, illegal firearm use, human waste, to camp. This use is being proposed due to the remote littering, disturbances to other users, and noise viola- location of the refuge and as a necessary convenience tions. This increase in refuge violations has become when taking into consideration the health and safety a recurring expense on the refuge law enforcement. of the recreationists using the refuge. The refuge currently has 21 established camping Cumulative Impacts: While certain times of year and areas. While camping is allowed refuge wide, these locations receive a greater number of users and a areas contain facilities that are not available every- higher potential for long-term impacts, the use of camp- where. Driving off-road to establish a campsite is only ing on the refuge is deemed to have a greater benefit allowed within 100 yards of a numbered route. Driving to the public by supporting wildlife-dependent uses off-road for all other purposes is prohibited. Camping is on the refuge. allowed to occur at all times on the refuge. Most of the camping occurs during open hunting seasons in August PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT through most of November. Most camping takes place Public review and comment was solicited through post- within 100 yards of a numbered route and ranges in ing of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspa- facilities such as a tent of natural or synthetic material pers and the Federal Register, public meetings held or a camper trailer with minimal modern conveniences. during the CCP process, and formal public review of this compatibility determination as part of the draft AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES CCP and EIS for the refuge. Resources Involved in the Administration and Management of the Use: Resources involved in the use of camping on the refuge will include law enforcement officers to DETERMINATION ensure compliance with refuge regulations, main- Camping is compatible. tenance of facilities available for recreationists and camping, and funding to produce refuge brochures Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure explaining refuge regulations and mapping locations. compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, camping can Maintenance Costs, Special Equipment, Facilities, or occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are met: Improvements Necessary to Support the Use: Mainte- 1. Vehicle access to camping areas is allowed, by nance of current vault toilets and hardened camp- the shortest route, within 100 yards of numbered sites is minimal and although funding is not optimum, roads except where closed. Off-road vehicle ac- personnel is available to allow this use at current lev- cess to camp sites is not allowed in proposed els. wilderness, wilderness study areas, designated Offsetting Revenues: The refuge does not currently wilderness where habitat impacts warrant clos- charge a fee or require a permit for camping. ing a site with a “No Vehicle” sign, and adminis- trative areas that are posted as closed. Backpack ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE camping is allowed throughout the refuge unless Short-Term Impacts: There will be localized disturbance specifically closed. of vegetation in the area where camping facilities are 2. All camping is limited to 14 days within any 30- set up. Other uses such as setting up a campfire and day period. Any property including camping general use of the area around the campsite will have equipment, boats, trailers, and other personal an impact on the vegetation and cause a disturbance property left unattended for a period in excess of to wildlife in the area. Due to the refuge limit of 72 hours is subject to removal. Appendix D—Compatibility Determinations 247

3. Use of dead and downed wood for campfires is al- refuge. In the fall during hunting season, all wildlife lowed on the refuge. Removal of live limbs and has produced young of the year and migratory bird trees is prohibited. species have completed nesting. The size of the refuge 4. The pack-in, pack-out policy will be promoted for and difficulty of public access to certain locations pro- trash removal and campsite restoration. vides alternative areas for disturbed wildlife. While regulation violations and disturbance to 5. Public use regulations will be enforced to protect other visitors can locally be a problem, with the cooper- habitat and limit disturbance to other refuge visi- ation of State and local law enforcement the workload tors. is minimized. Due to the primitive nature of camping Justification. Currently, all six of the wildlife-depen- sites throughout the refuge and the existence of very dent uses are used on the refuge. Due to the remote few facilities, maintenance needs are minimal. location of the refuge, lodging establishments are non- Given the above, camping does not materially existent. For the health and safety of those who are interfere with the purposes of the refuge or the mis- using the resources of the refuge and taking part in sion of the Refuge System. recreational activities, camping is necessary. The time Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date: 2022. at which camping on the refuge is at its peak is not considered to be a critical period for wildlife on the 248 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Special Equipment, Facilities, or Improvements Neces- sary to Support the Use: The refuge is not responsible D.9 DESCRIPTION of USE: for providing any additional equipment necessary Geocaching to conduct this recreational use. The current refuge Traditional geocaching (the burying, placement facilities that support refuge visitors are considered or removal of a physical cache) is generally not an sufficient for the expected number of users. appropriate use for national wildlife refuges in accor- Maintenance Costs: The maintenance of general rec- dance with Service and Department of the Interior reational facilities is not expected to significantly regulations and policies. However, other forms of increase due to the use of geocaching on the refuge. geocaching have emerged that do not require bury- ing, placing, or removing objects. Some of the most Monitoring Costs: The increase in unfamiliar moni- current types are Virtual Geocaching, Letterboxing, toring techniques using Web sites and additional Earthcaching, Trail Link, and GPS Adventures. Geo- monitoring methods with the frequently changing caching is not a priority public use; however, certain technological activities will require additional admin- types of geocaching may offer benefits to support the istrative resources. Web sites that track geocaches refuge’s educational and interpretive programs and and allow for a central location for users to communi- to learn more about refuge visitors. cate can also be used if there is an unapproved cache The use of geocaching will be allowed refuge or abuse of the use on the refuge by disabling the wide with the exception of closed areas. Those par- proposed activity from its Web pages and alerting its ticipating in geocaching will be responsible for fol- users of the inappropriate use. lowing all rules and regulations required of all refuge Offsetting Revenues: None. users. Geocaching will be allowed year-round with the understanding that access to the refuge during ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE the winter months is highly variable and most likely very limited. Refuge roads are often impassible due Short-Term Impacts: The disturbance of wildlife, tram- to the drifting of snow, and most roads are not main- pling of vegetation, and potential littering are all con- tained in the winter season. The refuge will evaluate sidered to be a minimal impact of public use. The the type of geocaching requested and how it bene- prohibited practice of removing or leaving a cache on fits environmental education and interpretation. In the refuge is considered to negatively affect the ref- accordance with refuge policy, refuge users are pro- uge resources, but by monitoring the use and com- hibited from disturbing archaeological resources, municating the rules and regulations, the benefits of removing refuge resources such as plants, artifacts, educating the public and providing for a quality out- and sheds, and abandoning property. door recreational experience are considered to out- Geocaching has become a rapidly growing out- weigh the potential impacts. door recreational activity. While traditional geocach- Long-Term Impacts: There are no long-term impacts ing, which consists of burying or placing of a physical foreseen with the use of geocaching. By complying cache, could cause damage to the wildlife habitat, with refuge rules and regulations for this use, the other forms of geocaching facilitates environmental long-term impacts are considered minimal to nonex- education and interpretation, which are both wild- istent. life-dependent priority public uses. By allowing geo- caching to take place on the refuge, the Service is Cumulative Impacts: The potential short-term and providing the opportunity for those who take part long-term impacts are considered to be minimal the in the recreational activity to view wildlife and wild- use of geocaching on the refuge is considered to have life habitat. a positive effect by facilitating environmental educa- tion, interpretation, and wildlife observation. AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES Resources Involved in the Administration and Manage- PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT ment of the Use: The issuance of special use permits Public review and comment was solicited through post- to those wanting to participate in geocaching on the ing of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspa- refuge will involve additional administrative action. pers and the Federal Register, public meetings held The level of need for special use permits for geocach- during the CCP process, and formal public review ing is not known at this time. Depending on the num- of this compatibility determination as part of the draft ber of user groups, it may be that the current level CCP and EIS for the refuge. of refuge resources is sufficient, or it may show that there is a greater than anticipated interest and addi- DETERMINATION tional resources are necessary. Geocaching is compatible. Appendix D—Compatibility Determinations 249

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure Justification. The use of geocaching on the refuge is compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission of determined to be compatible with the refuge purpose the National Wildlife Refuge System, geocaching can and the mission of the Service. It allows an opportu- occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are met: nity for the public to take part in wildlife observa- 1. All refuge recreationists are responsible for know- tion, wildlife photography, environmental education, ing and following all refuge regulations. and interpretation, which are all considered prior- ity public uses. With recreationists adhering to ref- 2. The removal of refuge resources is prohibited. uge regulations, it will minimize the negative effects That includes, but is not limited to, the illegal take on wildlife and wildlife habitat. By allowing the use of wildlife, vegetation, archaeological resources, of this rapidly growing activity, the refuge is pro- antler sheds, and geological resources. viding the opportunity for the American public, not 3. The burial of caches on the refuge is prohibited. currently aware of the Refuge System’s conserva- 4. The abandonment or leaving of a cache on the tion mission, to be environmentally educated and refuge is prohibited. involved in conservation. 5. Caches that deface public or private property, Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date. 2022. whether a natural or constructed object, to pro- vide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method are prohibited. 250 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

cers during the hunting season is no greater due to guided hunts than with the public hunters. The issu- D.10 DESCRIPTION of USE: ance of special use permits takes the time and effort Guided Hunting (Outfitting) of refuge staff with costs for printing the permits, The refuge will authorize commercial hunting guide issuing identification cards, and keeping records. operations within the refuge, and regulate such use The current staff is capable of issuing permits and through the implementation of a hunting guide pro- managing the guided hunting program on the refuge. gram and issuance of special use permits with condi- Special Equipment, Facilities, or Improvements Necessary tions. This activity provides recreational opportunity to Support the Use: The current equipment and facil- for hunters who desire a successful, quality experi- ities are adequate to meet the needs of the guided ence, but who may lack the necessary equipment, hunting program and the current participation levels. skills, or knowledge to hunt within the expansive Maintenance Costs: As with the public hunting program, Missouri River, Missouri River Breaks, and the rug- maintenance of vault toilets and camping facilities is ged country the refuge encompasses. While guided necessary during peak recreation times of the year. hunts are not specifically identified as a priority pub- Starting in August with big game bow hunting through lic use, hunting is a priority public use. the end of the big game rifle season in November, Guided hunting operates under the same regula- maintenance of recreation areas, vault toilets, camp- tions as the public hunting. The use is allowed refuge ing areas, and general use of the refuge is necessary. wide with the exception of closed areas, recreational areas, and administrative sites. There are currently Monitoring Costs: The cost of law enforcement, both 11 special use permits issued to outfitters on the ref- full-time, dual collateral, other Federal, State, and uge to conduct guided hunts. These 11 are spread local officers, is at its highest during the fall hunt- throughout the entire refuge. Guided hunts are ing season. The addition of a full-time refuge officer under the same Federal and State regulations and on the east end of the refuge will help with the heavy must adhere to the same limits, season dates, and burden during this time of year. All other needs are wildlife-specific regulations. All guided hunts take addressed in the comprehensive conservation plan. place during the big game hunting seasons starting Offsetting Revenues: The current fee for an outfitting with bow season in late August through the general permit on the refuge is $250. This fee is kept by the rifle season in November. refuge to use as discretionary funding whether to The refuge has consistently issued special use provide overtime for employees or to maintain and permits and established special conditions in addi- enhance current refuge facilities. tion to the Service’s general conditions for special use permits. Refuge law enforcement will be responsible for regulating the use and any compliance issues that ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE arise. Each outfitter will receive an outfitter identifi- Short-Term Impacts: It is anticipated that the distur- cation card for operations on the refuge. The permits bance of guided hunting will not be measurably are valid only within the Charles M. Russell National greater than the disturbance from the general hunt- Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Ref- ing public. uge Executive order boundaries. Including Service Temporary disturbance will exist to wildlife near lands and USACE lands. All refuge outfitters must the activity. Animals surplus to populations will be keep a log of use, and when requested by a refuge removed by hunting. A temporary decrease in pop- officer, State warden, or special agent, shall provide ulations of wildlife might help ensure that carry- for inspection, current outfitter records as specified ing capacity (especially for big game species) is not by 8.39.703 (Outfitters Records) of “Chapter 39— exceeded. Closed areas will provide some sanctuary Montana Administrative Rules.” for game and nongame species, minimize conflicts Based on the existing client demand for guide between hunters and other visitors, and provide a services, a significant number of the hunting public is safety zone around communities and administrative willing to pay for the expertise and local knowledge areas. The harvest of these species will be compen- provided by guides. To increase the chance of the satory mortality, with minimal impact to the overall public having a successful and quality hunting expe- health of their populations. rience, the use of guides is a necessary approach due Temporary negative effects on habitat are to the remote location and vast area of land. expected due to the use of camping grounds, tree stands, and possible illegal off-road travel. To miti- AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES gate the possible impacts, the refuge has established Resources Involved in the Administration and Manage- camping areas providing parking and vault toilets. ment of the Use: The use of refuge law enforcement in The Service also enforces a pack-in, pack-out policy cooperation with other Federal, State, and local offi- encouraging folks to remove their trash. Appendix D—Compatibility Determinations 251

Long-Term Impacts: The primary concern about com- Board of Outfitters Rules by a Charles M. Rus- mercial guided hunting activities is the potential for sell Refuge outfitter, licensed guide, client, or a conflict between guided activities and other refuge violation occurring in the presence of an outfitter users, particularly unguided hunters. Based on expe- or guide must be reported to the proper official riences on this refuge and on other national wildlife immediately. Failure to report violations will be refuges, commercial guiding operations can increase grounds for cancellation of the permit. user conflicts. An important part of this issue is public 6. Permitted outfitters may not use licensed outfit- perception that hunting guides and clients have an ters as guides. advantage of equipment and technique and are tak- ing game that would otherwise be available to reg- 7. Outfitters must meet State of Montana minimum ular hunters. Guides, because they are running a insurance requirements. In addition, the policy business, may also be viewed as more aggressive when shall (1) name the United States Government as compared to unguided hunters. The State and refuge coinsured, (2) specify that the insurance company regulations should help ease the tensions between shall have no right of subrogation against the guided hunters and the public hunters. However, United States of America, and (3) the permit- this conflict between hunters could be considered a tee shall indemnify the United States. A current potential long-term impact. certificate of insurance must be provided to the refuge’s Lewistown office. Cumulative Impacts: Guide operations may increase use 8. All refuge outfitters on request of a refuge officer, of some refuge facilities such as boat ramps, campsites, State warden or special agent, shall provide for and other facilities frequented by general user groups. inspection, current outfitter records as specified With the dispersal of outfitters throughout the entire by 8.39.703 (Outfitters Records) of “Chapter 39— refuge from one end to the other, this increase will not Montana Administrative Rules.” be significant compared to the overall use. 9. Refuge outfitters are not allowed to use aircraft PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT for locating game on the refuge. Public review and comment was solicited through post- 10. Outfitter logs, along with hunter-use days are ing of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspa- required to be turned into Charles M. Russell Na- pers and the Federal Register, public meetings held tional Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 110, Lewistown, during the CCP process, and formal public review Montana 59457, by December 31 of each year. of this compatibility determination as part of the draft Failure to submit logs will be grounds for cancel- CCP and EIS for the refuge. lation of the following year's permit. 11. Violation of any permit special conditions may be DETERMINATION grounds for cancellation. Guided hunting (outfitting) is compatible. 12. Outfitters who wish to keep their refuge permit Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure and remain inactive with the State of Montana compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission license requirements, must pay the $250 permit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, guided hunt- fee. Outfitters will be allowed to renew their ing (outfitting) can occur on the refuge if the following permit with the Charles M. Russell Refuge for stipulations are met: 2 years while remaining inactive with the State. If at the beginning of a third year, an outfitter is 1. Regulations for recreational users apply. See ref- still inactive with the State, he or she will not be uge guide map and information (revised 2004). offered an opportunity to renew with the refuge. 2. Outfitters and their licensed guides must have in their possession an outfitter identification card Justification. With the current regulations specific to for the Charles M. Russell Refuge while operat- guided hunting, and the spatial distribution of the out- ing on the refuge. fitters, allowing guided hunting on the refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the 3. Charles M. Russell Refuge outfitter permits are purposes of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge valid only on lands administered by the Service System. By allowing guided hunts on the refuge, it within the boundary of the Charles M. Russell will provide an opportunity for those hunters looking and UL Bend Refuges (including USACE lands to have a quality hunting experience and a greater within the refuge). chance of a successful hunt by using the knowledge, 4. Charles M. Russell Refuge outfitter permits do skills and abilities of those with local experience and not give exclusive use of any area. the necessary equipment. 5. All violations of refuge regulations, special condi- Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date. 2022. tions of an outfitter permit, MFWP statutes, or 252 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES D.11 DESCRIPTION of USE: Resources Involved in the Administration and Manage- ment of the Use: The main cost of these uses is going All-Terrain Vehicles, Bicycles, and to be the time and effort of regulating the use. With Snowmobiles one full-time law enforcement officer and four dual- collateral officers to cover the 1.1 million-acre ref- This applies to the proposed use and the restriction uge are considered a marginal number of resources of use on the refuge uplands, Fort Peck Lake, and at best given the sheer size of the refuge and the the Missouri River. Snowmobile use occurs during number of users. Other Federal, State, and local law the winter season and is only allowed across the Fort enforcement officers may help, as they are available. Peck Lake. It is prohibited along the Missouri River and across the refuge uplands including all roads. Special Equipment, Facilities, or Improvements Necessary ATV use occurs year-round and is allowed over the to Support the Use: Additional equipment and facilities Fort Peck Lake during the winter season and on ref- are not necessary to monitor the use within the ref- uge numbered roads. ATV use is prohibited off-road uge and Fort Peck Lake. on the refuge uplands and along the Missouri River. Maintenance Costs: The most obvious maintenance Bicycles are currently allowed on numbered roads cost is to the road system and to the vehicles used including seasonally closed roads. These uses are not by refuge staff for patrolling the uses on the refuge. priority public uses according to the National Wild- life Refuge System Administration Act of 1997. Monitoring Costs: Monitoring use is the most expen- As the list below shows, ATV use will be allowed sive cost for the refuge. Either by plane or by vehi- on refuge numbered routes and the Fort Peck Lake. cle, the cost of gas and staff time is significant. Due Snowmobile access is only allowed over the Fort to the remote location and inaccessibility of certain Peck Lake. Neither use is allowed along the Missouri areas, traversing the refuge is extremely time-con- River nor can either use take place off-road over the suming and a fast reaction to a refuge violation could refuge uplands. take hours. Offsetting Revenues: The refuge does not currently Vehicle Fort Peck Missouri Refuge type Lake River roads charge a fee for the use of the road system, or for access. ATV allowed prohibited allowed bicycle prohibited prohibited allowed ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE snowmobile allowed prohibited prohibited Short-Term Impacts: Snowmobiling has little to no resource impact given the season of use and regu- Use locations that are both allowed or prohibited by lation confining snowmobiles to ice covered waters. the use of snowmobiles and ATVs. Snowmobiles do generate noise that may disturb ATV use occurs year-round on refuge numbered other users in the area. ATV and bicycle use have lit- routes and during the winter months over the Fort tle to no resource impacts as they are restricted to Peck Lake. Snowmobile use is only allowed over refuge numbered routes and to ice covered waters. the Fort Peck Lake during the winter season when As with snowmobiles, ATVs generate a disturbance ice and snow are present. ATVs are required to use due to noise that may disturb wildlife as well as refuge roads, the Fort Peck Lake ice during win- other users within the area. Neither is considered ter months, and all must be street-legal. Montana to have an impact on the refuge habitat, as both are residents must have a metal license plate and all restricted to roads and the ice. operators must possess the proper driver’s license. Long-Term Impacts: There are no long-term impacts Nonresident operators who wish to operate their associated with the use of ATVs, bicycles, and snow- ATVs on the refuge should contact the refuge office mobiles due to the use restrictions. The refuge roads about proper licensing requirements. Snowmobiles are already disturbed areas of the refuge, and the long- and their operators need to comply with State licens- term negative effects on the Fort Peck Lake are con- ing requirements. sidered nonexistent. Due to the remote area in and around the refuge, the use of smaller and more navigable motorized Cumulative Impacts: The greatest impact overall will vehicles is necessary to access or disperse access be the disturbance to other users in the area with the for wildlife dependent recreation. Snowmobiles and use of ATVs, bicycles and snowmobiles. The noise ATVs are both used to access the large Fort Peck generated from both snowmobiles and ATVs could Lake for ice-fishing opportunities away from the disturb those who are viewing wildlife, hiking, snow- main access points. ATVs and, occasionally, bicycles shoeing, cross-country skiing, fishing, and hunters are used on the refuge during hunting season and for pursuing game. general access year-round. Appendix D—Compatibility Determinations 253

PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT 3. ATVs are required to stay on refuge-numbered Public review and comment was solicited through routes or over the ice on Fort Peck Lake. Bicycles posting of notices at the refuge, notices in local news- are required to stay on refuge-numbered roads papers and the Federal Register, public meetings held including seasonally closed roads. ATVs are not during the CCP process, and formal public review allowed on roads when they are seasonally closed. of this compatibility determination as part of the draft 4. Snowmobiles are only allowed use on the Fort CCP and EIS for the refuge. Peck Lake. 5. Off-road operation of ATVs or bicycles, as well as DETERMINATION all motor vehicles, is illegal. The use of ATVs, bicycles, and snowmobiles is com- Justification.Although there is a minor disturbance to patible. wildlife and other refuge users, the use of snowmo- Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure biles, bicycles, and ATVs allows for greater access compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission of and more dispersed access benefiting wildlife-depen- the National Wildlife Refuge System, the use of ATVs dent public uses. It increases access into areas that and snowmobiles can occur on the refuge if the follow- may not be accessible with traditional motor vehicles ing stipulations are met: or on foot. While snowmobiles and ATVs generate a noise disturbance, those who are looking for a sol- 1. All appropriate State and Federal regulations for itude and quiet recreational experience have many ATVs and snowmobiles apply. opportunities elsewhere on the refuge. Disturbed 2. ATVs belonging to Montana residents must be wildlife also has many opportunities to retreat to a street-legal and have a metal license plate. Opera- less disturbed area. tors must also possess the proper driver’s license. With stipulations in place, recreational snowmo- Nonresident ATV owners who wish to operate biling, bicycling and ATV use, given the location and their ATVs on the refuge should contact the ref- season of most use and the physical nature and size uge staff about licensing requirements. Anyone of the refuge, do not materially interfere with or de- intending to operate an ATV on the refuge should tract from the conservation purposes of the refuge. contact the refuge staff to ensure the ATV meets Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date: 2022. the necessary requirements for legal use. 254 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

ter equipped to detect trends toward or away from the desired effects of grazing treatments. Further- D.12 DESCRIPTION of USE: more, monitoring during grazing treatments will Prescriptive Grazing help to determine whether grazing treatments are Prescribed grazing is the planned application of live- applied at the appropriate season, duration, fre- stock grazing at a specified season, duration and quency, and intensity to meet specific wildlife and intensity to accomplish specific vegetation man- habitat objectives. agement objectives. The objectives are designed This use will move from an annual grazing pro- to achieve the broader habitat and wildlife goals. gram to a prescriptive gazing program to meet spe- Rather than managing refuge resources to sup- cific wildlife and habitat management objectives. port livestock grazing or other economic uses, live- Currently, habitat surveys show that most grazed stock grazing is used as a habitat management tool habitat units are not meeting the 70 percent resid- to achieve wildlife habitat goals and objectives. The ual grass cover as specified in the 1986 EIS. Residual Service employs the strategy of adaptive manage- grass cover is important for several grassland-nest- ment in the development of HMPs. Adaptive man- ing birds. In addition to the grass cover, new moni- agement is defined as a process that uses feedback toring for highly palatable, first-to-decline forbs and from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation shrubs (sentinel plants) are declining and being elim- of management actions to support or change objec- inated due to overuse and lack of natural ecological tives and strategies at all planning levels. processes. These plants are extremely important to Prescriptive grazing is used to improve or main- numerous wildlife species, especially birds and pol- tain the health and vigor of selected plants and to linators. The Great Plains have evolved over time maintain a stable and desired plant community, pro- through ecological disturbances like fire and grazing. vide or maintain food, cover, and shelter for animals These disturbances can be described as “pulse” and of concern, maintain or improve water quality and “press.” A pulse occurrence occurs sporadically but quantity and reduce accelerated soil erosion and still occurs, whereas a press disturbance is constant maintain or improve soil condition. (Frost 2008). Like fire, originally, ungulate grazing Prescriptive grazing will be carried out across the (herbivory) was a pulse disturbance. Before 1882, refuge to meet wildlife and habitat objectives as iden- there were many years with periods of abandonment tified in various management plans. The Service has by wild ungulates where less grazing took place due been gradually making the transition to prescribed to its interaction with fire. Since 1882, it has become grazing for over 20 years as a result of the 1986 EIS a press (constant) disturbance because of fences and and existing Service policies, and has carried out pre- fire control. As a result, highly palatable species scriptive grazing on about 34 percent of the refuge. (particularly shrubs and forbs such as chokecherry Most habitat units with annual grazing programs are and white prairieclover) have dramatically declined. not meeting residual grass cover for priority species. These species evolved with, and are highly adapted The use will be implemented across the refuge where to, grazing when combined with several-year peri- the Service has control over the use. For example, ods of abandonment for recovery. Palatable shrubs habitat units that are fenced from common pastures require several years to grow from seed to seed- will be the first units enrolled into prescriptive graz- bearing maturity and are alive above ground (or vul- ing. Habitat units that are not fenced from private nerable to damage from grazing) 12 months of the or other government-owned lands will be managed year. Present-day livestock grazing systems typi- under existing management plans. cally only rest pastures for 1 entire year or less from The use will be conducted according to approved livestock use (with no rest from wild ungulate use). HMPs to meet specific wildlife and habitat objec- A prescriptive grazing program will allow the refuge tives. Use could occur during any season depending to fulfill the intent of the Improvement Act. on the specific objectives to be achieved. Prescrip- tive grazing will be administered through issuance AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES of a special use permit. Permittees will be selected Resources Involved in the Administration and Manage- using the criteria identified in the Refuge Manual. ment of the Use: Refuge staff will continue to monitor Habitat management plans will identify season of permittees for violations of permit conditions and use, number of animals and length of time to achieve trespass. Biologists and station managers will moni- the management objectives. tor habitat conditions using current HDP and senti- A critical step in developing an effective and nel plant species. ecologically sound prescriptive grazing program is establishing criteria by which the prescription’s Special Equipment, Facilities, or Improvements Necessary implementation and effectiveness will be measured. to Support the Use: The refuge will continue to moni- By collecting quantitative data over time, one is bet- tor grazing activities using ground surveys and aer- Appendix D—Compatibility Determinations 255

ial counts. New permanent or temporary fences will cial impacts. Permittees that are able to meet refuge need to be constructed to apply prescriptive grazing needs may benefit financially by taking advantage of on common pastures. Temporary water developments increased grazing opportunities. may be necessary to facilitate prescriptive grazing in Long-Term Impacts: The habitats of the refuge evolved some habitat units to meet habitat objectives. with a pulse fire–grazing interaction (pyric herbiv- Maintenance Costs: Maintenance costs could be ory). As fires burned across the landscape, grazing reduced due to the reduction in interior fences nec- ungulates grazed less selectively on all plant species essary to manage the prescriptive grazing program and thus highly palatable shrubs and forbs benefited according to the CCP. There may be additional costs from less grazing pressure. This interaction resulted with the construction and maintenance of boundary in highly resilient systems that have a great diver- fences, which will be constructed anyway to manage sity of species that promote heterogeneity and eco- livestock in common pastures. logical integrity. Restoring this historical process will promote healthy habitats that promote biodiver- Monitoring Costs: Refuge personnel who are involved sity and resiliency to climate change. in administering the grazing program spend approx- imately 25–35 percent of their time issuing permits, Cumulative Impacts: Changes in grazing management monitoring for trespass livestock and habitat condi- will likely reduce the availability of grazing land in tions, and communicating with permittees. The refuge the region. However, because the refuge supplies less monitors livestock trespass via fixed wing aircraft that than 1 percent of all AUMs in the region, the cumula- costs $140 per hour with a monthly fixed cost of $770. tive effect of implementing prescriptive grazing, when combined with other land management changes will Offsetting Revenues: The refuge receives approxi- be negligible. mately $60,000 in 6860 (grazing) funds per year; how- ever, these funds are being reduced each year due to the increase in oil and gas development on other PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT refuges. Refuges receive a percentage of the amount Public review and comment was solicited through post- of revenue that is generated from commercial activ- ing of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspapers ities on refuges. It is expected the revenue gener- and the Federal Register, public meetings held during ated by grazing on the refuge will continue to decline the CCP process, and formal public review of this over the years. These funds do not cover current compatibility determination as part of the draft CCP expenses incurred managing current grazing program and EIS for the refuge. and probably will not cover the costs of implement- ing the prescriptive grazing program. DETERMINATION Prescriptive grazing is compatible. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure Short-Term Impacts: Short-term impacts will include compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission loss of vegetative cover, which could result in of the National Wildlife Refuge System, prescriptive increased soil erosion. Highly palatable forbs and grazing can occur on the refuge if the following stipu- shrubs will be heavily impacted by grazing affect- lations are met: ing a large number of wildlife species from pollina- tors to big game. However, the benefit will be to the 1. Habitat management plans will be developed wildlife species that require short cover such as prai- with specific wildlife and habitat objectives. rie dogs, mountain plovers, and McCown’s longspur 2. Prescriptive grazing is one of the tools used to and grazing ungulates (elk and deer) that will graze meet these objectives. the fresh growth of grasses. Prescriptive grazing Justification. Sharp-tailed grouse, pronghorn, sage- can reduce invasive species and reduce fuel in sage- grouse, large ungulates, and other wildlife species grouse habitat. In weed-infested areas, grazing must need a diversity of and abundant group of plants for be carefully managed to reduce rather than increase food and cover all year. Refuge monitoring has shown invasive plant establishment and spread. Ecologi- that several highly palatable forbs and shrubs are cally based grazing prescriptions pay careful atten- declining due to the natural fire–grazing interaction tion to positively directing plant community change, being out of balance. Prescriptive grazing and other not just removing the weedy species (Sheley et al. adaptive management strategies will permit flexibil- 1996). Moving from annual grazing to prescriptive ity necessary for the restoration of these important grazing could have an impact on some current per- plant species. Prescriptive grazing is a valuable man- mittees from an economic standpoint. Prescriptive agement tool that supports refuge objectives. grazing will be carried out over time and with input from current permittees to lessen potential finan- Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date: 2022. 256 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

will be responsible for supplying their own equip- D.13 DESCRIPTION of USE: ment necessary to complete the study. Maintenance Costs: There are no foreseen maintenance Research costs with allowing research studies on the refuge. The refuge allows research on a variety of biologi- cal, physical, archaeological, and social issues and Monitoring Costs: The current refuge staff is adequate concerns to address refuge management informa- to monitor the research completed by non-Service tion needs or other issues not related to refuge man- personnel. Research studies in access of available agement. Studies are conducted by Federal, State, refuge resources will not be allowed. and private entities including USGS, State agen- Offsetting Revenues: The refuge does not charge a fee cies, State and private universities, and independent to conduct research studies on the refuge. researchers and contractors. Research is allowed refugewide and is addressed on a case-by-case basis for the need and potential impacts. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS of the USE The exact locations of the studies will be determined by Short-Term Impacts: Research activities have the poten- the focus of the study. Research requests will be con- tial to impact and disturb wildlife through observation, sidered during all times of the year and on a case-by- capture and release techniques, and banding or mark- case basis. Due to the difficulty in accessing the refuge ing. The access of multiple research sites several times lands during the winter months, studies at that time in a short period may noticeably disturb vegetation may be more heavily scrutinized as to their biological either by walking, trampling, or by the use of a motor need and benefit. The location of the study may have an vehicle. Efforts to capture wildlife may cause not only impact on when the use will be conducted, especially if disturbance, but also injury or even death. The energy it is during a specific hunting season. costs of disturbance may be appreciable in terms of Researchers will be required to submit a written disruption of feeding, displacement from preferred proposal that outlines the methods, materials, timing, habitat, and the added energy expended to avoid the and justification for proposed projects. These pro- disturbance of the research being conducted. posals will be reviewed by refuge staff to assess the Long-Term Impacts: None are anticipated for the appropriateness of the research for the refuge, envi- approval of research studies on the refuge. ronmental impacts, assure that the projects do not interfere with the other resource operations, and pro- Cumulative Impacts: With most research taking place vide suggested modifications to the project to avoid on the refuge during the summer, the compilation of disruptions to refuge wildlife and operations. A spe- several studies may be excessive disturbance on ref- cial use permit is issued to those whose requests are uge resources. Even with this, no cumulative impacts deemed valid and necessary. The refuge staff will be are expected due to the ability of the refuge man- responsible for monitoring their use and that it is ager to control the location and timing of all research appropriate and consistent with the terms and condi- studies conducted. The size of the refuge is also con- tions in their special use permit. sidered to be such that the tolerance of several stud- Research on the refuge is allowed as a symbiotic ies on the wildlife and habitat is high. relationship between the refuge research needs and the need for the requesting agency and individual to PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT complete the research. The Service encourages and Public review and comment was solicited through post- supports research and management studies on ref- ing of notices at the refuge, notices in local newspapers uge lands that will improve and strengthen decisions and the Federal Register, public meetings held dur- on managing natural resources. All research requests ing the CCP process, and formal public review of this will be evaluated on the refuge need and be in the best compatibility determination as part of the draft CCP interest of wildlife and sound biological information. and EIS for the refuge.

AVAILABILITY of RESOURCES DETERMINATION Resources Involved in the Administration and Manage- ment of the Use: The refuge currently uses the exist- Research is compatible. ing staff to issue special use permits and to monitor Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility. To ensure researchers. Current staff resources are deemed compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission adequate to manage issuing permits and monitoring of the National Wildlife Refuge System, research can the researchers for compliance at the existing levels. occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are met: Special Equipment, Facilities, or Improvements Necessary 1. Before conducting investigations, researchers to Support the Use: The research group or individual must obtain special use permits from the refuge Appendix D—Compatibility Determinations 257

that make specific stipulations related to when, Preservation Officer to assure compliance with where, and how the research will be conducted. the Archaeological Resource Protection Act. Managers have the option to prohibit research on 7. All research activities will be performed in accor- the refuge that does not contribute to the purpose dance with stipulations in this determination and of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge System. in specific special use permits. 2. Researchers must possess all applicable State 8. Researchers will submit a final report concerning and Federal permits for the capture and posses- refuge research to the refuge manager. sion of protected species, and for conducting all other regulated activities. Justification. Research is compatible with the mission of the Service and the purpose of the refuge. Research stud- 3. Research activities will be monitored for compli- ies on the refuge can be used to manage trust resource ance with permit conditions and impacts. responsibilities of the Service by providing informa- 4. If proposed research methods could impact or tion on a sound scientific basis. Research conducted on potentially impact refuge complex resources biological, physical, archaeological and social compo- (habitat or wildlife), it must be shown that the nents of the refuge provide a means to analyze manage- research is necessary (i.e., critical to survival of ment actions, impacts from internal and outside forces, a species, will enhance restoration activities of and ongoing natural processes within the refuge eco- native species, will help in control of invasive spe- systems. Research provides scientific evidence used to cies or provide valuable information that will guide make management decisions and ensure the refuge is future complex activities), and the researcher must managed as intended during establishment by Congress. identify the issues in advance of the impact. Negative short-term impacts caused during the 5. Researchers must clearly mark posts, equipment research activities will be minimized with the stip- platforms, fencing material, and other equipment ulations above and are not considered significant in left unattended so it does not pose a hazard. Such nature. Conducting research studies on the refuge items shall be removed as soon as practicable on will not materially interfere with or detract from the completion of the research. mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purpose for which the refuge was established. 6. Cultural and archaeological surveys will be coordinated with the Regional Historical Preser- Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date: 2022. vation Officer and the appropriate State Historic 258 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

D.14 COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION APPROVAL for the ABOVE USES

SIGNATURE CONCURRENCE

______

Richard Potts Date Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date Project Leader Assistant Regional Director Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Complex National Wildlife Refuge System Lewistown, Montana U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain–Prairie Region Lakewood, Colorado Appendix E Key Legislation and Policy

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for the Guiding Principles National Wildlife Refuge System and other policies There are four guiding principles for management and key legislation that guide the management of and public use of the Refuge System established by Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and the Executive Order 12996 (1996): UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. ■■ Public Use—The Refuge System provides impor- tant opportunities for compatible wildlife-depen- dent recreational activities involving hunting, E.1 NATIONAL WILDLIFE fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. REFUGE SYSTEM ■■ Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper with- The mission of the Refuge System is to out quality habitat, and without fish and wildlife, administer a national network of lands and traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. waters for the conservation, management The Refuge System will continue to conserve and and, where appropriate, restoration of the enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wild- fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their life habitat within refuges. habitats within the United States for the ■■ Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and women benefit of present and future generations of were the first partners who insisted on protecting Americans. valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships with other Federal —National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 agencies, State agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, and the public can make significant con- Goals tributions to the growth and management of the Refuge System. A. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants ■■ Public Involvement—The public should be given and their habitats, including species that are a full and open opportunity to participate in endangered or threatened with becoming endan- decisions about acquisition and management of gered. national wildlife refuges. B. Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdic- tional fish, and marine mammal populations that E.2 OTHER LEGAL and POLICY is strategically distributed and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these spe- GUIDANCE cies across their ranges. Management actions on national wildlife refuges are C. Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, constrained by many mandates including laws and wetlands of national or international significance, Executive orders. The more common regulations and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, that affect refuge management are listed below. rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Directs protection efforts. agencies to consult with native traditional religious D. Provide and enhance opportunities to partici- leaders to determine appropriate policy changes pate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation necessary to protect and preserve Native American (hunting, fish, wildlife observation and photogra- religious cultural rights and practices. phy, and environmental education and interpreta- Americans with Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits dis- tion). crimination in public accommodations and services. E. Foster understanding and instill appreciation of Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investi- the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wild- gation of antiquities on Federal land and provides life, and plants and their habitats. penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit. 260 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range (Public Directs the preservation of historic and archaeologi- Land Order 2951). cal data in Federal construction projects. Executive Order 11988 (1977): Requires Federal agen- Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as cies to provide leadership and take action to reduce amended: Protects materials of archaeological inter- the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on est from unauthorized removal or destruction and human safety, and preserve the natural and benefi- requires Federal managers to develop plans and cial values served by the floodplains. schedules to locate archaeological resources. Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996): Defines owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the be accessible to persons with disabilities. National Wildlife Refuge System. It also presents four Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940): Provides for principles to guide management of the Refuge System. the protection of the bald eagle (the national emblem) Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs and the golden eagle by prohibiting, except under Federal land management and other agencies certain specified conditions, the taking, possession to accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of and commerce of such birds. Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, Bankhead–Jones Farm Tenant Act (1937): Some early ref- avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of uges and hatcheries were established under the author- such sacred sites and, where appropriate, maintain ity of this Act that required the Secretary of Agriculture the confidentiality of sacred sites. to develop a program of land conservation and use. Executive Order 13352, Cooperative Conservation (2004): Clean Air Act (1970, amended 1990): Restricts the amount Directs Federal agencies to implement laws relating of pollutants that can be emitted into the air. Desig- to the environment and natural resources in a man- nated wilderness areas including UL Bend National ner that promotes cooperative conservation with an Wildlife Refuge have the highest standards (class I) emphasis on appropriate inclusion of local participa- for pollution and visibility and air quality is moni- tion in Federal decisionmaking in accordance with tored at the refuge. respective agency missions and policies. Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Executive Order 13443, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for Wildlife Conservation (2007): Directs Federal land man- major wetland modifications. agement and other agencies to facilitate the expan- sion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and Data Quality Act (2001): Requires Government agencies the management of game species and their habitat. to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and dissemination of information by Federal agencies. Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or con- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): Promotes tain undesirable plant species and an interdisciplin- wetland conservation for the public benefit to help ary approach with the cooperation of other Federal fulfill international obligations in various migratory and State agencies. bird treaties and conventions. The act authorizes buying wetlands with Land and Water Conservation Federal Records Act (1950): Requires the preservation Fund monies. of evidence of the Government’s organization, func- tions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires Federal agen- as well as basic historical and other information. cies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agree- Enhancement Act (2000): Public Law 106–54 authorized ments with private landowners for wildlife manage- the Secretary of Army, working with the Secretary ment purposes. of Interior, to identify cabin sites suitable for convey- ance to current lessees. The funds received will be Game Range Act (1976): Public Law 94–223 transferred used for acquiring other lands with greater wildlife the management of all game ranges to the sole and other public value for the refuge. authority of National Wildlife Refuge System. This included Charles M. Russell Game Range and in Executive Order 7509 (1936): Establishes the Fort Peck 1978, the refuge was renamed Charles M. Russell Game Range for the conservation and development National Wildlife Refuge (Public Land Order 5635). of natural wildlife resources and for the protection and improvement of public grazing lands and natu- Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes pro- ral forage resources. In 1963, it was renamed the cedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gifts Appendix E—Key Legislation and Policy 261

of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conserva- Public Land Order (4588): Establishment of UL Bend tion Commission. National Wildlife Refuge and revocation of Execu- tive Order 7509 on these lands. Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorizes the opening of part of a refuge to water- Public Law (94–557) of 1976: Designation of wilderness fowl hunting. areas within the National Wildlife Refuge System Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protec- including parts of UL Bend National Wildlife Ref- tion of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility, uge. and enables the setting of seasons and other regula- Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges tions including the closing of areas, Federal or non- for recreation when such uses are compatible with Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient Native American Policy (1994): Articulates the general money is available to manage the uses. principles that guide the Service’s government-to- Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic government relationship to Native American govern- accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for ments in the conservation of fish and wildlife resources. all facilities and programs funded by the Federal National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires all Government to ensure that any person can partici- agencies, including the Service, to examine the envi- pate in any program. ronmental impacts of their actions, incorporate envi- Rivers and Harbors Act (1899): Section 10 of this act ronmental information, and use public participation in requires the authorization of U.S. Army Corps of the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal Engineers before any work in, on, over, or under agencies must integrate this act with other planning navigable waters of the United States. requirements, and prepare appropriate documents to facilitate better environmental decisionmaking. [From Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act the 40 CFR 1500.] (1998): Encourages the use of volunteers to help in the management of refuges within the Refuge Sys- National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended: tem; facilitates partnerships between the Refuge Establishes as policy that the Federal Government System and non-Federal entities to promote public is to provide leadership in the preservation of the awareness of the resources of the Refuge System Nation’s prehistoric and historical resources. and public participation in the conservation of the National Trails System Act (1968): Established a national resources; and encourages donations and other con- trails system including provisions for national tributions. historic trails that follow as closely as possible the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968): Set aside certain riv- original trails or routes of travel of national historic ers in the Nation to be preserved in free-flowing significance. condition among other provisions. This included National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966): portions along the western boundary of the Refuge, Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and which is part of the Upper Missouri National Wild authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit and Scenic River most of which flows through the any use of a refuge, provided such use is compatible Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument (BLM). with the major purposes for which the refuge was The act was modified in 1976 by Public Law 94–486 established. to apply the scenic designation to the river and its bed for the part that flows through the refuge. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Sets the mission and administrative policy for all Wilderness Act (1964): The act (Public Law 88–577) [16 refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System; U.S.C. 1131–36]) defines wilderness as “A wilder- mandates comprehensive conservation planning for ness, in contrast with those areas where man and his all units of the Refuge System. works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a (1990): Requires Federal agencies and museums to visitor who does not remain.” Approximately 20,819 inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate acres within UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge cultural items under their control or possession. are designated as wilderness, and approximately Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009: 176,140 acres within Charles M. Russell Refuge are Requires the Secretary of Interior and Agriculture proposed for inclusion in the National Wilderness to manage and protect paleontological resources on Preservation System, and is managed as if were des- Federal land using scientific principles and expertise. ignated wilderness.

Appendix F Wilderness Review and Summary

The Service has reviewed and updated existing lands within Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge for current wilderness potential, as guided by the Wilderness Stewardship Policy (FWS 2008c), which provides an overview and foundation for implementing the Wilderness Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the Improvement Act.

F.1 HISTORY of WILDERNESS at the CHARLES M. RUSSELL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE With the passage of The Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, (Public Law 88–577), the Secretary of Interior was required to review every roadless area of 5,000 acres or more and every roadless island, regardless of size, within the National Wildlife Refuge System within 10 years after the effective date of the act, and report to the Presi- dent of the United States his recommendations as to the suitability or unsuitability of each such area or island for preservation as wilderness. See table A for a timeline of wilderness decisions and actions that affected the refuge.

Table A. Timeline for wilderness on the Charles M. Table A. Timeline for wilderness on the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges, Montana. Russell and UL Bend Refuges, Montana. Date Action Date Action September 13, 1964 The Wilderness Act of 1964 is enacted December 4, 1974 President Gerald R. Ford trans- and all agencies are given 10 years to mits proposals for 37 additions to the provide recommendations for wilder- National Wilderness Preservation Sys- ness designations. (Public Law 88–577). tem (including Charles M. Russell Ref- uge’s 15 units) to Congress. This act May 3, 1974 Directors of the Bureau of Sport Fish- transitions the 15 Charles M. Russell eries and Wildlife and BLM release a Refuge units from wilderness study draft environmental impact statement areas (WSA) to “proposed wilderness.” for 13 proposed wilderness units within From this point forward, all 15 units Charles M. Russell National Wildlife are to be managed as wilderness, per Refuge. the tenets of The Wilderness Act of May 20–29, 1974 Public hearings are held in four Montana 1964. (House Document 94–403) locations (Malta, Miles City, Billings, and October 19, 1976 UL Bend Wilderness designated in Jordan) and Denver, Colorado, to part of UL Bend National Wildlife ascertain public views on the desirability Refuge with wilderness areas totaling to include Charles M. Russell Refuge 20,890 acres. (Public Law 94–557) in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Public hearings results in the October 31, 1983 28 acres of designated wilderness removal of three previously recom- within UL Bend Refuge removed mended units (Lost Creek, Sage Creek, from the National Wilderness Pres- and Snow Creek) and the addition of ervation System to allow for fishing four (East Beauchamp, East Hell Creek, access. (Public Law 98–140) Wagon Coulee, and West Beauchamp) July 29, 2002 All refuge roads on proposed wilderness bringing the total number of recom- areas closed per US DOI memo entitled, mended wilderness units to 15. “Charles M. Russell Road Policy Chal- August 28, 1974 Assistant Secretary of the Interior lenged.” officially forwards Charles M. Russell Refuge wilderness recommendations to the President of the United States. 264 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

On May 3, 1974, the Directors of the Bureau of 1. East Seven Blackfoot—11,744 acres Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (the Service) and BLM BLM’s wilderness study area surrounds the south- released a draft environmental impact Statement for ern boundary of East Seven Blackfoot. This unit, 13 proposed wilderness units within Charles M. Rus- like the Billy Creek Unit and West Seven Black- sell National Wildlife Refuge. Five separate public foot Unit, is extremely rugged with high ridges and hearings were then held on the proposals in Malta, numerous side drainages and coulees. Slaymaker Miles City, Billings, Denver, and Jordan between Ridge is the most notable physical feature, running May 20 and May 29, 1974. The comment period was north and south in the middle of the proposed wilder- extended until June 28, 1974, to allow for more writ- ness unit. Vegetation types include limited forested ten comments on the proposed wilderness units. A areas, grassy benches, and sagebrush and grease- total of 283 individuals attended the five hearings wood flats. Much of the land is barren due to the with 101 statements read into the record. The public soils, slope, and topography. hearings resulted in the addition of two more Charles M. Russell Refuge units as viable wilderness, bring- 2. Mickey Butte—16,893 acres ing the total recommended wilderness areas to 15 Mickey Butte is situated on the east side of the UL with a combined acreage of 155,288 acres. Bend Refuge, contiguous with the UL Bend Wil- On December 4, 1974, President Gerald Ford, derness. This unit is characterized by high bluffs on via House Document No. 93–403 recommended that the northwest side yielding to steep, rugged coulees the selected 155,288 acres of the Charles M. Russell draining the area to the east and southeast. The cou- National Wildlife Refuge keep their pristine charac- lees are relatively short as they rise to the bluffs. ter through protection as proposed wilderness units Forested areas become more sparse in this area, (Note: The proposal that went to Congress identi- compared to the western part of the refuge, with fied 155,388 acres, but the actual acreage was 155,288 grasses, sagebrush, and greasewood increasing in acres and is considered to be legal acreage). The percentage of ground cover. 155,288 acres was divided among 15 units (identified in table B in section F.3 below). 3. Burnt Lodge—21,576 acres With advances in technology, the Service has Burnt Lodge is one of the most rugged and scenic since refined all of the proposed wilderness units and areas within the Missouri River Breaks. The area entered them into GIS. Through the minimization varies from rolling Bear Paw shale hills in the west of errors and correction of boundaries, the acreage to the extremely rugged eastern part, which is an the Service recognizes today as proposed wilderness extension of the Larb Hills. Scattered patches of units is closer to 158,619 acres. ponderosa pine and juniper dominate the north Section “F.2, Current Proposed Wilderness” pro- slopes and high bench lands. Grasses, sagebrush, and vides a complete description of each area currently greasewood predominate in the area west of Killed managed as proposed wilderness. As directed by Con- Woman Creek. The northern boundary of this unit gress, the Service is required to manage all proposed abuts a BLM wilderness study area. wilderness units to maintain their wilderness charac- ter based on these qualities: an untrammeled and nat- 4. Billy Creek—10,916 acres ural state, a lack of development, and the capacity for Billy Creek is extremely rugged with short, steep- solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. sided drainages. Much of the area is inaccessible to livestock with dominant grass, sagebrush, and greasewood vegetation. Forested areas are isolated and occur only where soil, slope, and aspects are con- F.2 CURRENT PROPOSED ducive to their growth. 5. West Seven Blackfoot—6,456 acres WILDERNESS A BLM wilderness study area surrounds the south- The management direction map (figure 41 in chapter ern boundary of West Seven Blackfoot. The unit is 4) and the wilderness map (figure A) in this appendix similar to the East Seven Blackfoot. A long, high show the locations of proposed wilderness units. The ridge running west to east and paralleling the res- wilderness character of all designated and proposed ervoir dominates the unit. Vegetation is similar to wilderness areas within Charles M. Russell Refuge will adjacent proposed wilderness units, with increased be reevaluated through the creation of a wilderness forest cover. stewardship plan following finalization of the CCP. The next section describes the basic geography and topography of the 15 existing proposed wilder- ness units. Appendix F—Wilderness Review and Summary 265

<

Figure A. Map of designated wilderness, proposed wilderness units (areas), and wilderness study areas for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges, Montana.

Appendix F—Wilderness Review and Summary 267

6. Antelope Creek—5,062 acres ested and, due to the northern exposure, well vege- Antelope Creek is forested with long and geologi- tated with grasses, sagebrush, and other shrubs. cally well-developed drainages. The bordering ridges 13. Crooked Creek—6,842 acres are steep and relatively narrow-crested. It is located in the very northwest corner of the refuge contig- Crooked Creek drainages are relatively short with uous to the Upper Missouri River National Monu- well-forested side slopes. Away from the reservoir, ment WSA administered by BLM. the forest is interspersed with small grassy parklands. 7. West Hell Creek—11,896 acres 14. East Hell Creek—14,744 acres West Hell Creek provides a physical transition East Hell Creek is physically similar to the West between the badlands to the east and the Missouri Hell Creek proposed wilderness unit. Landscapes River Breaks to the west. Forest cover is more plen- include grassy, flat ridge tops or mesas, gentle roll- tiful in this unit than in the area east of Hell Creek, ing breaks, and numerous steep drainages and can- but the landscape is still dominated by grass, sage- yons nearer the lake. Vegetation is typical of the brush, and other shrubs. Missouri River Breaks with a mix of forested areas and juniper patches, grasslands, and sagebrush flats. 8. Fort Musselshell Unit—8,303 acres Fort Musselshell contains major drainages that run 15. East Beauchamp Creek—5,264 acres parallel to Fort Peck Reservoir, in contrast to the East Beauchamp Creek comprises the lower reaches perpendicular drainages in most areas. The slopes of the Beauchamp Creek drainage, which is a 20-mile- are well vegetated with conifers, grass, sagebrush, long watershed. A wide, intermittent drainage within and other shrubs. the East Beauchamp unit has the potential for excel- 9. Sheep Creek—11,784 acres lent riparian habitat. Secondary side coulees are char- acterized by ponderosa pine and juniper. Sheep Creek is situated between Cracker Creek Bay and Gilbert Creek Bay west of the Sage Creek Pro- posed Wilderness. The topography reflects inconsis- tent erosion. Grass with some sagebrush and other shrubs dominate the landscape. Trees are virtually F.3 WILDERNESS INVENTORY absent. There are three phases to the wilderness review 10. West Beauchamp Creek—6,736 acres process: (1) inventory, (2) study, and (3) recommen- dation. Areas that meet the minimum criteria for wil- West Beauchamp Creek comprises three short cou- derness are identified in the inventory phase. These lees between ridges that start from CK Ridge and areas are called wilderness study areas (WSAs). proceed in a southeasterly direction, ending at the These areas must be roadless and meet one of the Missouri River. These coulees are characterized by following size criteria: scattered stands of ponderosa pine and juniper, and ■■ greater than 5,000 acres ridge tops of sagebrush shrub mixed with western and bluebunch–wheatgrass grassland. ■■ a roadless island of any size ■■ less than 5,000 acres but of sufficient size to be 11. Wagon Coulee—10,480 acres practicably managed as wilderness Wagon Coulee contains the most rugged parts of the south-facing aspect of Harper’s Ridge. It includes the A wilderness study area must also be natural and lower 2 miles of the Cabin Coulee drainage and an provide opportunities for solitude or primitive rec- approximately 2-mile section of the middle reaches of reation. Carpenter Creek. The coulees within the unit contain Table B reflects the evaluation of existing wilder- healthy stands of ponderosa pine with ridge tops con- ness and nonwilderness units within Charles M. Rus- sisting of primarily grass and scattered sage. sell Refuge against the criteria for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. (Refer to 12. Alkali Creek—6,592 acres the final CCP and EIS for the evaluation of wilderness Alkali Creek is characterized by short drainages, under all alternatives.) which produce a jumbled appearance. Slopes are for- 268 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges, Montana. Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments) (1) (2) (3a) (4) At least 5,000 acres Affected primarily by Outstanding opportunities Ecological, geological, QUALIFIES of land forces of nature, with the for solitude or other features of as a wilderness imprint of human work (3b) scientific, educational, study area substantially unnoticeable Outstanding opportunities or historical value (meets criteria for primitive and 1, 2, and 3a or 3b) unconfined recreation

AREA 1 • NORTH: Antelope Creek proposed wilderness • SOUTH, WEST: Missouri River

(1) No (2) Yes (3a) Yes, (3b) Yes (4) Yes YES 1,836 acres No bisecting roads. Bounded by the Mis- River edge is impor- souri River and Ante- tant habitat for spiny lope Creek proposed softshell turtle and wilderness, connect- the American white ing to BLM Upper pelican. Missouri River Breaks National Monument WSA. Opportunities for land and water recreation (Missouri River).

AREA 2 • NORTH, WEST: Antelope Creek proposed wilderness, inventory unit 1 • SOUTH: Missouri River • EAST: Highway 191

(1) No (2) No (3a) No, (3b) Yes (4) No NO 4,606 acres Eastern boundary is Proximity to State Highway 191 along highway, auto tour with State-maintained route, and developed power lines. Kipp Recreation Area reduces solitude. Refuge road 305 within this unit. Opportunities for land and water recreation (Missouri River).

AREA 3 • NORTH: Refuge boundary • SOUTH: Missouri River • WEST: Highway 191 • EAST: Refuge boundary, State section, refuge road 201, West Beauchamp proposed wilderness

(1) Yes (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) Yes NO 108,397 acres Contains the auto Auto tour route and Important elk breed- tour route visited by Slippery Ann viewing ing habitat. 10,000 vehicles each area results in signifi- year and the Slippery cant vehicular traffic. Ann elk-viewing area. Recreation opportuni- Parts of road 201, main ties are disrupted by artery on the north roads and year-round side of the refuge, closure of the Slip- pass through unit. pery Ann area. Contains four State sections and three pri- vately owned tracts. Appendix F—Wilderness Review and Summary 269

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges, Montana. Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments) (1) (2) (3a) (4) At least 5,000 acres Affected primarily by Outstanding opportunities Ecological, geological, QUALIFIES of land forces of nature, with the for solitude or other features of as a wilderness imprint of human work (3b) scientific, educational, study area substantially unnoticeable Outstanding opportunities or historical value (meets criteria for primitive and 1, 2, and 3a or 3b) unconfined recreation

AREA 4 • NORTH, EAST: West Beauchamp Creek proposed wilderness; WEST: Refuge roads 201 and 302 • SOUTH: Missouri River

(1) No (2) Yes (3a) No, (3b) Yes (4) No NO 359 acres Bordered by roads Too small to offer sol- 201 and 302, but itude. does not contain any Adjacency to Missouri bisecting roads. River provides water recreation access.

AREA 5 • NORTH, EAST: Refuge boundary • WEST: East Beauchamp proposed wilderness • SOUTH: State section

(1) No (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 1,348 acres No roads present, Dominated by a steep, but provides vehicu- eroded coulee. lar access to the State lease south of unit.

AREA 6 • NORTH, WEST: Refuge boundary • SOUTH: UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Missouri River • EAST: Burnt Lodge proposed wilderness

(1) Yes (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 21,061 acres Contains the Four- Recreation area vis- chette Creek Recre- ited by hunters and ation Area. recreationists year- round. Intersected by five refuge roads. Installations and development at recre- Contains three State ation areas preclude parcels. primitive recreation.

AREA 7 • NORTH: Refuge boundary • WEST: Burnt Lodge proposed wilderness • SOUTH, EAST: Timber Creek, Missouri River

(1) No (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 833 acres Road 339 bisects the A road disrupts soli- northern half of unit tude. and provides access to The small size limits Timber Creek Bay. recreation opportu- nities. 270 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges, Montana. Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments) (1) (2) (3a) (4) At least 5,000 acres Affected primarily by Outstanding opportunities Ecological, geological, QUALIFIES of land forces of nature, with the for solitude or other features of as a wilderness imprint of human work (3b) scientific, educational, study area substantially unnoticeable Outstanding opportunities or historical value (meets criteria for primitive and 1, 2, and 3a or 3b) unconfined recreation

AREA 8 • NORTH: Missouri River • WEST , SOUTH: Refuge boundary • EAST: Highway 191

(1) Yes (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 18,913 acres Contains privately Private inholdings owned land, two State and trafficked roads sections, and four ref- preclude solitude. uge roads. Mosaic of roads and Along the Highway inholdings disrupt 191 corridor. opportunities for unconfined recreation.

AREA 9 • NORTH: Missouri River West, Highway 191 • SOUTH: Refuge boundary • EAST: Fort Musselshell proposed wilderness

(1) Yes (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 32,929 acres Along the Highway Contains the major 191 corridor. east–west refuge road on the south side of Contains Sand Creek the Missouri River Field Station and and the Sand Creek administrative area, Field Station. multiple privately owned tracts, and Contains significantly three State sections. developed areas such as the Sand Creek Field Station.

AREA 10 • NORTH, EAST: Missouri River • SOUTH: Refuge road 315, Wilderness Inventory Unit C • WEST, SOUTH: Refuge boundary

(1) Yes (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 12,560 acres Borders private inhold- Contains road 315, ings, State lands, and which borders private several refuge roads. lands and State lands leased by the refuge and provides recre- ational access. Several roads and the narrow refuge prop- erty along the Mis- souri River confines recreation.

AREA 11 • NORTH, EAST: Refuge road 315, Missouri River • WEST: Refuge road 838 • SOUTH: Crooked Creek proposed wilderness

(1) Yes (2) Yes (3a) Yes, (3b) Yes (4) Yes NO 5,568 acres No interior roads. Bordering roads allow Important sage- for hunting access and grouse habitat. Bordered by refuge wildlife observation. roads 311, 315, and 838. Appendix F—Wilderness Review and Summary 271

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges, Montana. Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments) (1) (2) (3a) (4) At least 5,000 acres Affected primarily by Outstanding opportunities Ecological, geological, QUALIFIES of land forces of nature, with the for solitude or other features of as a wilderness imprint of human work (3b) scientific, educational, study area substantially unnoticeable Outstanding opportunities or historical value (meets criteria for primitive and 1, 2, and 3a or 3b) unconfined recreation

AREA 12 • NORTH: Refuge road 311 • SOUTH: Refuge road 411, Missouri River • EAST: Crooked Creek proposed wilderness • WEST: Refuge boundary

(1) No (2) Yes (3a) No, (3b) Yes (4) No YES 2,826 acres No interior roads. Surrounded by refuge roads on two sides. Bordered by roads 311, 377, and 411. Close to Crooked Creek Recreation Area. Bordering roads allow for hunting access and wildlife observation.

AREA 13 • NORTH: Crooked Creek drainage, refuge road 411 • WEST: Refuge boundary • SOUTH: Refuge road 103 to intersection with Crooked Creek

(1) No (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 4,046 acres Contains the Crooked Contains USACE Creek Recreation facilities. Area managed by Development at USACE. Crooked Creek Rec- reation Area precludes primitive recreation.

AREA 14 • NORTH: County road, Crooked Creek Road • SOUTH, EAST: Alkali Creek proposed wilderness • WEST: Refuge boundary

(1) No (2) Yes (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No YES 640 acres Contains no roads. Traffic on Crooked Creek Road is visible Bordered on the north from the unit. by refuge road 103.

AREA 15 • NORTH: Alkali Creek proposed wilderness • SOUTH, WEST: Refuge boundary

(1) No (2) Yes (3a) Yes, (3b) Yes (4) No YES 2,240 acres No established roads Only accessible via in or next to the unit. foot. 272 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges, Montana. Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments) (1) (2) (3a) (4) At least 5,000 acres Affected primarily by Outstanding opportunities Ecological, geological, QUALIFIES of land forces of nature, with the for solitude or other features of as a wilderness imprint of human work (3b) scientific, educational, study area substantially unnoticeable Outstanding opportunities or historical value (meets criteria for primitive and 1, 2, and 3a or 3b) unconfined recreation

AREA 16 • NORTH: Missouri River • SOUTH, WEST: Refuge boundary • EAST: West Seven Blackfoot proposed wilderness

(1) No (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) Yes NO 50,074 acres Multiple, privately Substantial private Pronghorn migration owned parcels, roads traffic and public traf- route across Missouri (refuge and county), fic on county route 245. River. and the Devils Creek Unit is a mosaic bro- Recreation Area. ken up by refuge and county roads. Significant private and refuge installations and development.

AREA 17 • NORTH, EAST, WEST: East Seven Blackfoot proposed wilderness • SOUTH: Refuge boundary

(1) No (2) Yes (3a) Yes, (3b) Yes (4) No YES 640 acres No established roads. Surrounded on all sides by East Seven Blackfoot proposed wilderness and BLM Seven Blackfoot WSA.

AREA 18 • NORTH: Missouri River, West Hell Creek proposed wilderness, Hell Creek Bay, East Hell Creek proposed wilderness • SOUTH, EAST: Refuge boundary • WEST: Billy Creek proposed wilderness

(1) Yes (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 32,359 acres Contains the Hell County road provides Creek Recreation public access to the Hell Area, which has a Creek Recreation area campground, marina, and near Round Butte. boat ramp, and multi- A mosaic of private ple private inholdings. and refuge lands. Contains refuge developments at Hell Creek Recreation Area.

AREA 19 • NORTH, WEST: West Hell Creek proposed wilderness • EAST: State section

(1) Yes (2) Yes (3a) Yes, (3b) Yes (4) No YES 641 acres No established roads. Contiguous on two sides with West Hell Creek proposed wil- derness. Appendix F—Wilderness Review and Summary 273

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges, Montana. Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments) (1) (2) (3a) (4) At least 5,000 acres Affected primarily by Outstanding opportunities Ecological, geological, QUALIFIES of land forces of nature, with the for solitude or other features of as a wilderness imprint of human work (3b) scientific, educational, study area substantially unnoticeable Outstanding opportunities or historical value (meets criteria for primitive and 1, 2, and 3a or 3b) unconfined recreation

AREA 20 • NORTH: Fort Peck Reservoir, Sheep Creek proposed wilderness, refuge road 357 • EAST: Refuge road 357 • SOUTH: Refuge boundary; West: Township line R38E

(1) Yes (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 8,225 acres Contains two private Mosaic of roads and inholdings, one State private and State lands section, and five ref- with associated traffic. uge roads.

AREA 21 • NORTH: Sheep Creek proposed wilderness • SOUTH, EAST: Refuge boundary • WEST: Refuge roads 356 and 357

(1) Yes (2) Yes (3a) Yes, (3b) Yes (4) No YES 5,726 acres Only one adjacent road: Adjacent roads pro- refuge road 356/357. vide hunting access and water recreation access via Gilbert Creek Bay.

AREA 22 • NORTH: Fort Peck Reservoir, Big Dry Arm • WEST: West Gilbert Creek drainage • SOUTH: Refuge boundary • EAST: Fort Peck Reservoir, Big Dry Arm, Big Dry Creek

(1) Yes (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) Yes NO 48,835 acres Contains multiple roads Primitive nature of Area contains signif- and private inhold- unit is broken up by icant paleontological ings. Inholdings and many transecting resources. roads break up the roads. unit, so there is not a single, contiguous 5,000-acre block. Includes Rock Creek Recreation Area. Consists of multiple, privately owned cabin sites.

AREA 23 • NORTH, SOUTH, EAST: Refuge boundary • WEST: Big Dry Arm of the Fort Peck Reservoir

(1) Yes (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 57,446 acres Several USACE rec- Includes three rec- reation areas and mul- reation areas with tiple State sections. developed structures. Includes more than a Riddled with roads dozen refuge roads. and developed struc- tures. Contains Fort Peck Dam spillway. 274 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Table B. Wilderness inventory for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges, Montana. Evaluation criteria (“yes” or “no” for meeting criteria, with comments) (1) (2) (3a) (4) At least 5,000 acres Affected primarily by Outstanding opportunities Ecological, geological, QUALIFIES of land forces of nature, with the for solitude or other features of as a wilderness imprint of human work (3b) scientific, educational, study area substantially unnoticeable Outstanding opportunities or historical value (meets criteria for primitive and 1, 2, and 3a or 3b) unconfined recreation

AREA 24 • NORTH: Refuge boundary, refuge road 331 • SOUTH: Fort Peck Reservoir • WEST: Refuge road 327, Wagon Coulee proposed wilderness • EAST: Duck Creek Road

(1) Yes (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 82,160 acres Contains four partial Many refuge roads or full State sections, and structures. multiple private in- holdings, and refuge roads. Includes the Pine Recreation Area.

AREA 25 • NORTH: Refuge road 327 • SOUTH, EAST: Missouri River • WEST: Wagon Coulee proposed wilderness

(1) No (2) Yes (3a) Yes, (3b) Yes (4) No YES 4,843 acres No interior roads or Limited access on installed structures adjacent refuge road except a navigational 327. marker on the shore- line.

AREA 26 • NORTH: Refuge boundary • EAST: Wagon Coulee proposed wilderness • SOUTH: Fort Peck Reservoir • WEST: Timber Creek Bay

(1) Yes (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) No NO 23,560 acres Contains Bone Trail Provides vehicular Boat Ramp and multi- access to Fort Peck ple private inholdings. Reservoir.

AREA 27 • NORTH, EAST: Fort Peck Lake • SOUTH: Mickey Butte proposed wilderness

(1) No (2) Yes (3a) Yes, (3b) Yes (4) No YES 550 acres No roads adjacent or No roads adjacent or within area. within area.

AREA 28 • UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: all land currently not part of the UL Bend Wilderness

(1) (2) No (3a) No, (3b) No (4) Yes NO Not known A network of roads Popular access to fish- Habitat for the endan- crosses the center of ing and hunting. gered black-footed UL Bend Refuge. ferret and associated Roads disrupt oppor- black-tailed prairie dog. tunities for unconfined recreation.

*Wilderness inventory numbers in this table reference labeled areas on figure A. Appendix F—Wilderness Review and Summary 275

ness areas in Charles M. Russell Refuge and serve to further enhance the size of existing areas avail- F.4 WILDERNESS STUDY able for solitude and primitive recreation. The wilderness inventory identified nine areas The following areas are not bounded by refuge within eight proposed wilderness units on the roads or the refuge boundary and, therefore, will Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Refuges that pos- provide particularly quality opportunities for sol- sess the required wilderness character for potential itude and primitive recreation: East Seven Black- inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation foot WSA, Mickey Butte WSA, and West Hell Creek System as defined by The Wilderness Act of 1964. WSA. All areas are next to existing proposed wilderness areas on the refuge. Each of these areas was further Quality of Supplemental Values. Some of the recom- evaluated through the refuge planning process to mended wilderness study areas provide important determine their suitability for designation, manage- habitat for federally warranted and State-listed plant ment, and preservation as wilderness. This evalua- and animal species such as greater sage-grouse, fer- tion considered the following: ruginous hawk, American white pelican, spiny softs- hell turtle, and northern leopard frog. ■■ quality of wilderness values ■■ evaluation of resource values, public uses, and Evaluation of Manageability and Other Resource Values associated management concerns and Uses. Each of the recommended wilderness study areas on the refuge can be managed to preserve ■■ capability for management as wilderness their wilderness character in perpetuity, recognizing All recommended wilderness study areas result- that a “minimum requirement” approach is required. ing from this review assume the name of the adja- There are no valid, existing private rights included cent proposed wilderness area. For example, the in any recommended wilderness study areas. area abutting Antelope Creek proposed wilderness Currently, game carts are allowed in existing pro- is known as the Antelope Creek WSA. posed Charles M. Russell Refuge wilderness units, Evaluation of Wilderness Values and this provision will be common to all newly rec- ommended wilderness study areas. The UL Bend BLM currently manages several wilderness study Wilderness will still prohibit the use of game carts. areas next to the refuge (see the management direc- None of the current or expected refuge manage- tion map, figure 41, in chapter 4). These areas were ment activities and public uses will diminish the wil- taken into consideration in reviewing refuge lands derness character. These include hunting, scientific that contain wilderness character and potential research, resource monitoring, commercial services areas that could be suited for wilderness proposal such as guided wildlife hunting, environmental edu- and designation. In three general areas along the cation, and low-impact recreational activities. There refuge boundary, there are either BLM wilderness are no plans to construct permanent facilities or study areas or the Upper Missouri River Breaks structures to accommodate these uses. National Monument. These protected areas provide In summary, wilderness designation and manage- crucial unobstructed corridors for wildlife migration ment of the wilderness study areas is fully compat- in central Montana. ible with refuge management under this CCP, and Naturalness. All of the recommended wilderness none of the resource values identified above will be study areas generally appear to have been affected foregone or adversely affected as a result of desig- primarily by nature, with the imprint of human uses nation. and activities substantially unnoticeable. The rec- ommended wilderness study areas are free from pri- vate inholdings and interior roads and are next to existing, proposed Charles M. Russell Refuge wil- F.5 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION derness areas. The Service evaluated four alternatives in the final Several of the recommended wilderness study CCP and EIS for managing wilderness on the refuge; areas exhibit excellent, natural, active, riparian sys- alternative D was selected in the record of decision tems such as Antelope Creek WSA and West Beau- (refer to appendix A). The resulting CCP wilder- champ Creek WSA. ness recommendations are described below, and all Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive Rec- adhere to the overarching CCP goal for wilderness: reation. All of the recommended, wilderness study Conserve, improve, and promote the wilder- areas offer outstanding opportunities for both soli- ness quality and associated natural processes tude and primitive recreation. Although several are of designated, proposed, and wilderness study less than 5,000 acres, all wilderness study areas are areas within Charles M. Russell National contiguous with already existing proposed wilder- Wildlife Refuge for all generations. 276 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

The Service will expand or adjust eight proposed “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas wilderness units by recommending nine adjacent where man and his works dominate the land- wilderness study areas be considered for inclusion scape, is hereby recognized as an area where in the National Wilderness Preservation System. A the earth and its community of life are untram- net gain of 19,942 acres will allow more efficient man- meled by man, where man himself is a visitor agement of large landscapes to address the overall who does not remain. An area of wilderness emphasis on natural ecological processes with min- is further defined to mean in this Act an area imal management to promote biological diversity, of undeveloped Federal land retaining its pri- biological integrity, and environmental health. meval character and influence, without per- Table C lists the recommended wilderness study manent improvements or human habitation, areas, which are shown on the management direction which is protected and managed so as to pre- map, figure 41, in chapter 4. These areas will be des- serve its natural conditions and that (1) gener- ignated as proposed wilderness units following trans- ally appears to have been affected primarily by mission to the United States President (per 610 FW the forces of nature, with the imprint of man 4.23). An act of Congress is required for all proposed substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstand- wilderness units to become designated wilderness. ing opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at Table C. Wilderness study areas recommended in least five thousand acres of land or is of suffi- the CCP for the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Ref- cient size as to make practicable its preserva- uges, Montana. tion and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other Wilderness features of scientific, educational, scenic, or his- study area unit* Unit name Acres toric value.” 1 (A) Antelope Creek 1,836 Designated Wilderness. An area designated in legisla- 12 (D) Crooked Creek 2 2,826 tion and administered as part of the National Wilder- 14 (E) Alkali Creek 1 640 ness Preservation System. 15 (F) Alkali Creek 2 2,240 Proposed Wilderness. An area of the Refuge Sys- 17 (G) East Seven Blackfoot 640 tem that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 19 (H) West Hell Creek 641 has recommended to the President for inclusion in 21 (I) Sheep Creek 5,726 the National Wilderness Preservation System. The 25 (J) Wagon Coulee 4,843 President then transmits the wilderness proposal to Congress. Once the Secretary transmits the recom- 27 (K) Mickey Butte 550 mendation to the President, the Service considers Total 19,942 the area proposed wilderness and will manage it as *Wilderness study area unit numbers in this table reference designated wilderness. the labeled areas in figure A and in figure 41 in chapter 4. Recommended Wilderness. An area of the Refuge System that the Director of the Service has rec- Two potential wilderness study areas were not ommended to the Secretary through the Assistant recommended in the record of decision: Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks for inclu- ■■ Crooked Creek 1 WSA was not recommended to sion in the National Wilderness Preservation Sys- allow the most management options for (1) wild- tem. life-dependent recreational use and (2) the use of prescribed fire and livestock grazing in this area’s Wilderness Review. The inventory, study, and deci- habitat unit. sionmaking process the Service uses to determine ■■ West Beauchamp WSA is bordered by heavily whether to recommend Refuge System lands and recreated refuge road 302. To maintain access waters for wilderness designation. for wildlife-dependent recreation, this area was Wilderness Study Area. A wilderness study area is an excluded. area the Service is considering for wilderness desig- nation. The Service identifies and establishes wilder- ness study areas through the inventory component of a wilderness review. The study areas include all F.6 DEFINITIONS areas that are still undergoing the review process. Several definitions are used in this wilderness review. Wilderness Values. Wilderness values are biophysical Wilderness Definition and Criteria. The definition of wil- (ecosystems, scenery, and natural processes), psy- derness is in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act: chological (opportunity for solitude or primitive and Appendix F—Wilderness Review and Summary 277

unconfined recreation), symbolic (national and nat- ural remnants of American cultural and evolution- ary heritage), and spiritual (sense of connection with nature and values beyond one’s self).

Appendix G List of Plant and Animal Species

This appendix contains the common and scientific WARM-SEASON FORBS names of plants, amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, and purple coneflower, Echinacea angustifolia mammals of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife stiff sunflower, Helianthus pauciflorus Refuge and the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge. dotted gayfeather, Liatris punctata white prairieclover, Dalea candida purple prairieclover, Dalea purpurea SENTINEL PLANT SPECIES Maximilian sunflower, Helianthus maximiliani Sentinel plants are those species that vanish first FIRE SENTINELS when the ecological processes that occur within an big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata tridentata ecosystem are out of balance. The following sentinel Rocky Mountain juniper, Juniperus scopulorum plant species occur on the upland plains and draws ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa and north slopes on the Charles M. Russell National Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga toxifolia Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Ref- uge. The list is not inclusive of all possible species, or custom to a specific locale, and are intended to be adaptive to new information obtained through man- FOCAL BIRD SPECIES agement or research. On the refuge, the following focal bird species are The “fire sentinel” plants listed below are fire- considered most sensitive to or limited by certain intolerant species. Unlike the sentinel shrubs, trees, ecological processes (such as fire or nest predation) and warm-season forbs that are currently declining, or habitat attributes (such as patch size or snags). the fire sentinels are abundant on the refuge. How- Some of the sentinel species listed above are impor- ever, fire sentinels are important species to monitor tant for focal birds and are being used to help guide because of their significance to wildlife and ecologi- management activities. cal processes. UPLAND SHRUBS and TREES long-billed curlew, Numenius americanus rubber rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus nauseosus Sprague’s pipit, Antus spragueii spp. nauseosus Baird’s sparrow, Ammodramus bairdii green rubber rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus brown creeper, Certhia americana nauseosus spp. graveolens sharp-tailed grouse, Tympanuchus phasianellus saltbush, Atriplex aptera greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus winterfat, Krascheninnikovia lanata silver buffaloberry, Shepherdia argentea RIVER BOTTOM chokecherry, Prunus virginiana ovenbird, Seiurus aurocapillus boxelder, Acer negundo Cordilleran flycatcher, Empidonax occidentalis green ash, Fraxinus pennsylvanica black-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus erythropthalmus plains cottonwood, Populus deltoides western wood-pewee, Contopus sordidulus redosier dogwood, Cornus stolonifera golden current, Ribes aureum RIPARIAN AREA and WETLAND quaking aspen, Populus tremuloides red-eyed vireo, Vireo olivaceus peachleaf willow, Salix amydaloides Brewer’s blackbird, Euphagus cyanocephalus veery, Catharus fuscescens 280 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

PLANT LIST Scientific name Common name Aceraceae Maple family Acer negundo boxelder Agavaceae Century-plant family Yucca glauca soapweed yucca Alismataceae Water plantain family Alisma gramineum narrowleaf water plantain A. triviale northern water plantain Sagittaria cuneata arumleaf arrowhead S. latifola bulltongue arrowhead Amaranthaceae Amaranth family Amaranthus albus prostrate pigweed A. arenicola sandhill amaranth A. blitoides mat amaranth A. californicus California amaranth A. retroflexus redroot amaranth Anacardiaceae Sumac family Rhus trilobata skunkbush Toxicodendron rydbergii western poision ivy Apaceae Carrot family Cymopterus acaulis plains spring parsley Heracleum sphondylium eltrot Lomatium foeniculaceum dessert biscuitroot Musineon divaricatum wild parsley Osmorhiza longistylis longstyle sweetroot Sium suave hemlock waterparsnip Apocynaceae Dogbane family Apocynum cannabinum Indianhemp Asclepiadaceae Milkweed family Asclepias speciosa showy milkweed A. verticillata whorled milkweed Asteraceae Aster family Achillea millefolium common yarrow Acroptilon repens hardheads Agoseris glauca pale agoseris Ambrosia artemisifolia annual ragweed Antennaria dimorpha low pussytoes A. microphylla littleleaf pussytoes A. neglecta field pussytoes A. parvifolia small-leaf pussytoes A. rosea rosy pussytoes Arctium lappa greater burdock Arnica sororia twin arnica Artemisia absinthium absinthium A. biennis biennial wormwood A. campestris field sagewort A. cana silver sagebrush A. dracunculus tarragon A. frigida prairie sagewort A. longifolia longleaf wormwood A. ludoviciana white sagebrush A. tridentate tridentata big sagebrush Aster brachyactis aster brachyactis A. falcatus white prairie aster Appendix G—List of Plant and Animal Species 281

Scientific name Common name Bidens cernua nodding beggartick B. frondosa devil’s beggartick Brickellia eupatoroides false boneset Centaurea stoebe spotted knapweed Chaenactis douglasii Douglas’ dustymaiden Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus yellow rabbitbrush Cirsium arvense Canadian thistle C. flodmanii Flodman‘s thistle C. undulatum wavyleaf thistle C. vulgare bull thistle Conzya canadensis Canadian horseweed Crepis atribarba largeflower hawksweed C. occidentalis largeflower hawksweed C. runcinata fiddleleaf hawksweed Cyclachaena xanthifolia giant sumpweed Dyssodia papposa field marigold Echinacea angustifolia blacksamson echinaceae Ericameria nauseosa ssp. nauseosa var. glabrata rubber rabbitbrush E. nauseosa ssp. nauseosa var. nauseosa rubber rabbitbrush Erigeron caespitosus tufted fleabane E. compositus cutleaf daisy E. corymbosus longleaf fleabane E. ochroleucus buff fleabane E. pumilus shaggy fleabane E. strigosus prairie fleabane Gallardia aristata common gallardia Gnaphalium palustre western marsh cudweed Grindelia squarrosa curlycup gumweed Gutierrezia sarothrae broom snakeweed Helenium autunmale common sneezeweed Helianthus annuus common sunflower H. maximiliani Maximilian sunflower H. pauciflorous stiff sunflower H. petiolaris prairie sunflower Heterotheca villosa hairy false golden aster Hieracium umbllatum narrowleaf hawkweed Hymenopappus polycephalus manyhead hymenopappus Hymenoxys richardsonii pingue rubberweed Iva axillaris poverty weed Lactuca tatarica blue lettuce Latuca punctata dotted blazing star Lygodesmia juncea rush skeletonplant Machaeranthera canescens hoary tansyaster M.grindelioides rayless tansyaster M. pinnatifida lacy tansyaster M. tanacetifolia tansyleaf tansyaster Microseris nutans nodding microceris Nothocalais cuspidata sharppoint prairie-dandelion Packera cana wolly groundsel Picradeniopsis oppositifolia opposite leaf bahia Ratibida columnifera upright prairie coneflower Senecio integerrimus lambstongue ragwort S. serra tall ragwort Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod S. missouriensis Missouri goldenrod 282 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name S. mollis velvety goldenrod S. rigida stiff goldenrod Sonchus arvensis spp. uliginosus moist sowthistle S. oleraceus common sawthistle Stenotus acaulis stemless mock goldenweed Stephanomeria runcinata desert wirelettuce Symphyotrichum ericoides var. pansum manyflowered aster S. laeve smooth blue aster Taraxacum laevigatum rock dandelion T. officinale common dandelion Townsedia exscupa stemless Townsend daisy Townsendia hookeri Hooker’s Townsend daisy Tragopogon dubius yellow salsify Xanthium strumarium rough cocklebur Boraginaceae Borage family Cryptantha celosioides buttecandle Cryptantha spiculifera Snake River cryptantha Hackelia deflexa nodding stickseed Lappula redowskii flatspine stickseed L. squarrosa European stickseed Lithospermum incisum narrowleaf stoneseed Plagiobothrys leptocladus finebranched popcorn flower Brassicaceae Mustard family Alyssum desertorum desert madwort Arabis hirsuta hairy rockcress A. holboellii Holboell’s rockcress Armoracia rusticans horseradish Camelina microcarpa littlepod false flax Cardaria draba whitetop Chorispora tenella crossflower Conringia orientalis hare’s ear mustard Descurainia richardsonii mountain tansy mustard Draba albertina slender draba D. nemorosa woodland draba D. reptans Carolina draba Erysimum asperum western wallflower E. inconspicuum shy wallflower E. cheiranthoides L. wormseed wallflower Hesperis matronalis dames rocket Lepidium densiflorum common pepperweed L. perfoliatum clasping pepperweed Lesquerella alpina alpine bladderpod L. ludoviciana foothill bladderpod Physaria didymocarpa common twinpod Rorippa sinuata spreading yellowcress Sisymbrium altissimum tall tumbleweed mustard Thelypodium paniculatum northweastern thelypody Thlaspi arvense field pennycress Callitrichareae Water-starwort family Callitriche hermaphroditica northern water-starwort Campanulaceae Bellflower family Campanula rotundifolia bluebell bellflower Triodanis leptocarpa slimpod Venus looking glass Capparidaceae Caper family Cleome serrulata Rocky Mountain beeplant Appendix G—List of Plant and Animal Species 283

Scientific name Common name Polanisia dodecandra spp. trachysperma sandyseed clammyweed Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle family Symphoricarpos albus common snowberry S. occidentalis western snowberry Caryophyllaceae Pink family Arenaria lateriflora bluntleaf sandwort Cerastium arvense field chickweed C. nutans nodding chickweed Paronychia sessiliflora creeping nailwort Silene latifolia bladder campion S. menziesii Menzies’ campion S. oregana Oregon silene Cactaceae Cactus family Coryphantha missouriensis Missouri pincushion C. vivipara purple pincushion Opuntia fragilis brittle prickly pear O. poluacantha plains prickly pear Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot family Atriplex argentea silverscale saltbush A. canescens fourwing saltbush A. confertifolia shadescale saltbush A. gardneri Gardner’s saltbush A. patula spear saltbush A. powellii Powell’s saltbush A. rosea tumbling saltbush Bassia scoparia burning bush Chenopodium album lambsquarter C. atrovirens pinyon goosefoot C. desiccatum aridland goosefoot C. fremontii Fremont’s goosefoot C. glaucum oakleaf goosefoot C. leptophyllum narrowleaf goosefoot C. pratericola desert goosefoot C. rubrum red goosefoot C. subglabrum smooth goosefoot Endolepis diocicia Suckley’s endolepis Krascheninnikovia lanata winterfat Monolepis nuttalliana Nuttall’s povertyweed Salicornia rubra red swapfire Salsola tragus prickly Russian thistle Sarcobatus vermiculatus greasewood Suaeda calceoliformis Pursh seepweed Suaeda moquinii Mojave seablite Commelinaceae Spiderwort family Tradescantia occidentalis prairie spiderwort Convolvulaceae Morning glory family Calystegia sepium hedge false bindweed Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed Cornaceae dogwood Cornus siricea spp. siricea redosier dogwood Cupressaceae Cypress family Juniperus communis common juniper J. horizontalis creeping juniper J. scopulorum Rocky Mountain juniper J. scopulorum × horizontalis hybrid of creeping and Rocky Mountain junipers 284 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name Cyperaceae Sedge family Carex brevior shortbreak sedge C. douglasii Douglas sedge C. duriusula needleleaf C. filifolia threadleaf sedge C. hoodii Hood’s sedge C. lanuginosa American willyfruit sedge C. pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge C. rossii Boott. Ross’ sedge C. sprengelii Sprengel’s sedge C. vulpinoidea fox sedge C. xerantica whitescale sedge Eleocharis acicularis needle spikerush E. palustris common spikerush Schoenoplectus acutus hardstem bulrush S. americanus chairmaker’s bulrush S. maritimus cosmopolitan bulrush S. tabernaemontani softstem bulrush Dryopteridaceae Wood fern family Cystopteris fragilis brittle bladder fern Woodsia oregana Oregon cliff fern Elaeagnaceae Oleaster family Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive E. communtata silverberry Shepherdia argentea silver buffaloberry Elatinaceae Waterwort family Elatine triandra threestamen waterwort Equisetaceae Horsetail family Equisetum arvense field horsetails E. hyemale scouringrush horsetails E. laevigatum smooth horsetail E. variegatum variegated scouringrush Euphorbiaceae Spurge family Euphorbia brachycera horned spurge Euphorbia esula leafy spurge Euphorbia glyptosperma ribseed sandmat Euphorbia serpyllifolia thymeleaf sandmat Euphorbia spathulata water spurge Fabaceae Legume family Astragalus agrestis purple vetch A. bisulcatus two grooved milkvetch A. canadensis Candian milkvetch A. crassicarpus groundplum milkvetch A. flexuosus flexile milkvetch A. geyeri Geyer’s milkvetch A. gilviflorus plains milkvetch A. gracilis slender milkvetch A. grummondii Drummonds milkvetch A. kentrophyta spiny milkvetch A. laxmanni var. robustior prairie milkvetch A. lentiginosus freckled milkvetch A. lotiflorus lotus milkvetch A. purshii woolypod milkvetch A. spatulatus tufted milkvetch Caragana arborescens Siberian peashrub Appendix G—List of Plant and Animal Species 285

Scientific name Common name Dalea candida white prairie clover D. purpurea purple prairie clover Glycyrrhiza lepidota American licorice Lupinus argenteus silvery lupine L. pusillus rusty lupine Medicago lupulina black medrich M. sativa alfalfa Melilotus officinalis yellow sweetclover Oxytropis besseyi Bessey’s locoweed O. lambertii purple locoweed O. monticola yellow flower locoweed O. sericea white locoweed Pediomelum argophyllum silverleaf breadroot P. esculentum large indian breadroot P. lanceolatum lemon scurfpea P. tenuiflorum slimflower scurfpea Thermopsis rhombifolia prairie thermopsis Trifolium hybridum alsike hybridum Trifolium repens white clover Vicia americana American vetch Geraniaceae Geranium family Geranium carolinianum Carolina geranium Grossulariaceae Currant family Ribes americanum American black currant R. aureum golden currant R. cereum wax currant R. setosum inland gooseberry R. viscosissimum sticky currant Haloragidaceae Water milfoil family Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian water milfoil Hydrophyllaceae waterleaf Ellisia nyctelea Aunt Lucy Nemophila breviflora basin nemophila Phacelia linearis threadleaf phacelia P. thermalis heated phacelic Iridaceae Iris family Sisyrinchium montanum strict blue-eyed grass Juncaceae Rush family Juncus balticus Baltic rush J. bufonius toad rush J. interior inland rush J. tenuis Poverty rush J. torreyi Torrey’s rush Juncaginaceae Arrowgrass family Triglochin concinnum slender arrowgrass Lamiaceae Mint family Dracocephalum parviflorum American dragonhead Hedeona drummondii Drummond’s false pennyroyal Hedeona hispida false penny royal Lycopus asper rough bungleweed Mentha arvensis wild mint Monarda fistulosa wild bermont (beebulm) Nepeta cataria catnip Lemnaceae Duckweed family Lemna minor common duckweed 286 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name Liliaceae Lily family Allium textile textile onion Asparagus officinalis garden asparagus Calochortus nuttallii sego lily Fritillaria pudica yellow fritillary Maianthemum stellatum starry false lily of the valley Prosartes trachycarpa rough fruit fairybells Smilax herbacea smooth carrionflower Zigadenus venenosus meadow deathcamas Linaceae Flax family Linum lewisii Lewis flax L. rigidum stiffstem flax Loasaceae Loasa family Mentzelia albicaulis whitestem blazingstar M. decapetala ten petal blazingstar M. laevicaulis smooth stemmed blazingstar Malvaceae Mallow family Malva parviflora cheeseweed mallow Sphaeralcea coccinea scarlet gold mallow Najadaceae Waternymph family Najas guadalupensis southern waternymph Nyctaginaceae Four o‘clock family Mirabilis linearis narrowleaf four o‘clock Oleaceae Olive family Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Onagraceae Evening primrose family Calylophus serrulatus yellow sundrops Epilobium angustifolium fireweed E. ciliatum fringed willow herb E. pbrachycarpum tall annual willowherb E. pygmaeum smooth spike primrose Gaura coccineae scarlet beeblossom Oenothera albicaulis whitest evening primrose O. biennis common evening primrose O. cespitosa gumbo evening primrose O. flava yellow evening primrose O. nuttllii Nuttall’s evening primrose O. villosa hairy evening primrose Orbanchaceae Broomrape family Orobanche fasciculata clustered broomrape O. ludoviciana Louisiana broomrape Pinaceae Pine family Pinus flexis limber pine Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir Plantaginaceae Plantain family Plantago aristata largebracted plantain P. elongata prairie plantain P. lanceolata narrow leaf plantain P. major common plantain P. patagonica hairy plantain (Indian wheat) Poaceae Grass family Achnatherum hymenoides indian ricegrass Agropyron cristatum crested wheatgrass Agrostis sabra rough bentgrass Appendix G—List of Plant and Animal Species 287

Scientific name Common name Agrostit stolonifera creeping bentgrass Andropogon hallii sand bluestem Avena sativa common oat Beckmannia syzigachne American sloughgrass Bouteloua dactyloides buffalo grass B. gracilis blue grama Bromus arvensis field brome (Japanese brome) B. carinatus California brome B. ciliatus fringed brome B. commutatus bald brome B. inermis smooth brome B. inermis spp. pumpellianus Pumpelly’s brome B. tectorum cheatgrass Calamagrostis canadensis bluejoint C. montanensis plains reedgrass Calamovilfa longifolia prairie sandreed Dactylis glomerata orchardgrass Danthonia unispicata onespike danthonia Distichlis stricta saltgrass Echinochloa crus-galli barnyard grass Elymus canadensis Canada wildrye E. elymoides squirreltail E. lanceolatus thickspike wheatgrass E. repens quackgrass E. trachycaulum slender wheatgrass Eragrostis cilianensis stinkgrass E. pectinacea tufted lovegrass Festuca rubra red fescue Glyceria striata fowl mannagrass Hesperostipa comatga needle and thread Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley H. pusillum little barley Koeleria macrantha prairie Junegrass Leymus triticoides heartless wildrye Muhlenbergia asperifolia scratchgrass M. cuspidata plains muhly Munroa squarrosa false buffalo grass Nassella viridula green needlegrass Panicum cappillare witchgrass Pascopyrum smithii western wheatgrass Phalaris arundinaceae reed canarygrass Phleum pratense timothy Piptatherum micrantha littleseed ricegrass Poa annua annual bluegrass P. arida plains bluegrass P. bulbosa bulbous bluegrass P. compressa Canada bluegrass P. cusickii Cusick’s bluegrass P. palustris fowl bluegrass P. pratensis Kentucky bluegrass P. secunda Sandberg bluegrass Polypogon monspeliensis annual rabbit’s foot grass Pseudoroegneria spicata bluebunch wheatgrass Puccinellia nuttalliana Nuttall’s alkali grass Schedonnardus paniculatus tumble grass 288 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name Schizachyrium scoparium little bluestem Setaria viridis green bristlegrass Spartina gracilis alkali cordgrass Sporobolus airoides alkali sacaton S. cryptandrus sand dropseed Thinopyrum intermedium intermediate wheatgrass Torreyochloa pallida pale false mannagrass Triticum aestivum common wheat Vulpia octoflora sixweeks fescue Polemoniaceae Phlox family Collomia linearis tiny trumpet Microsteris gracilis slender phlox Phlox alyssifolia alyssumleaf phlox P. hoodii spiny phlox Polygalaceae Milkwort family Polygala alba white milkwort P. verticillata whorled milkwort Polygonaceae buckwheat Eriogonum annuum annual buckwheat E. cernuum nodding buckwheat E. flavum alpine golden buckwheat E. ovalifolium cusion buckwheat E. pauciflorum few flower buckwheat Polygonum aviculare prostate knotweed P. convolvulus black bindweed P. erectum erect knotweed P. lapathifolium curlytop knotweed P. punctatum dotted smartweed P. ramossissimum bushy knotweed Rumex acetosella common sheep sorrel R. aquaticus western dock R. crispus curly dock R. maritimus golden dock R. salicifolius willow dock R. venosus veiny dock Portulaceae Purslane family Claytonia perfoliata miner’s lettuce Portulaca oleracea little hogweed Potamagetonaceae Pondweed family Potamogeton diversifolius waterthread pondweed P. foliosus leafy pondweed P. praelongus whitesteam pondweed P. pusillus small pondweed Stuckenia pectinat sago pondweed Primulaceae Primrose family Androsace filiformis filiformis rockjasmine A. occidentalis western rockjasmine Ranunculaceae Buttercup family Anemone cylindrica candle anemone A. multifida Pacific anemone Clematis ligusticifolia western white clematis Delphinium bicolor little larkspur Pulsatilla patenes cutleaf anemone Ranunculus aquatilis white water crowfoot R. cymbalaria alkali buttercup Appendix G—List of Plant and Animal Species 289

Scientific name Common name R. glaberrimus sagebrush buttercup R. macounii Macoun’s buttercup R. sceleratus cursed buttercup Thalictrum venulosum veiny meadow-rue Rosaceae Rose family Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry Crataegus chrysocarpa fineberry hawthorn Fragaria virginiana Virginia strawberry Geum aleppicum yellow avens G. triflorum prairie smoke Potentilla anserina silverweed cinquefoil P. arguta tall cinquefoil P. biennis biennial cinquefoil P. gracilis slender cinquefoil P. paradoxa paradox cinquefoil P. pensylvanica Pennsylvania cinquefoil Prunus virginiana chokecherry Rosa acicularis spp. sayi prickly rose R. arkansana prairie rose R. woodsii Woods’ rose Rubiaceae Bedstraw family Galium aparine stickywilly (catchweed bedstraw) G. boreale northern bedstraw G. trifidum threepetal bedstraw Salicaeae Willow family Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood P. tremuloides quaking aspen P. balsamifera balsam poplar Salix amygdaloides peachleaf willow S. bebbiana Bebb willow S. exigua narrowleaf willow S. fragilis crack willow S. lasiandra Pacific willow S. lutea yellow willow Santalaceae Sandalwood family Comandra umbellata bastard toadflax Saxifragaceae Saxifrag family Heuchera parvifolia littleleaf alumroot Scrophulariaceae Figwort family Bacopa rotundifolia disk waterhyssop Besseya wyomingensis Wyoming besseya Castilleja sessiliflora downy paintedcup Collinsia parviflora maiden blue eyed Mary Limosella aquatica water mudwort Orthocarpus leteus yellow owl’s clover Penstemon albidus white penstemon P. nitidus waxleaf penstemon Veronica anagallis-aquatica water speedwell V. pergrina neckweed Selaginellaceae Spikemoss family Selafinella densa lesser spikemoss Solanaceae Potato family Solanum rostratum buffalo nightshade S. triflorum cutleaf nightshade 290 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name Tamaricaceae Tamarisk family Tamarix chinensis five stamen tamarisk (saltcedar) Typhaceae Cattail family Typha latifolia broadleaf cattail Urticeae Nettle family Parietaria pensylvanica Pennsylvania Urtica dioica stinging nettle Verbenaceae Verbena family Verbena bracteata bigbract verbena Violaceae Violet family Viola adunca hookedsur violet V. canadensis Canadian white violet V. nephrophylla northern bog violet V. nuttallii smooth stemmed blazing star Vitaceae Grape family Parthenocissus inserta Virginia creeper Zannichelliaceae horned pondweed family Zigadenus venenosus meadow deathcamas

ANIMAL LIST BUTTERFLIES Source: Butterflies and Moths of North America 2011. Scientific name Common name Nymphalidae Brush-footed butterflies Limenitidinae Admirals and relatives Limenitis arthemis red-spotted purple L. archippus viceroy L. weidemeyerii Weidemeyer’s admiral L. arthemis arthemis white admiral Heliconiinae Longwings Speyeria aphrodite Aphrodite fritillary S. callippe callippe fritillary S. coronis coronis fritillary S. edwardsii Edwards’ fritillary S. egleis great basin fritillary S. cybele great spangled fritillary S. hydaspe hydaspe fritillary S. mormonia Mormon fritillary S. hesperis northwestern fritillary S. zerene Zerene fritillary Boloria bellona meadow fritillary B. selene silver-bordered fritillary Euptoieta claudia variegated fritillary Nymphalinae True brush-foots Nymphalis vaualbum Compton tortoiseshell N. antiopa mourning cloak Euphydryas editha Edith’s checkerspot E. gillettii Gillette’s checkerspot E. chalcedona variable checkerspot Phycoides pulchellus field crescent P. cocyta northern crescent Appendix G—List of Plant and Animal Species 291

Scientific name Common name P. pallid pale crescent P. tharos pearl crescent P. batesii tawny crescent Chlosyne gorgone Gorgone checkerspot C. palla northern checkerspot C. acastus sagebrush checkerspot Polygonia progne gray comma P. faunus green comma P. gracilis hoary comma P. satyrus satyr comma Aglais milberti Milbert’s tortoiseshell Vanessa cardui painted lady V. atalanta red admiral V. annabella west coast lady Riodinidae Metalmarks Apodemia mormo Mormon metalmark Parnassiinae Parnassians Parnassian smintheus Rocky Mountain parnassian Papilioninae Swallowtails Papilio zelicaon anise swallowtail P. canadensis Canadian tiger swallowtail P. machaon Old World swallowtail P. eurymedon pale swallowtail P. multicaudata two-tailed swallowtail P. rutulus western tiger swallowtail

AMPHIBIANS and REPTILES Ambystomatidae Mole salamanders Ambistoma tigrinum tiger salamander Hylidae Chorus frogs Pseudacris triseriata western chorus frog Ranidae True frogs Rana pipiens northern leopard frog Bufonidae True toads Bufo woodhousei Woodhouse’s toad B. cognatus Great Plains toad Scaphiopodidae Spadefoots Scaphiopus bombifrons plains spadefoot Chelydridae Snapping turtles Chelydra serpentin snapping turtle Emydidae Pond turtles Chrysemys picta painted turtle Trionychidae Softshell turtles Trionyx spiniferus spiny softshell Colubridae Colubrid snakes Coluber constrictor racer Thamnophis elegans terrestrial garter snake T. radix plains garter snake T. sirtalis common garter snake Lampropeltis triangulum milk snake Pituophis catenifer gopher snake or bullsnake Heterodon nasicus western hog-nosed snake Viperidae Vipers Crotalus viridus prairie rattlesnake 292 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name FISHES Source: Bramblett and Zale 1999. Acipenseridae Sturgeons Scaphirhynchus albus (N) pallid sturgeon S. platorynchus (N) shovelnose sturgeon Polyodontidae Paddlefishes Polyodon spathula paddlefish Lepisosteidae Gars Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar Hiodontidae Mooneyes Hiodon alosoides goldeneye Salmonidae Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss rainbow trout Salmo trutta brown trout Salvelinus namaycush lake trout Coregonus artedi cisco Cyprinidae Minnows Hybognathus hankinsoni brassy minnow H. placitus plains minnow H. argyritis western silvery minnow Cyprinus carpio common carp Notropis atherinoides emerald shiner Pimephales promelas fathead minnow Hybopsis gracilis flathead chub Couesius plumbeus lake chub Rhynichthys cataractae longnose dace Phoxinus eos northern redbelly dace P. eos × P. neogaeus northern redbelly dace × finescale dace Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner N. ludibundus sand shiner Semotilus atromaculatus creek chub Macrhybobsis gelida sturgeon chub M. meeki sicklefin chub Castostomidae Suckers Catostomus catostomus longnose sucker C. commersoni white sucker Carpoides carpio river carpsucker Cycleptus elongate blue sucker Ictiobus bubalus smallmouth buffalo I. cyprinellus bigmouth buffalo Moxostoma macrolepidotum shorthead redhorse Ictaluridae Bullheads and catfishes Ictalurus melas black bullhead I. punctatus channel catfish Noturus flavus stonecat Esocidae Pikes and pickerels Esox lucius northern pike Gadidae Burbot Lota lota burbot Gasterosteidae Sticklebacks Culaea inconstans brook stickleback Centrarchidae Sunfishes Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie P. annularis white crappie Appendix G—List of Plant and Animal Species 293

Scientific name Common name Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish L. macrochirus bluegill Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass Percidae Perches Etheostoma exile Iowa darter Stizostedion canadense sauger S. vitreum walleye Perca flavenscens yellow perch Sciaenidae Drums Aplodinotus grunniens freshwater drum Fundulidae Killfishes Fundulus zebrinus plains killfish

BIRDS Of the bird species recorded, there are the following: ■■ 5 introduced species ■■ 1 extinct species ■■ 2 extirpated species ■■ 125 breeding species ■■ 2 federally endangered species ■■ 2 federally threatened species The order of birds below follows the American Ornithologists’ Union checklist of Northern American birds (2000). * indicates a documented breeding record # indicates a migratory nongamebird species of management concern in the United States (FWS 1995) Gaviidae Loons Gavia immer common loon# G. stellata red-throated loon G. pacifica Pacific loon G. adamsii yellow-billed loon Podicipedidae Grebes Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe* Podiceps auritus horned grebe* P. grisegena red-necked grebe P. nigricollis eared grebe* Aechmophorus occidentalis western grebe* A. clarkia Clark’s grebe* Pelicanidae Pelicans Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican* Phalacrocoracidae Cormorants Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant* Ardeidae Bitterns, herons, and egrets Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern*# Ardea herodias great blue heron* A. alba great egret Egretta thula snowy egret Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night-heron Threskiornithidae Ibises and spoonbills Plegadis chihi white-faced ibis Cathartidae New World vultures Cathartes aura turkey vulture Anatidae Swans, geese, and ducks Anser albifrons greater white-fronted goose Chen caerulescens snow goose C. rossii Ross’ goose 294 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name Branta canadensis Canada goose* Cygnus columbianus tundra swan Aix sponsa wood duck Anas strepera gadwall* A. americana American wigeon* A. rubripes American black duck A. platyrhynchos mallard* A. discors blue-winged teal* A. cyanoptera cinnamon teal* A. clypeata northern shoveler* A. acuta northern pintail* A. crecca green-winged teal* Aythya valisineria canvasback* A. americana redhead* A. collaris ring-necked duck* A. affinis lesser scaup* Melanitta fusca white-winged scoter Clangula hyemalis long-tailed duck Bucephala albeola bufflehead* B. clangula common goldeneye B. islandica Barrow’s goldeneye Lophodytes cucullatus hooded merganser Mergus merganser common merganser M. serrator red-breasted merganser Oxyura jamaicensis ruddy duck* Accipitridae Osprey, kites, hawks, and eagles Pandion halliaetus osprey Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle (threatened) Circus cyaneus northern harrier Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk A. cooperii Cooper’s hawk A. gentilis northern goshawk Buteo platypterus broad-winged hawk B. swainsoni Swainson’s hawk B. jamaicensis red-tailed hawk* B. regalis ferruginous hawk B. lagopus rough-legged hawk Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle* Falconidae Falcons and caracaras Falco sparverius American kestrel F. columbarius merlin F. rusticolus gyrfalcon F. peregrinus peregrine falcon F. mexicanus prairie falcon Phasianidae Gallinaceous birds Perdix perdix gray partridge (introduced) Phasianus colchicus ring-necked pheasant (introduced) Centrocercus urophasianus greater sage-grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus sharp-tailed grouse Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey Rallidae Rails Rallus limicola Virginia rail Porzana carolina sora Fulica americana American coot Appendix G—List of Plant and Animal Species 295

Scientific name Common name Gruidae Cranes Grus canadensis sandhill crane Charadriidae Plovers Pluvialis squatarola black-bellied plover P. dominica American golden-plover Charadrius semipalmatus semipalmated plover C. melodus piping plover (threatened) C. vociferous killdeer C. montanus mountain plover Recurvirostridae Stilts and avocets Himantopus mexicanus black-necked stilt Recurvirostra americana American avocet Scolopacidae Sandpipers and phalaropes Tringa melanoleuca greater yellowlegs T. flavipes lesser yellowlegs T. solitaria solitary sandpiper Actitus macularius spotted sandpiper Catoptrophorus semipalmatus willet Artramia longicauda upland sandpiper Numenius borealis Eskimo curlew (extirpated) N. phaeopus whimbrel N. americanus long-billed curlew Limosa fedoa marbled godwit Arenaria interpres ruddy turnstone Calidris alba sanderling C. pusilla semipalmated sandpiper C. mauri western sandpiper C. minutilla least sandpiper C. fuscicollis white-rumped sandpiper C. bairdii Baird’s sandpiper C. melanotos pectoral sandpiper C. alpine dunlin C. himantopus stilt sandpiper Limnodromus scolopaceus long-billed dowitcher Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s phalarope P. lobatus red-necked phalarope Tryngites subruficollis buff-breasted sandpiper Gallinago delicate Wilson’s snipe Laridae Gulls, terns, and jaegers Larus pipixcan Franklin’s gull L. philadelphia Bonaparte’s gull L. delawarensis ring-billed gull L. californicus California gull L. thayeri Thayer’s gull L. hyperboreus glaucous gull L. canus mew gull L. argentatus herring gull L. glaucescens glaucous-winged gull L. marinus great black-backed gull Sterna caspia Caspian tern S. hirundo common tern S. forsteri Forster’s tern S. antillarum least tern (endangered) Chlidonias niger black tern Xema sabini Sabine’s gull 296 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name Rissa tridactyla black-legged kittiwake Stercorarius pomarinus pomarine jaeger Columbidae Pigeons and doves Columba livia rock dove (introduced) C. fasciata band-tailed pigeon Zenaida macroura mourning dove Ectopistes migratorius passenger pigeon (extinct) Cuculidae Cuckoos and anis Coccyzus erythropthalmus black-billed cuckoo Strigidae Owls Bubo virginianus great horned owl Nyctea scandiaca snowy owl Surnia ulula northern hawk-owl Athene cunicularia burrowing owl Asio otus long-eared owl A. flammeus short-eared owl Glaucidium gnoma northern pygmy-owl Aegolius acadicus northern saw-whet owl Caprimulgidae Goatsuckers and allies Chordeiles minor common nighthawk Phalaenoptilus nuttallii common poorwill Apodidae Swifts Chaetura pelagica chimney swift Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift Trochilidae Hummingbirds Archilochus colubris ruby-throated hummingbird Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird Alcedinidae Kingfishers Ceryle alcyon belted kingfisher Picidae Woodpeckers Melanerpes erythrocephalus red-headed woodpecker Picoides pubescens downy woodpecker P. villosus hairy woodpecker Colaptes auratus northern flicker Sphyrapicus nuchalis red-naped sapsucker Tyrannidae New World flycatchers Contopus sordidulus western wood-pewee Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher E. minimus least flycatcher E. oberholseri dusky flycatcher E. occidentalis Cordilleran flycatcher Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird T. tyrannus eastern kingbird T. vociderans Cassin’s kingbird Laniidae Shrikes Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike L. excubitor northern shrike Vireonidae Vireos Vireo gilvus warbling vireo V. philadelphicus Philadelphia vireo V. olivaceus red-eyed vireo Corvidae Crows, jays, and magpies Cyanocitta cristata blue jay Pica hudsonia black-billed magpie Appendix G—List of Plant and Animal Species 297

Scientific name Common name Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow C. corax common raven Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus pinyon jay Nucifraga columbiana Clark’s nutcracker Alaudidae Larks Eremophila alpestris horned lark Hirundinidae Swallows Tachycineta bicolor tree swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged swallow Riparia riparia bank swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow Hirundo rustica barn swallow Tachycineta thalassina violet-green swallow Paridae Chickadees and titmice Poecile atricapilla black-capped chickadee* P. gambeli mountain chickadee Sittidae Nuthatches Sitta canadensis red-breasted nuthatch S. carolinensis white-breasted nuthatch Certhiidae Creepers Certhia americana brown creeper Troglodytidae Wrens Troglodytes aedon house wren Cistothorus palustris marsh wren Salpinctes obsoletus rock wren Cinclidae Dippers Cinclus mexicanus American dipper Regulidae Kinglets Regulus satrapa golden-crowned kinglet R. calendula ruby-crowned kinglet Turdidae Thrushes Sialia sialis eastern bluebird S. currocoides mountain bluebird Myadestes townsendi Townsend’s solitaire Catharus fuscescens veery C. minimus gray-cheeked thrush C. ustulatus Swainson’s thrush C. guttatus hermit thrush Turdus migratorius American robin Mimidae Mockingbirds, thrashers, and allies Dumetella carolinensis gray catbird Toxostoma rufum brown thrasher Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Oreoscoptes montanus sage thrasher Sturnidae Starlings Sturnus vulgaris European starling (introduced) Motacillidae Wagtails and pipits Anthus ruescens American (water) pipit A. spragueii Sprague’s pipit Bombycillidae Waxwings Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian waxwing B. cedrorum cedar waxwing Parulidae New World warblers Vermivora peregrina Tennessee warbler V. celata orange-crowned warbler 298 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name Dendroica petechia yellow warbler D. magnolia magnolia warbler D. tigrina Cape May warbler D. coronata yellow-rumped warbler D. townsendi Townsend’s warbler D. palmarum palm warbler D. striata blackpoll warbler Mniotilta varia black-and-white warbler Setophaga ruticilla American redstart Seiurus aurocapillus ovenbird S. noveboracensis northern waterthrush Oporornis tolmiei MacGillivray’s warbler Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’s warbler W. canadensis Canada warbler Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat Thraupidae Tanagers Piranga ludoviciana western tanager Emberizidae Buntings and seedeaters Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee Spizella arborea American tree sparrow S. passerina chipping sparrow S. pallida clay-colored sparrow S. breweri Brewer’s sparrow S. pusilla field sparrow Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow Chondestes grammacus lark sparrow Calamospiza melanocorys lark bunting Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow A. bairdii Baird’s sparrow Melospiza melodia song sparrow M. lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow Zonotrichia alicollis white-throated sparrow Z. querula Harris’ sparrow Z. leucophrys white-crowned sparrow Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco Calcarius mccownii McCown’s longspur C. lapponicus Lapland longspur C. ornatus chestnut-collared longspur Plectrophenax nivalis snow bunting Pipilo chlorurus green-tailed towhee Melospiza georiana swamp sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla golden-crowned sparrow Cardinalidae Saltators, cardinals, and allies Pheucticus ludovicianus rose-breasted grosbeak P. melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak Passerina amoena lazuli bunting Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal Passerina cyanea indigo bunting Icteridae Blackbirds and orioles Dolichonyx oryzivorus bobolink* Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird* Surnella neglecta western meadowlark* Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird* Appendix G—List of Plant and Animal Species 299

Scientific name Common name Euphagus carolinus rusty blackbird E. cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird* Quiscalus quiscula common grackle* Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird* Icterus spurius orchard oriole* I. galbula Baltimore oriole* I. bullockii Bullock’s oriole Fringillidae Finches and crossbills Pinicola enucleator pine grosbeak Carduelis flammea common redpoll C. hornemanni hoary redpoll C. pinus pine siskin C. tristis American goldfinch Leucosticte tephrocotis gray-crowned rosy-finch Pinicola enucleator pine grosbeak Loxia curvirostra red crossbill L. leucoptera white-winged crossbill Coccothraustes vespertinus evening grosbeak Passeridae Old World sparrows Passer domesticus house sparrow (introduced)

MAMMALS Sources: Burt and Grossenheider 1980, Hoffman and Pattie 1968, Foresman 2001, and Montana Natural Heritage Program. Soricidae Shrews Sorex cinereus cinereus (masked) shrew* S. merriami Merriam’s shrew S. haydeni Hayden’s shrew (R) S. monticolus montane shrew Vespertilionidae Vesper bats Myotis evotis long-eared myotis M. lucifugus little brown myotis* M. ciliolabrum western small-footed myotis M. thysanodes fringed myotis M. volans long-legged myotis Lasiurus borealis eastern red bat L. cinereus hoary bat Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat Eptesicus fuscus big brown bat Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat Leporidae Hares and rabbits Sylvilagus nuttalli mountain cottontail S. audubonii desert cottontail Lepus townsendii white-tailed jackrabbit*# Sciuridae Squirrels Tamias minimus least chipmunk T. amoenus yellow-pine chipmunk T. ruficaudus red-tailed chipmunk Spermophilus richardsonii Richardson’s ground squirrel*# S. tridecemlineatus thirteen-lined ground squirrel*# Cynomys ludovicianus black-tailed prairie dog Marmota flaviventris yellowbelly marmot (R) Geomyidae Pocket gophers Thomomys talpoides northern pocket gopher*# Heteromyidae Pocket mice and kangaroo rats Perognathus fasciatus olive-backed pocket mouse*# 300 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Scientific name Common name Dipodomys ordii Ord’s kangaroo rat Castoridae Beavers Castor canadensis American beaver* Muridae Mice, voles, rats, and lemmings Reithrodontomys megalotis western harvest mouse Peromyscus leucopus white-footed mouse P. maniculatus deer mouse*# Onychomys leucogaster northern grasshopper mouse*# Neotoma cinerea bushy-tailed woodrat Mus musculus house mouse* Microtus ochrogaster prairie vole* Lemmiscus curtatus sagebrush vole* Ondatra zibethicus common muskrat*# Microtus longicaudus long-tailed vole Dipodidae Jumping mice Zapus princeps western jumping mouse(#?) Erethizontidae New World porcupines Erethizon dorsatum common porcupine* Canidae Wolves, coyotes, and foxes Canis latrans coyote*# C. lupus gray wolf*# (extirpated) Vulpes velox swift fox*# V. vulpes red fox* Ursidae Bears Ursus americanus black bear* U. arctos grizzly (brown) bear* (extirpated) Procyonidae Raccoons Procyon lotor raccoon* Mustelidae Weasels Mustela frenata long-tailed weasel*# M. nigripes black-footed ferret M. nivalis least weasel* M. vison American mink* M. ermine short-tailed weasel Gulo gulo wolverine* Taxidea taxus American badger*# Lontra canadensis northern river otter Mephitidae Skunks Mephitis mephitis striped skunk*# Felidae Cats Felis catus feral cat* (introduced) Lynx rufus bobcat* Puma concolor mountain lion Cervidae Deer, moose, and elk Cervus elephus Wapiti (elk)* Odocoileus hemionus mule deer* O. virginianus white-tailed deer* Alces alces moose Antilocapridae Pronghorn Antilocapra americana pronghorn*# Bovidae Bison, goats, and sheep Bos bison American bison (extirpated) B. taurus domestic cattle Ovis canadensis bighorn sheep Appendix H Section 7 Biological Evaluation

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

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

Originating Person: Bill Berg Telephone Number: 406-535-2800 X13 Date: 3/23/12

I. Region: 6 II. Service Activity (Program): Refuges III. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area:  Black-footed ferret (endangered) occurs on the refuge in about 5,000-12,000 acres of prairie dog habitat. An ongoing recovery effort is in progress.  Least tern (endangered) nesting has been documented on islands below the dam just outside of the refuge.  Pallid sturgeon (endangered) occurs in the Missouri River portion of the refuge. An ongoing recovery effort is in progress. Fewer than ten naturally occurring adults have been documented. Several hundred hatchery reared sub-adults have been reintroduced to the system above Fort Peck Dam.  Piping plover (threatened) have been documented nesting on shorelines of Fort Peck Lake in the vicinity of the Big Dry Arm.  Grizzly bear (threatened) have been documented approximately 100 miles west of the west boundary of the refuge as recently as 2010.  Whooping crane (endangered) is a migrant in McCone, Phillips, and Valley Counties

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area: N/A

C. Candidate species within the action area: Greater sage grouse, Sprague’s pipit

IV. Geographic area or station name and action: Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge

V. Location: Montana

A. Ecoregion number and name: N/A

B. County and State: Phillips, Valley, McCone, Garfield, Petroleum, and Fergus Counties, Montana 302 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

VI. Description of preferred alternative: Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge

Alternative D-Ecological Processes Emphasis In cooperation with partners, the Service would use natural, dynamic ecological processes and management activities in a balanced, responsible manner to restore and maintain the biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. Once natural processes are restored, a more passive approach (less human assistance) would be favored. There would be quality wildlife-dependent public uses and experiences provided. Economic uses would be limited when they are injurious to ecological processes.

VII. Determination of effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in Items III. A, B and C: In general the preferred alternative would have beneficial effects for threatened and endangered species or would be neutral. Maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of special status species is a key component of restoration of natural ecological processes.

The Service has actively released and monitored ferrets at UL Bend refuge since 1994 and has worked collaborative with other partners, and these efforts would continue under the preferred alternative. Habitat management plans will include detailed prescriptions for habitat management and protocols for monitoring the status of these species.

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

By 2014, the Service would evaluate and prioritize the protection of special status species, determining which species require active management and the level and type of management needed. The Service would use criteria including listing status, implementation of actions identified in recovery plans, status within Montana, population size on the refuge. Public use activities would be monitored to ensure adverse effects to special status species do not occur. Prescribed fire would be used in areas to achieve resource objectives but would not be used in areas where adverse effects to special status species occurred. These areas would be identified in the fire management plan.

VIII. Effect determination and response requested:

A. Listed species/designated critical habitat:

Determination Response Requested

No effect/no adverse modification (Species:) _____Concurrence Appendix H—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 303 304 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana Bibliography

Adams, S.M.; Dood, A.R. 2011. Background informa- vey, Biological Resources Discipline, Fact Sheet tion on issues of concern for Montana: plains bison 2005–3132. 4 p. ecology, management, and conservation. Bozeman, Bailey, Joseph K.; Schweitzer, Jennifer A.; Whitham, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Thomas G. 2001. Salt cedar negatively affects bio- Parks. 16 p. diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Wetlands Alfonso, James M. 1991. South fork of Rock Creek 21(3):442–47. riparian habitat. Rehabilitation project sum- Ball, I.J.; Eng, Robert L.; Ball, Susan Kraft. 1995. mary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service internal Population density and productivity of ducks on memo. Unpublished. On file at Charles M. Russell large grassland tracts in northcentral Montana. National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. 7 p. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(4):767–73. American Bird Conservancy. 2009. Threats to birds— Battazzo, A.M. 2007. Winter survival and habitat use introduced species. accessed February County, Montana 2004–2006 [master’s thesis]. 2010. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana. 71 p. American Ornithologists’ Union. 2000. American Belsky, A.J.; Matzke, A.; Uselman, S. 1999. Survey Ornithologists’ Union checklist of North Amer- of livestock influences on stream and riparian eco- ican birds. 7th edition (1998), 42nd supplement systems in the western United States. Journal of (2000). [Pages unknown]. Soil and Water Conservation 54:419–31. American Prairie Foundation. 2011. American Prairie Bender-Keigley, Janet. 2008. Landowners’ guide Foundation annual report. Montana Watercourse. [access date Ames, Charles R. 1977. Wildlife conflicts in riparian unknown]. management—grazing. In: Proceedings; Impor- Bengston, David N. 1994. Changing forest values tance, preservation and management of ripar- and ecosystem management. Society and Natural ian habitat—a symposium; [Date of symposium Resources 7:515–33. unknown]; Tucson, Arizona. General Technical Biggins, Dean E.; Godbey, Jerry L.; Gage, Kenneth Report RM–43. Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA L.; Carter, Leon G.; Montenieri, John A. 2010. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Vector control improves survival of three spe- Experiment Station. 49–51. cies of prairie dogs (Cynomys): evidence for enzo- Anderson, R.C. 1990. The historic role of fire in otic plague? Vector-borne and Zoonotic Diseases the North American grassland. In: Collins, S.L.; 10(1):17–26. Wallace, L.L.; editors. Fire in North American Black, Scott Hoffman; Hodges, Nathan; Vaughan, tallgrass prairies. Norman, OK: University of Mace; Shepherd, Matthew. 2007. Pollinators in na- Oklahoma Press. 8–18. tural areas: a primer on habitat management. The Anderson, Stanley H. 1985. Managing our wildlife Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 8 p. resources. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Pub- Bock, Carl E. 1993. Birds and bovines: effects of lishing Company. 156 p. livestock grazing on birds in the West. accessed August 31, 2009. 4 p. MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Bock, Carl E.; Saab, V.A.; Rich, T.D.; Dobkin, D.S. Parks. 47 p. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical ———. 2006b. Montana piping plover management migratory landbirds in western North America. plan. Bozeman, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Wildlife and Parks. 78 p. Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Auble, G.T.; Scott, M.L. 1998. Fluvial disturbance [Pages unknown]. patches and cottonwood recruitment along the Boughton, John; Peteson, Lynelle. 2007. Fort Peck: upper Missouri River, Montana. Wetlands 18:546– National Register eligibility of 13 archaeological 56. sites in Phillips County, Montana. Report for the Auble, G.T.; Scott, M.L.; Frazier, J.; Krause, C.; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, by Eth- Merigliano, M. 2005. Cottonwood in the Missouri noscience, Incorporated, Billings, MT. Contract Breaks National Monument. U.S. Geological Sur- number W(9128F–06–0185). 370 p. 306 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Bovee, K.; Scott, M.L. 2002. Implications of flood Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2008. U.S. Department pulse restoration for Populus regeneration on the of Commerce, Regional Economic Information upper Missouri River. River Research and Appli- System. accessed December 2009. cations 18:287–98. ———. 2009. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bragg, T.B.; Steuter, A.A. 1995. Mixed prairie of the Regional Economic Information System. North American Wildlife and Natural Resource accessed December 2009. Conference, [Date of conference unknown], [City [BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Bureau and State of conference unknown]. [City and of Land Management national sage-grouse habi- State published unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. tat conservation strategy. accessed February report 2004: Montana prairie riparian native spe- 2012. 25 p. cies study. Bozeman, MT: Montana Cooperative ———. 2008a. Fact sheet on the BLM’s management Fisheries Unit, Montana State University. 50 p. of livestock grazing. accessed December 2011. ery survey of the streams of the Charles M. Russell ———. 2008b. Proposed resource management plan National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Bozeman, and final environmental impact statement. Upper MT: Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Missouri River Breaks National Monument. On file Unit, USGS, Montana State University. 40 p. at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, ———. 2000. The ichthyofauna of small streams on Lewistown, MT. 1,466 p. the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, ———. 2008c. Record of decision and approved re- Montana. Intermountain Journal of Sciences source management plan: Upper Missouri River 6(2):57–67. Breaks National Monument. On file at Charles M. Brennan, Leonard A.; Kuvlesky, William P., Jr. 2005. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. North American grassland birds: an unfolding [Pages unknown]. conservation crisis? Journal of Wildlife Manage- Burt, William H.; Grossenheider, Richard; Peterson, P. ment 69(1):1–13. 1980. A field guide to mammals: North America Briske, D.D.; Derner, J.D.; Brown, J.R. [and others]. north of Mexico. Peterson Field Guide Series 5; 2008. Rotational grazing on rangelands: reconcil- renewed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. iation of perception and experimental evidence. 289 p. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:3–17. Butterflies and Moths of North America. 2011. Briske, D.D.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Smeins, F.E. 2005. Regional checklist for Montana: Butterflies. accessed December 2011. land health: a synthesis of ecological concepts and Callaway, Ragan M.; Walker, Lawrence R. 1997. perspectives. Rangeland Ecology and Management Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach 58:1–10. to interactions in plant communities. Ecology Brooks, Matthew L.; D’Antonio, Carla D.; Richardson, 78(7):1,958–65. David M. [and others]. 2004. Effects of invasive Candelaria, Linda M.; Wood, M. Karl. 1981. Wildlife use alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54(7):677–88. of stockwatering facilities. Rangelands 3(5):194–96. Brown, Mike; Dinsmore, James J. 1986. Implications of Carlson, Charles. 1993. Second survey of birdlife in marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. two coulees near Bobcat Creek on the C.M. Russell The Journal of Range Management. 50(3):392–97. National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Charles M. Rus- Brown, Stephen; Hickey, C.; Harrington, B.; Gill, B. sell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. 3 p. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 2nd Carver, Erin; Caudill, James. 2007. Banking on nature edition. Manomet, MA: Manomet Center for Con- 2006: the economic benefits to local communities of servation Sciences. 64 p. national wildlife refuge visitation. Washington, DC: Brumley, John. 2006. Nemont Telephone Coopera- U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife tives; 2006 Dagmar, Glentanna and Larslan Ex- Service, Division of Economics. 382 p. changes: cultural resources inventory. Prepared Chaikina, Natalia A.; Ruckstuhl, Kathreen, E. 2006. for Nemont Telephone Cooperative by Ethos Con- The effect of cattle grazing on native ungulates: the sultants. On file at the Montana Archaeological good, the bad, and the ugly. Rangelands 28(3):8–14. Society, Helena. [Pages unknown]. Chapman, Erik W.; Ribic, Christine A. 2002. The Brunson, Mark; Gilbert, Lael. 2003. Recreationist re- impact of buffer strips and stream-side grazing on sponses to livestock grazing in a new national mon- small mammals in southwestern Wisconsin. Agri- ument. Journal of Range Management. 56:570–76. culture, Ecosystems and Environment 88(1):49–59. Bibliography 307

Churchwell, Roy T.; Davis, Craig A.; Fuhlendorf, Cushman, Samuel A.; McKelvey, Kevin S.; Flather, Samuel D.; Engle, David M. 2007. Effects of patch- Curtis H.; McGarigal, Kevin. 2008. Do forest com- burn management on dickcissel nest success in a munity types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate tallgrass prairie. The Journal of Wildlife Manage- biological diversity? Frontiers in Ecology and the ment 72(7):1,596–603. Environment 6(1):13–17. Cid, Silvia M.; Detling, James K.; Whicker, April D.; Davis, Les; Stallcop, Emmett. 1965. The Keaster site Brizuela, Miguel A. 1991. Vegetational responses (24PH401): a stratified bison kill occupation in the of a mixed-grass prairie site following exclusion of Missouri Breaks area of north central Montana. prairie dogs and bison. Journal of Range Manage- Memoir Number 2. Report produced by the Mon- ment 44(2):100–105. tana Archaeological Society. [City and State pub- Coe, Priscilla K.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Kern, John W.; lished unknown]. 27 p. Findholt, Scott L.; Kie, John G.; Wisdom, Michael Davis, Stephen K; Dunan, David C. 1999. Grassland J. March 2001. Responses of elk and mule deer to song bird abundance in native and crested wheat- cattle in summer. Journal of Range Management. grass pastures of southern Saskatchewan. In: 54:A51–A76. Ecology and conservation of grassland birds of the Cole, David N.; Landers, Peter B. 1996. Threats to wil- Western Hemisphere: proceedings of a conference; derness ecosystems: impacts and research needs. October 1995; Tulsa, OK. [City and State published Ecological Applications 6(1):168–84. unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 19:211–18. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2007. A guide to wild- Davy, Douglas. 1992. Historic properties survey of life viewing and photography blinds: creating facil- selected areas at Fort Peck Lake, Montana. Report ities to connect people with nature featuring blinds prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by from the western United States. Denver, CO. 43 p. EBASCO Environmental, Sacramento, California. Colorado State Parks. 1998. Native plant revegetation On file at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, guide for Colorado. Caring for the Land Series, Omaha, NE. [Pages unknown]. volume 3. accessed February 9, 2010. (revised 2003). Effects of management practices on 269 p. grassland birds: mountain plover. Jamestown, ND: Connelly, J.W.; Gratson, M.W.; Reese, K.P. 1998. Sharp- Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 15 p. tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus). In: Defenders of Wildlife. 2008. Keeping every cog and Poole, A.; editor. The Birds of North America wheel: reforming and improving the National Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Wildlife Refuge System. Washington, DC. 30 p. DeLuca, T.H.; MacKenzie, M.D.; Gundale, M.J.; Holben, accessed October 11, 2011. W.E. 2006. Wildfire-produced charcoal directly influ- Connelly, J.W.; Schroeder, M.A.; Sands, A.R.; Braun, ences nitrogen cycling in ponderosa pine forests. C.E. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse pop- Soil Science Society of America Journal 70:448–53. ulations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulle- DeLuca, T.H.; Nilsson, M.C.; Zackrisson, O. 2002. tin. 28(4):967–85. Nitrogen mineralization and phenol accumulation Cook, Bradley J.; Ehrhart, R.C.; Hansen, Paul L.; along a fire chronosequence in northern Sweden. Parker, Tom; Thompson, Bill. 1996. Riparian and Oecologia 133(2):206–14. wetland ecological health: evaluation of selected DeLuca, Thomas H; Aplet, Gregory H. 2008. Charcoal streams on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife and carbon storage in forest soils of the Rocky Refuge. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, Mountain West. Frontiers in Ecology and the School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conser- Environment 6(1):18–24. vation Experiment Station, Riparian and Wetland DeLuca, Thomas H.; Sala, Anna. 2006. Frequent fire Research Program. 38 p. alters nitrogen transformations in ponderosa pine Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2010. Rocky Mountain stands of the inland Northwest. Ecology 87(10). Bird Observatory bird data, 2009–2010. accessed October 3, 2011. Lewistown, Montana. accessed December cator species versus plant functional types. 2009. Ecological Indicators. 4:17–27. Dhol, Sukvinder; Horton, Jean; Jones, Robert E. 1994. Cunningham, Mary Ann; Johnson, Douglas H. 2006. 1994 Non-waterfowl evaluation of Manitoba’s North Proximate and landscape factors influence grass- American Waterfowl Management Plan. [City land bird distributions. Ecological Applications and State published unknown]: Manitoba Depart- 16(3):1,062–75. ment of Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch. 12 p. 308 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Dickson, Tom. 2008. Drawing a line—club members Duffield, J.; Neher, C. 2002. The Prairie Foundation: participating in the sportsman user value map- socioeconomic impacts on Valley and Phillips ping project are saying “Don’t develop where we Counties. Prepared for The Prairie Foundation by hunt and fish.” Montana Outdoors. September– Bioeconomics, Inc. [City, State, and office on file October 2008:28–31. unknown]. [Pages unknown]. DiTomaso, Joseph M. 2000. Invasive weeds in range- Duffy, A.M., Jr. 2000. Cowbird brood parasitism on a lands: species, impacts, and management. Weed little-used host, the yellow-headed blackbird. In: Science 48:255–65. Smith, J.N.M.; Cook, T.L.; Robinson, S.K.; Rothstein, Dixon, M.D.; Johnson, W.C.; Scott, M.L.; Bowen, D. S.I.; Sealy, S.G.; editors. Ecology and management 2009. Annual report—Missouri River cottonwood of cowbirds and their hosts: studies in the conserva- study. USACE internal report. [City, State, and tion of North American passerine birds. Austin, office on file unknown]. [Pages unknown]. TX: University of Texas Press. 115–19. Doherty, Kevin E.; Tack, Jason D.; Evans, Jeffrey S.; Dullum, Jo Ann L.D.; Foresman, Kerry R.; Matchett, Naugle, David E. 2010. Mapping breeding densi- Marc R. 2005. Efficacy of translocations for restor- ties of greater sage-grouse: a tool for range-wide ing populations of black-tailed prairie dogs. Wild- conservation planning. Prepared for Bureau of Land life Society Bulletin 33(3):842–50. Management. accessed October file at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, 2011. 30 p. Lewistown, MT. 8 p. Donaldson, G.M.; Hyslop, C.; Morrison, R.I.G.; Dick- ———. 2011. U.S. Lotic wetland inventory form son, H.L.; Davidson, I. 2000. Canadian shorebird user manual. accessed December 2011. Douglass, K.S.; Hamann, S.J.; Joslin, G. 1999. Vege- 29 p. tation, soils, and water. Pages 9.1–9.11 In: Joslin, G.; Economic Research Service. 2009. U.S. Department Youmans, H.; coordinators. Effects of recreation of Agriculture, commodity costs and returns. on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. accessed December 2011. Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Committee on Egan, A.F.; Luloff, A.E. 2000. The exurbanization Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. 307 p. of America’s forests: research in rural social sci- Douglass, Richard J. 1984. The use of rodents in ences. Journal of Forestry 98(3):26–30. monitoring ecological impacts of oil shale develop- Ehrhart, Robert C.; Hansen, Paul L. 1997. Effective ment in the Piceance Basin, Colorado. In: Comer, cattle management in riparian zones: a field survey R.L.; editor. Issues and technology in the manage- and literature review. Montana BLM Riparian ment of impacted western wildlife. Boulder, CO: Technical Bulletin Number 3. Billings, MT: Bureau Thorne Ecological Institute. 70–75. of Land Management, Montana State Office. 47 p. Douglass, Rick; Hughes, Kevin. 2003. Montana Tech Ellison, Lincoln. 1960. Influence of grazing on plant suc- 2002 Hantavirus longitudinal study: summary cession of rangelands. Botanical Review 26(1):1–78. of data collected from the Charles M. Russell Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Interim air National Wildlife Refuge. Montana Tech Univer- quality policy on wildland and prescribed fires. sity. On file at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Butte, MT. 13 p. accessed July 12, 2011. 38 p. Dryer, Mark P.; Sandvol, Alan J. 1993. Pallid stur- Fairfield, George M. 1968. Chestnut-collared longspur. geon (Scaphirhynchus albus) recovery plan. Pre- In: Life histories of North American cardinals, pared for Department of the Interior, Fish and grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrows, Wildlife Service, Region 6, by the Pallid Sturgeon and allies. [City and State published unknown]: Recovery Team. On file at Fish and Wildlife Ser- [Publisher unknown]. 1,635–52. vice, Region 6, Lakewood, CO. 64 p. Fandrich, Blain; Peterson, Lynelle. 2005. A tradi- Duff, D. A. 1983. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic tional cultural property study Fort Peck Lake, habitat in Big Creek, Utah. In: Proceedings of the Montana. Report produced for U.S. Army Corps Workshop on Livestock and Wildlife—Fisheries of Engineers, Omaha, by Ethnoscience, Incorpo- Relationships in the Great Basin; [Date of workshop rated, Billings, MT. [City, State, and office on file unknown]; Sparks, NV. Special Publication 33901. unknown]. [Pages unknown]. Berkeley, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific South- FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants. 1996. An anal- west Forest and Range Experiment Station. 129–42. ysis of riparian habitat on the Charles M. Rus- Bibliography 309

sell National Wildlife Refuge in relation to birds Fuhlendorf, Samuel D.; Engle, David M.; Kerby, Jay; and small mammals. Report prepared for Charles Hamilton, Robert. 2008. Pyric herbivory: rewild- M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. On file at ing landscapes through the recoupling of fire and Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, grazing. Conservation Biology 23(3):588–98. Boulder, MT. [Pages unknown]. Fuhlendorf, Samuel D.; Harrell, Wade C.; Engle, Fernandez-Cornejo, J. 2007. Off-farm income, tech- David M. [and others] 2006. Should heterogene- nology adoption, and farm economic performance. ity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of response to fire and grazing. Ecological Applica- Agriculture, Economic Research Report Number tions 16(5):1,706–16. 36. Gaines, M.S.; Diffendorfer, J.E.; Tamarin, R.H.; accessed September 24, 2008. Whittam, T.S. 1997. The effect of habitat fragmen- Fischman, Robert L. 2005. The significance of national tation on the genetic structure of small mammal wildlife refuges in the development of U.S. Con- populations. Journal of Heredity 88:294–304. servation Policy. Journal of Land Use 21(1). 22 p. Gardner, William M. 1996. Missouri River pallid stur- Fitch, L.; Adams, B.W. 1998. Can cows and fish co-exist? geon inventory. Report F–78–R–2. Helena, MT: Mon- Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences. 78:191–98. tana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 25 p. Fleischner, Thomas L. 1994. Ecological costs of live- ———. 2003. Statewide fisheries investigations. stock grazing in western North America. Conser- Middle Missouri River fisheries evaluations. Proj- vation Biology 8(3):629–44. ect Number F–113–R5. [City on file unknown], Foreman, Richard T.T.; Alexander, Lauren E. 1998. MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Roads and their major ecological effect. Annual Parks. 58 p. Review of Ecology and Systematics. 29:207–31 (C2). General Accounting Office. 1989. Report to Congres- Foresman, Kerry R. 2001. The wild mammals of sional requesters: national wildlife refuges—con- Montana. Special Publication 12. The American tinuing problems with incompatible uses call for Society of Mammalogists. 278 p. bold action. accessed September 2011. 88 p. creases with diversity in plant communities: Gerrity, Paul C.; Guy, C.S.; Christopher, S.; Gardner, empirical evidence from the 1988 Yellowstone William M. 2008. Habitat use of juvenile pallid drought. Oikos 1(3):360–62. sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon with implica- Freese, C.; Montanye D.; Dabrowska, K. 2009. New tions for water-level management in a downstream directions for the prairie economy: connecting reservoir. North American Journal of Fisheries conservation and rural development in the north- Management 28:832–43. ern Great Plains. World Wildlife Fund, August. Gerrity, P. C.; Guy, C. S.; Gardner, W. M. 2006. Juvenile [Pages unknown]. pallid sturgeon are piscivorous: a call for conserv- Frost, Cecil. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency ing native cyprinids. Transactions of the Ameri- regimes of the United States: a first approxima- can Fisheries Society 135:604–09. tion. In: Pruden, Teresa L.; Brennan, Leonard A.; Gibson, R.S.; Bosch, O.J.H. 1996. Indicator species for editors. Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the interpretation of vegetation condition in the the paradigm from suppression to prescription. St. Bathans area, Central Otago, New Zealand. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceed- New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20(2):163–72. ing, Number 20; [Date of conference unknown]; Gould, William. 1998. Sturgeon chub. American Fish- [City and State of conference unknown]. Tal- eries Society Web site. [URL unknown] [access lahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station. date unknown]. 70–81. Grace, James B.; Smith, M.D.; Grace, S.L.; Collins, ———. 2008. Natural fire regimes and pre-European S.L.; Stohlgren, T.J. 2001. Interactions between settlement vegetation of the Charles M. Russell fire and invasive plants in temperate grasslands National Wildlife Refuge. Report prepared for of North America. In: Gallery, K.E.M.; Wilson, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. On T.P.; editors. Proceedings of the invasive species file at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Ref- workshop: the role of fire in the control and spread uge, Lewistown, MT. 87 p. of invasive species. Fire Conference 2000: the first Fuhlendorf, Samuel D.; Engle, David M. 2001. Restor- national conference on fire ecology, prevention ing heterogeneity on rangelands: ecosystem man- and management; [Date of conference unknown]; agement based on evolutionary grazing patters. [City and State of conference unknown]. Miscel- Bioscience 51(8):625–32. laneous Publication Number 11. Tallahassee, FL: ———. 2004. Application of the fire-grazing interac- Tall Timbers Research Station. 40–65. tion to restore a shifting mosaic on tallgrass prai- Graetz, Rick; Graetz, Suzanne. 2003. CMR—Mon- rie. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:604–14. tana’s Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Ref- 310 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

uge; National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial applicability for Montana. Presented at the 1993 1903–2003. Booklet prepared by Northern Rock- Annual Montana Riparian and Wetland Associ- ies Publishing. On file at refuge headquarters, ation Workshop; [Date of workshop unknown]; Lewistown, MT. 32 p. [City and State of workshop unknown]. Montana Green, M.T.; Lowther, P.E.; Jones, S.L.; Davis, S.K.; Riparian–Wetland Association draft report. Mis- Dale, B.C. 2002. Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus soula, MT: The University of Montana, School bairdii). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F.; editors. The Birds of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation of North America, Number 638. Philadelphia, PA: Experiment Station. 147 p. The Birds of North America, Inc. Brad; Joy, John; Hinckley, Dan. 1995. Classifica- accessed September 2011. tion and management of Montana’s riparian and Grisak, Grant. 1998. Sicklefin chub. Montana Cooper- wetland sites. Missoula, MT: The University of ative Fisheries Research Unit. American Fisher- Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forestry ies Society Web site. [URL unknown] [access date and Conservation Experiment Station, Montana unknown]. Riparian and Wetland Association. 646 p. Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire and vegetative trends Hansen, Paul L. 1992. Developing a riparian–wetland in the northern Rockies: interpretations from grazing management plan. Missoula, MT: The Uni- 1871–1982 photographs. General Technical Report versity of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana INT–158. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Forestry and Conservation Experiment Station, Intermountain Research Station. 117 p. Montana Riparian and Wetland Association. 10 p. Gruenert, J.C. 1999. Second job entrepreneurs. Occu- Hansen, Paul L.; Thompson, William H.; Ehrhart, pational Outlook Quarterly, Fall. [Pages unknown]. Robert C.; Hinckley, Dan K.; Haglan, Bill; Rice, Guliano, William M.; Homyack, Joshua D. 2004. Karen. 2000. Development of methodologies to Short-term grazing exclusion effects on riparian evaluate the health of riparian and wetland area. small mammal communities. Journal of Range In: Thurston, Vance; editor. Proceedings of the Management 57:346–50. Fifth International Symposium of Fish Physiology, Gunderson, Lance C. 2000. Ecological resilience—in Toxicology, and Water Quality; November 10–13, theory and application. Annual Review of Ecolog- 1998; Hong Kong, China. EPA/6000/R–00/015. ical Systems 31:425–39. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Gunderson, Lance H.; Holling, C.S.; editors. 2002. Pan- Agency, Office of Research and Development. 300 p. archy: understanding transformations in human Hansen, P.L.; Chadde, S.W.; Pfister, R.D. 1988. Riparian and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island dominance types of Montana. Miscellaneous Pub- Press. 507 p. lication Number 49. Missoula, MT: The University Hamann, B.; Johnston, H.; McClelland, P.; Johnson, of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and S.; Kelly, L.; Gobielle, J. 1999. Birds. In: Joslin, G.; Conservation Experiment Station. [Pages unknown]. Youmans, H.; coordinators. Effects of recreation Harmon, Will; editor. 1999. Best management prac- on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Mon- tices for grazing Montana. Helena, MT: Environ- tana. [City published unknown], MT: Montana mental Protection Agency R6 and Department of Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Committee on Natural Resources and Conservation. 28 p. Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. 3.1–3.34. Havlick, David G. 2002. No place distant: roads and Hansen, L.J.; Biringer, J.L.; Hoffman, J.R.; editors. motorized recreation on America’s public lands. 2003. Buying time: a user’s manual for building Washington, DC: Island Press. 297 p. resistance and resilience to climate change in nat- Heller, Nicole E.; Zavaleta, E.S. 2009. Biodiver- ural systems. Hendricks, Paul. 1999. Amphibian and reptile sur- accessed March 17, 2010. 246 p. veys on Montana refuges. Report for U.S. Fish Hansen, Paul. 1989. Inventory classification and man- and Wildlife Service: Montana Field Office, agement of riparian sites in the Upper Missouri Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and National Wild and Scenic River. Missoula, MT: Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Helena, The University of Montana, School of Forestry, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 27 p. Montana Riparian Association. [Pages unknown]. Hendricks, Paul; Maxell, B.A.; Lenard, S. 2006. Land Hansen, Paul; Cook, Brad; Ehrhart, Robert; Thomp- mollusk surveys on USFS Northern Region lands. son, Bill. 1993. The development of a riparian and Report for USDA Forest Service, Northern Region wetland ecological health evaluation form for by Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge—its MT. 11 p. Bibliography 311

Hendricks, Paul S.; Currier, Lenard C.; Johnson, J. Howe, Marshall; Bart, J.; Brown, S.; [and others]; edi- 2005. Bat use of highway bridges in south-central tors. 2000. A comprehensive monitoring program Montana. Report for Montana Department of for North American shorebirds. Manomet Center Transportation by Montana Natural Heritage for Conservation Sciences. [access date unknown]. Hendricks, P.S.; Currier, Lenard, C.; Maxell, B. 2007. Hubbard, John P. 1977. Importance of riparian eco- Filling the distribution gaps for small mammals systems—biotic considerations. In: Importance, in Montana. Report for Bureau of Land Manage- preservation and management of riparian habitat: ment, Montana State Office by Montana Natural a symposium. [Date of symposium unknown]; Tuc- Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 17 p. son, AZ. General Technical Report RM–43. Fort Higgins, K.F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Moun- of historical fire accounts in the northern Great tain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 49–51. Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Hurteau, M.; North, M. 2009. Fuel treatment effects Publication 161. [Pages unknown]. on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions Hoff, K.v.S.; Blaustein, A.R.; McDiarmid, R.W.; Altig, under modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in R. 1999. Behavior—interactions and their conse- Ecology and the Environment 7(8):409–14. quences. In: McDiarmid, R.W.; Altig, R.; editors. Johnson, Douglas H. 2001. Habitat fragmentation Tadpoles—the biology of anuran larvae. Chicago, effects on birds in grasslands and wetlands: a cri- IL: University of Chicago Press. 215–39. tique of our knowledge. Great Plains Research Hoffman, Robert S.; Pattie, Donald L. 1968. A guide 11(2):211–13. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research to Montana animals: identification, habitat, distri- Center Online. accessed January 15, 2010. versity of Montana. 133 p. Johnson, Douglas H.; Igl, Lawrence D. 2001. Area Hoffmann, Robert S.; Wright, Phillip L.; Newby, requirements of grassland birds: a regional per- Fletcher E. 1969. Distribution of some mammals spective. The Auk 118:24–34. in Montana. I. Mammals other than bats. Journal Johnson, J. 2004. The state of the land—analysis of of Mammalogy 50(3):579–604. land use change in Montana and the three regions. Hoitsma Ecological, Inc. 2006. Telegraph Creek ripar- accessed October 2009. ian habitat restoration project: phase III, final report Johnson, Laura C.; Wallace, George N.; Mitchell, John E. and recommendations. Prepared for U.S. Fish and 1997. Visitor perception of livestock grazing in five Wildlife Service, World Wildlife Fund, and Ameri- U.S. wilderness areas, a preliminary assessment. can Prairie Foundation. On file at Charles M. Rus- International Journal of Wilderness 3(2):14–20. sell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. 43 p. Johnson, R. Roy; Haight, Lois T.; Simpson, James Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecolog- M. 1977. Endangered species vs. endangered ical systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Sys- habitats—a concept. In: Importance, preserva- tematics 4:1–23. tion and management of riparian habitat: a sym- Hollow, O’Brien; Chadwick, Amy; Hansen, Paul L. posium; [Date of symposium unknown]; Tucson, 2001. Lower Musselshell River study. Environ- AZ. General Technical Report RM–43. [Pages mental Protection Agency/Montana Department unknown]. of Environmental Quality 319 grant project, June Joslin, G.; Youmans, H.; coordinators. 1999. Effects of 1999–May 2001. Missoula, MT: The University of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review Montana, School of Forestry, Riparian and Wet- for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation land Research Program. [Pages unknown]. on Wildlife. [City unknown], MT: Montana Chap- Holloway, Gillian L.; Barclay, Robert M.R. 2000. ter of The Wildlife Society. 307 p. Importance of prairie riparian zones to bats in Kantrud, H.A.; Higgins, K.F. 1992. Nest and nest southeastern Alberta. Ecoscience 7(2):115–22. site characteristics of some ground-nesting non- Holmes, Brian E.; Foresman, Kerry R.; Matchett, Marc passerine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie R. 2006. No evidence of persistent Yersinia pestis Naturalist 24:67–84. infection at prairie dog colonies in north-central Karl, Thomas R.; Melillo, Jerry M.; Peterson, Thomas; Montana. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 42:164–69. editors. 2009. Global climate change impacts in Hoogland, John L. 1995. The black-tailed prairie dog: the United States. U.S. Global Change Research social life of a burrowing mammal. Wildlife behavior Program. Cambridge University Press. [access date unknown]. 196 p. Press. 562 p. Kauffman, J. Boone; Beschta, R.L.; Otting, N.; Howe, Henry F. 1994. Managing species diversity in Lytjen, D. 1997. An ecological perspective of tallgrass prairie: assumptions and implications. riparian and stream restoration in the western Conservation Biology 8(3):691–704. United States. Fisheries 22(5):12–24. 312 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Kauffman, J. Boone; Krueger, W.C. 1984. Livestock Kotliar, Natasha B. 2000. Application of the new key- impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside stone-species concept to prairie dogs: how well management implications. Journal of Range Man- does it work? Conservation Biology 14(6):1,715–21. agement 37(5):430–38. Krausman, Paul R.; Rosenstock, Steven S.; Cain, Keane, R.E.; Arno, S.F.; Brown, J.K. 1990. Simu- James W., 3rd. 2006. Developed waters for wild- lating cumulative fire effects in ponderosa pine/ life: science, perception, values and controversy. Douglas-fir forests. Ecology 71(1):189–203. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(3):563–69. Kemmimck, E. 2002. Our way of life special report: Krueper, D.J. 1993. Effects of land use practices on we are three. Montana Standard. November 17. western riparian ecosystems. Pages 321–30. In: accessed July 18, 2008. management of neotropical migratory birds. Gen- Kennedy, Theodore A.; Naeem, Shahid; Howe, Kath- eral Technical Report RM–229. Fort Collins, CO: erine M.; Knops, Johannes M.H.; Tilman, David; USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest Reich, Peter. 2002. Biodiversity as a barrier to and Range Experiment Station. 422 p. ecological invasion. Nature 417:636–38. Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species Kerkvliet, J. 2008. An economic profile of Montana umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation in 2008. The Wilderness Society, November. 62 p. Biology. 11(4):849–56. Knopf, Fritz L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered Lambert, J. Daniel; Hodgman, Thomas P.; Laurent, grasslands. Studies in Avian Biology 15:247–57. Edward J.; [and others]. 2009. The Northeast bird Knowles, Craig; Campbell, Bruce R. 1982. Distribution monitoring handbook. The Plains, VA: American of elk and cattle in a rest-rotation grazing system. Bird Conservancy. 32 p. In: Peek, J.M.; Dalke, P.D.; editors. Proceedings Landsberg, Jill; Crowley, Gabriel. 2004. Monitor- of the wildlife-livestock relationships symposium; ing rangeland biodiversity: plants as indicators. [Date of symposium unknown]; [City and State of Austral Ecology 29:59–77. symposium unknown]. Moscow, ID: University of Larson, Diane L.; Anderson, Patrick J.; Newton, Idaho; Forestry, Wildlife and Range Experimental Wesley. 2001. Alien plant invasion in mixed-grass Station. 47–60. prairie: effects of vegetation type and anthro- Knowles, Craig J. 1985. Observations on prairie dog pogenic disturbance. Ecological Applications dispersal in Montana. Prairie Naturalist 17(1):33–40. 11(1):128–41. Knowles, Craig; Knowles, Pamela. 1994. Bird species Lausen, Cori L.; Barclay, Robert M.R. 2002. Roosting composition and abundance in two riparian areas behavior and roost selection of female big brown with differing grazing histories on the Charles bats (Eptesicus fuscus) roosting in rock crevices M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. On file at in southeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zool- Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, ogy 80(6):1,069–76. Boulder, MT. 26 p. Leonard, Steve; Kinch, Gene; Elsbernd, Van; [and Knowles, Craig J.; Knowles, Pamela R. 1995. Preset- others]. 1997. Riparian area management: grazing tlement wildlife and habitat of Montana: an over- management for riparian–wetland areas. Techni- view. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife cal Reference 1737–14. Denver, CO: U.S. Depart- Research Center Online. (Version Natural Applied Resource Sciences Center. 40 p. 16JUL97) [access date unknown]. Leopold, Aldo; Sowls, Lyle K.; Spencer, David L. 1947. Knowles, Craig J.; Knowles, P.R. 1994. A review of A survey of over-populated deer ranges in the black-tailed prairie dog literature in relation to United States. Journal of Wildlife Management rangelands administered by the Custer National 11(2):162–77. Forest. On file at Charles M. Russell National Leopold, A.S.; Cain, S.A.; Cottam, C.M.; Gabrielson, Wildlife Refuge, Boulder, MT. 98 p. I.N.; Kimball, T.L. 1963. Wildlife management in Knowles, Pamela R. 1981. Habitat selection, home the national parks: the Leopold report. Advisory range size, and movements of bobcats in north- board on wildlife management appointed by Secre- central Montana [master’s thesis]. Missoula, MT: tary of the Interior Udall. Koontz, Lynne; Sexton, Natalie; Ishizaki, Asuka; accessed March 2010. Ritten, John. 2010. Regional economic impacts of Lesica, Peter; Miles, Scott. 2004. Ecological strate- current and proposed management alternatives gies for managing tamarisk on the C.M. Russell for Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, USA. Biolog- U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012– ical Conservation 119(4):535–43. 1014. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Geological Survey. Leung, Yu-Fai; Marion, Jeffery L. 2000. Recreation 41 p. impacts and management in wilderness: a state- Bibliography 313

of-knowledge review. USDA Forest Service Pro- Malone, Michael; Roeder, Richard; Lang, William. 1976. ceedings RMRS–P–15–Vol–5. Ogden, UT. 26 p. Montana, a history of two centuries. Seattle, WA: Licht, Daniel S.; Millspaugh, Joshua J.; Kunkel, University of Washington Press. [Pages unknown]. Kyran, E. [and others]. 2010. Using small popu- Manfredo, Michael J.; editor. 2002. Wildlife viewing: lations of wolves for ecosystem restoration and a management handbook. Chapter 5. In: Manfredo, stewardship. Bioscience 60(2):147–53. Michael J.; Pierce, Cynthia; Vaske, Jerry J.; Whit- Liljeblad, Adam; Borrie, William T. 2006. Trust in taker, Doug. An experience-based approach to wildland fire and fuel management systems. Inter- planning and management for wildlife-viewing national Journal of Wilderness 12(1):39–43. recreation. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Univer- Lindmeier, John P. 1960. Plover, rail and godwit nest- sity Press. 70–91. ing on study area in Mahnomen County, Minne- Markitecture. 2007. A disciplined approach to devel- sota. The Flicker 32(1):5–9. oping agritourism and marketing the consumer Loflin, Brant. 2008. Site form for site 24PH1015. On opportunities: initial research findings. Prepared file at Montana Historical Society, Helena, MT. for The Rural Landscape Institute. [access date unknown]. 136 p. in north-central Montana. Tempe, AZ: University Matchett, M.R.; Biggins, D.E.; Carlson, V.; Powell, B.; of Arizona. 66 p. Rocke, T. 2010. Enzootic plague reduces black- Lokemoen, John T. 1973. Waterfowl production on footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) survival in Mon- stock-watering ponds in the northern Plains. tana. Journal of Vector-borne Zoonotic Diseases Journal of Range Management 26(3):179–84. (10)1. 10 p. Louv, Richard. 2005. Last child in the woods: saving Maxell, Bryce; Hokit, Grant. 1999. Amphibians and our children from nature deficit disorder. Chapel reptiles. In: Joslin, G.; Youmans, J.; coordinators. Hill, NC: Aloquin. 323 p. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: Luna, Carmen. 2002. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge: a review for Montana. [City and State published site description, what species, research and manage- unknown]: Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Soci- ment activities, information relating to WHSRN, ety, Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wild- locally involved communities, bibliography. On file at life. 2:1–29. Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Malta, MT. 11 p. Meehan, William R.; Platts, William S. 1978. Live- Lyon, L.J.; Telfer, E.S. 2009. Direct effects of fire and stock grazing and the aquatic environment. Jour- immediate animal responses. In: Forest Encyclope- nal of Soil and Water Conservation. 33(6):274–78. dia Network. accessed February 2010. Rana pipiens. American Zoologist 10:47–52. Mack, Gene D.; Flake, Lester D. 1980. Habitat rela- Merrell, D.J. 1977. Life history of the leopard frog, tionships of waterfowl broods on South Dakota Rana pipiens, in Minnesota. Occasional Paper stock ponds. Journal of Wildlife Management Number 15. Minneapolis, MN: University of Min- 44(3):695–700. nesota, Bell Museum of Natural History. [Pages Mackey, Dennis. 1992. Planting shrubs and trees unknown]. along the South Fork of Rock Creek. U.S. Fish Milchunas, D.G.; Noy-Meir, I. 2002. Grazing refuges: and Wildlife Service internal memo. Unpublished. external avoidance of herbivory and plant diver- On file at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife sity. Oikos. 99:113–30. Refuge, Lewistown, MT. Miles, Scott. 1996. Rock Creek and Siparyann Creek Mackie, Richard J. 1970. Range ecology and relations woody riparian vegetation and cross section mon- of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri River itoring. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau Breaks, Montana. Wildlife Monographs 20:3–79. of Land Management. On file at Charles M. Rus- Mader, Eric; Shepard, Matthew; Vaughn, Mace; sell National Wildlife Refuge, Missoula, MT. 272 p. Black, Scott Hoffman. 2011. Attracting native Miller, Scott; Knight, Richard. 1998. Influence of rec- pollinators: the Xerces Society guide to conserv- reational trails on breeding bird communities. ing North American bees and butterflies and their accessed February 2010. Maestas, J.D.; Knight, R.L.; Gilgert, W.C. 2001. Biodi- Mills, L. Scott. 2007. Conservation of wildlife popu- versity and land-use change in the American Moun- lations: demography, genetics, and management. tain West. The Geographical Review, 91(3):509–24. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Company. Maher, William, J. 1974. Ecology of pomarine, para- [Pages unknown]. sitic and long-tailed jaegers in northern Alaska. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2007. IMPLAN data Pacific Coast Avifauna 37. 157 p. files. [access date unknown]. 314 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Mitchell, John E.; Wallace, George N.; Wells, Marcella /content/getItem.aspx?id=19293> accessed Octo- D. 1996. Visitor perceptions about cattle grazing ber 30, 2009. 34 p. on national forest land. Journal of Range Manage- ———. 2006b. Final Fish, Wildlife and Parks region 6 ment. 49:81–86. prairie dog abundance and distribution objectives Moehrenschlager, A.; Moehrenschlager, C. 2001. Cen- plan. Region 6 Prairie Dog Advisory Board. On file sus of swift fox (Vulpes velox) in Canada and north- at Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, ern Montana: 2000–2001. Alberta Species at Risk Lewistown, MT. 20 p. Report Number 24. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Sus- ———. 2008a. The road ahead: strategic plans. tainable Resource Development, Fish and Wild- accessed October 21, 2009. Montana Audubon. 2008. Montana important bird ———. 2008b. Montana statewide comprehensive out- areas for greater sage-grouse. accessed December 2011. 22 p. accessed October 15, 2009. economic resources. accessed December 2009. fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports Montana Department of Environmental Quality. .html> [access date unknown]. 2001. Lower Musselshell TMDL planning area ———. 2009c. Paddlefishing. ———. Clean Water Act Information Center. 2011. Mon- accessed October 22, 2009. tana’s water quality assessment database. accessed October 3, 2011. the Upper Missouri River. [City unknown], MT. 2 p. [MFWP] Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and ———. 2009e. Recreation and tourism. accessed January 1, 2010. strategies, special management districts, monitor- ———. 2011. FWP fact sheet: Congress delists Mon- ing program, population modeling, deer manage- tana wolf population. accessed February 2012. 3 p. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 667 p. Montana Department of Labor and Industry. 2009. ———. 2002a. Helena, Montana: Fort Peck Reservoir State and county economic fliers. accessed UBID=273> accessed December 2009. October 30, 2009. 21 p. [DNRC] Montana Department of Natural Resources ———. 2002b. Conservation plan for black-tailed and and Conservation. 2007. Oil and Gas Conservation white-tailed prairie dogs in Montana. Montana prai- Division annual review 2007. Volume 51. [access date .mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=31186> accessed August unknown]. 87 p. 2010. 51 p. ———. 2011. Water Rights Bureau. accessed July 2011. plan. [MIAG] Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. 2010. Montana accessed November 27, 2009. 404 p. /Idaho airshed operating guide. accessed July 12, wildlife conservation strategy 2005. Helena, MT. 2011. 56 p. accessed September 21, 2009. 658 p. concern. [access date unknown]. servation strategies for sage grouse in Montana: Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana final. Montana Sage Grouse Work Group. tana animal species of concern. Helena, MT. 17 p. accessed October 2011. 200 p. Montana Partners in Flight. 2000. Draft Montana bird ———. 2005–2006. Statewide fisheries investiga- conservation plan, version 1.0. [access date Project Number F–113–R7 and R8. [City, State, unknown]. 288 p. and office on file unknown]. 65 p. Montana Steering Committee Intermountain West ———. 2006a. A guide to building and managing pri- Joint Venture. 2005. Coordinated implementation vate fish ponds in Montana.

[access Mysterud, Atle. 2006. The concept of overgrazing date unknown]. 58 p. and its role in management of large herbivores. More, Thomas A.; Averill, J.R.; Stevens, T.H. 1996. Wildlife Biology 12:129–41. Values and economics in environmental manage- National Audubon Society. 2009 Important bird areas. ment: a perspective and critique. Journal of Envi- Moulton, Gary E. 2002. The definitive journals of [access date unknown]. Lewis and Clark. accessed October 6, 2009. fact sheet. accessed January 2010. Moynahan, B.J. 2004. Landscape-scale factors affect- National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2001. Fire ing population dynamics of greater sage-grouse effects guide. NFES 2394. accessed October 2011. 313 p. Montana, 2001–2004 [Ph.D. dissertation]. Mis- ———. 2011. Glossary of wildland fire terminol- soula, MT: The University of Montana. [Pages ogy. unknown]. accessed December 2011. Moynahan, B.J.; Lindberg, M.S.; Rotella, J.J.; Thomas, National Wildlife Federation. 2010. Fact sheet: J.W. 2006a. Factors affecting nest survival of grazing retirement auction on the C.M. Russell greater sage-grouse in north-central Montana. National Wildlife Refuge. accessed February 22, Moynahan, B.J.; Lindberg, C.; Thomas, J.W. 2006b. Fac- 2010. tors contributing to process variance in annual sur- ———. 2011. CMR grazing allotment map. accessed October 2011. mt.gov (Montana’s Official State Web site). 2008a. [NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service. Montana animal field guide species ranking status. 1999. Grassland Birds. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 8. [City and State accessed September 19, 2008. published unknown]. USDA Natural Resource ———. 2008b. Montana field guide. Baird’s sparrow: Conservation Service. [Pages unknown]. Ammodramus bairdii. accessed September 19, Institute: national range and pasture handbook. 2008. accessed Spizella breweri. accessed September 19, 2008. ———. 2005a. Montana native plants for pollinator- ———. 2008d. Montana field guide. Burrowing owl: friendly plantings. accessed _ABNSB10010.aspx> accessed September 19, 2008. October 2011. 8 p. ———. 2008e. Montana field guide. Lark bunting: ———. 2005b. Farm pond ecosystem. 2005. Fish and Calamospiza melanocorys. accessed Septem- 29. [City and State published unknown]. [Pages ber 19, 2008. unknown]. ———. 2010. Montana field guide. Greater sage- ———. 2009. Ecological site descriptions. accessed October 2009. Guide.mt.gov/detail_ABNLC12010.aspx> accessed The Nature Conservancy. 2007. Prairie birds in January 26, 2010. peril: Nature Conservancy launches major effort Murie, O.J. 1935. Report on the Fort Peck migratory to protect prairie bird habitat. [access date unknown]. unknown]. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: an online Murphy, Robert. 2008. Fire is for the birds in north- encyclopedia of life. Version 7.0 Arlington, VA. ern mixed-grass prairie. Fire Science Brief 9:1–6 accessed Sep- [access date unknown]. tember 19, 2008. Myers, L.H. 1981. Grazing on stream riparian habi- Naugle, David E.; Aldridge, Cameron L.; Walker, tats in southwestern Montana. Proceedings of the Brett L. [and others]. 2004. West Nile virus: pending Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Great crisis for greater sage-grouse. Ecology Letters Falls, MT. [Pages unknown]. 7:704–13. 316 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

Naugle, David E.; Aldridge, Cameron L.; Walker, Olson, R.; Hansen, J.; Whitson, T.; Johnson, K. 1994. Brett L. [and others]. 2005. West Nile virus and Tebuthiuron to enhance rangeland diversity. sage-grouse: what more have we learned? Wild- Rangelands 16(5):197–201. life Society Bulletin 33(2):616–23. Oring, Lew; Harrington, J.W.; Brown, S.; Hickey, C.; Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard editors. 2000. National shorebird research needs: F.; editors. 2005 (revised 2008). Wildland fire in a proposal for a national research program and ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen- example high priority research topics. Manomet eral Technical Report RMRS–GTR–42, volume 4. Center for Conservation Sciences. [access date unknown]. tain Research Station. 250 p. Oschell, C.; Nickerson, N. 2006a. Niche News: Mis- Needham, Robert G. 1978. Northeastern Montana souri River country traveler characteristics. fisheries investigation. Montana Department of accessed December 2009. F–11–R–25, Job Number I–a. On file at Charles M. ———. 2006b. Niche News: Russell country traveler Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. characteristics. accessed December 2009. Needham, Robert G.; Gilge, Kent W. 1980. Northeast Owens, R.A.; Myres, M.T. 1973. Effects of agricul- Montana fisheries study: inventory and survey of ture upon populations of native passerine birds of waters of the project area. Helena, MT: Montana an Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Journal of Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. [Pages Zoology 51:697–713. unknown]. Paige, Christine. 2008. A landowner’s guide to wildlife Neppl, Travis. 1997. Riparian and wetland ecologi- friendly fences. Helena, MT: Montana Department cal health evaluations for Duck Creek and Brown of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Landowner/Wildlife Pass Coulee, Charles M. Russell National Wild- Resource Program. 44 p. life Refuge. On file at Charles M. Russell National Park, John A. 1998. Site form for 24GF419. Produced Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. 15 p. by the Bureau of Land Management, Lewistown, Nolt, D. 2008. Revamping the Charles M. Russell MT. On file with the Montana Historical Society, Wildlife Refuge conservation plan. New West Helena, MT. Bozeman. February 22. Parker, Thomas G.; Hansen, Paul L. 1996. Riparian and Norberg, Jon; Cumming, Graeme S.; editors. 2008. wetland ecological health evaluation of East Slip- Complexity theory for a sustainable future. [City pery Ann habitat unit (#2) and Germaine Coulee and State published]: Columbia University Press. habitat unit (#55), Charles M. Russell National Wild- 315 p. life Refuge. Contract completion report for U.S. Norman C. Wheeler and Associates. 2008. Newslet- Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative Agreement ter. accessed October 2008. Number 14–48–0006–95–939, Modification Num- North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. ber 2. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, Committee. 2009. The state of the birds, United School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conser- States of America, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. vation Experiment Station, Riparian and Wetland Department of the Interior. 36 p. Research Program. 96 p. [NRCG] Northern Rockies Coordinating Group. 2008. Parrett, Charles; Johnson, D.R. 2004. Methods for Appropriate management response summary for estimating flood frequency in Montana based on the northern Rockies. accessed September 2008. 13 p. 03–4308. Helena, MT. 101 p. Noss, Reed F. 1991. Sustainability and wilderness. Parrett, Charles; Omang, R.J.; Hull, J.A. 1983. Mean Conservation Biology 5(1):120–22. annual runoff and peak flow estimates based on NPA Data Services, Inc. 2007. 2007 Regional eco- channel geometry of streams in northeastern and nomic projections series. [City unknown], MT: western Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Montana Department of Commerce, Census and Resources Investigations Report 83–4046. Helena, Economic Information Center. [Pages unknown]. MT. 53 p. Ohmart, Robert D. 1996. Historical and present Partners in Flight. 2010. What is Partners in Flight impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife (PIF)? Revised November 10, 2010. accessed December man, P.R.; editor. Denver, CO: Rangeland Wildlife 2011. Society for Range Management. 245–79. Pauli, Jonathan N.; Buskirk, Steven W. 2007. Risk- Olson, D.; Lindall, S. 2000. IMPLAN professional. disturbance overrides density dependence in a Version 2.0. Stillwater, MN: MIG, Inc. hunted colonial rodent, the black tailed prairie Bibliography 317

dog Cynomys ludovicianus. Journal of Applied Riley, Scott A.; Wilkinson, Kim M. 2007. Roadside Ecology 44:1,219–30. revegetation: a new frontier for native plant grow- Pearce, Cheryl M.; Smith, Derald G. 2003. Salt cedar: ers. In: Riley, L.E.; Dumroese, R.K.; Landis, T.D.; distribution, abundance and dispersal mechanisms, technical coordinators. National proceedings: For- northern Montana, USA. Wetlands 23(2):215–28. est and Conservation Nursery Associations—2006; Pearman, Myrna. 2005. Mountain bluebird trail mon- [Date of meeting unknown]; [City and State of itoring guide. Red Deer, AB: Red Deer River meeting unknown]. Proceedings RMRS–P–50. Fort Naturalists. [Pages unknown]. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Moun- Pilliod, D.S.; Wind, Elke; editors. 2008. Habitat man- tain Research Station. [access date unknown]. of the northwestern United States and western Robbins, Mark B.; Dale, Brenda C. 1999. Sprague’s Canada. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Con- pipit (Anthus spragueii). In: Poole, A.; editor. The servation Technical Publication HMG–4. Birming- Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cor- ham, AL. 139 p. nell Lab of Ornithology. accessed September 2011. control livestock grazing on riparian habitats along Rogers, K.H.; Biggs, H. 1999. Integrating indicators, streams: is it a viable alternative? North Ameri- end points, and value systems in the strategic can Journal of Fisheries Management 4:266–72. management of Kruger National Park. Freshwa- Poff, N. Leroy; Allan, J.D.; Bain, M.B. [and oth- ter Biology 41:439–51. ers]. 1997. Natural flow regime: a paradigm for Rorabaugh, J.C. 2005. Rana pipiens Schreber, 1782, river conservation and restoration. BioScience northern leopard frog. In: Lannoo, M.J.; editor. 47(11):769–84. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of Pool, Duane B.; Austin, J.E. 2006. Migratory bird United States species. Berkeley, CA: University management for the Northern Great Plains Joint of California Press. 570–77. Venture: implementation plan. General Technical Rosenstock, Steven S.; Ballard, Warren B.; Devos, Report TC–01. Bismarck, ND: Northern Great James C., Jr. 1999. Viewpoint benefits and impacts Plains Joint Venture. 171 p. of wildlife water developments. Journal of Range Price, Jeff; Glick, Patricia. 2002. The bird watchers Management 52(4):302–11. guide to global warming. [City and State pub- Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied river morphology. Pagosa lished unknown]: National Wildlife Federation Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology. [Pages unknown]. and American Bird Conservancy. 34 p. Rossenberg, Daniel K.; Noon, Barry R.; Meslow, E. Puckett, Karl. 2009a. Wildlife refuge grazing deal Charles. 1997. Biological corridors: form, function, sought. Great Falls Tribune. July 8. and efficacy. BioScience 47:677–87. ———. 2009b. Bids received for groups’ offer of money Rowe, H.I.; Bartlett, E.T. 2001. Development and for grazing land. Great Falls Tribune. August 21. Federal grazing policy impacts on two Colorado Rademaker, L.; Nickerson, N. 2006. Niche News: 2005 counties: a comparative study. In: Torell, A.L.; nonresident traveler characteristics. Missoula, MT: Bartlett, E.T.; Larranaga, R.; editors. Society for University of Montana, Institute for Tourism and Range Management; February 20–23, 2001; Kailua– Recreation Research. accessed December 2009. University Agricultural Experiment Station. 17 p. Ranchers Stewardship Alliance. 2008. Our mission. Rudzitis, G. 1999. Amenities increasingly draw peo- ple to the rural West. Rural Development Per- accessed December 2011. spectives 14(2):9–13. Rasker, R. 2006. An exploration into the impact of Rudzitis, G.; Johansen, H. 1989. Migration to western industrial development versus conservation on wilderness counties: causes and consequences. western public lands. Society and Natural Re- Western Wildlands 15:19–23. sources 19:191–207. Ruebelmann, George N. 1982. An archaeological study Rasker, R.; Hansen, A. 2000. Natural amenities and of the Lewistown BLM District. On file at Bureau of population growth in the Greater Yellowstone Land Management headquarters, Lewistown, MT. Region. Human Ecology Review (2):30–40. [Pages unknown]. Red Lodge Clearinghouse. 2008. Matador Ranch Rumble, Mark A.; Flake, Lester D. 1983. Manage- grass bank. accessed July 15, 2008. by waterfowl broods. Journal of Range Manage- Resilience Alliance. 2007. Assessing and managing ment 36(6):691–94. resilience in social-ecological systems: a practi- Salant, P.; Dillman, D.; Carley, L. 1997. Who’s moving tioners workbook. into the nonmetropolitan counties? Evidence from accessed February 2012. 54 p. Washington State. Pullman, WA: Washington State 318 Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana

University, Social and Economic Sciences Research Sheley, R.L.; Svejcar, T.J.; Maxwell, B.D. 1996. A the- Center. [Pages unknown]. oretical framework for developing successional Samson, Fred; Knopf, Fritz. 1994. Prairie conserva- weed management strategies on rangeland. Weed tion in North America. BioScience 44(6):418–21. Technology 7:766–73. Sanderson, H. Reed; Meganck, Richard A.; Gibbs, Short, Jeffrey J.; Knight, J.E. 2003. Fall grazing Kenneth C. 1986. Range management and scenic affects big game forage on rough fescue grasslands. beauty as perceived by dispersed recreationists. Journal of Range Management 28(3):213–17. Journal of Range Management 39(5):464–69. Silva, M. 2001. Abundance, diversity, and community Sando, Steven K.; Morgan, Timothy J.; Dutton, structure of small mammals in forest fragments DeAnn M.; McCarthy, Peter M. 2009. Estima- in Prince Edward Island National Park, Canada. tion of streamflow characteristics for Charles M. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:2,063–71. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, northeastern Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and key- Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Inves- stones: is single species management passe in the tigations Report 2009–5009. [City and State pub- landscape era? Biological Conservation 83(3):47–257. lished unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey. 60 p. Sipe, Gene. 1993. Tree and shrub planting—1993. U.S. Sauls, H.S. 2006. The role of selective foraging and Fish and Wildlife Service internal memo. Unpub- cecal microflora in sage-grouse nutritional ecology lished. On file at Charles M. Russell National [master’s thesis]. Missoula, MT: The University of Wildlife Refuge, Lewistown, MT. Montana. [Pages unknown]. Skaar, P.D. (revised by Skaar, D.; Flath, D.; Thompson, Schroeder, M.A.; Young, J.R.; Braun, C.E. 1999. L.S.). 1985. Montana bird distribution. Montana Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasia- Academy of Sciences Supplement to the Pro- nus). In: Poole, A.; editor. The Birds of North ceedings. Volume 44. [City and State published America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Orni- unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 2 p. thology. accessed Skagen, Susan K.; Knopf, F.L. 1994. Migrating shore- October 3, 2011. birds and habitat dynamics at a prairie wetland Schultz, James Willard. 1902. Floating on the Mis- complex. Wilson Bulletin 106(1):91–105. souri. Helena, MT: Riverbend Publishing. 135 p. Smith, B.E. 2003. Conservation assessment for the Scott, Michael L.; Auble, Gregor T.; Friedman, Jon- northern leopard frog in the Black Hills National athan M. [and others]. 1993. Flow recommenda- Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [City and tions for maintaining riparian vegetation along State published unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. the Upper Missouri River, Montana. Prepared [Pages unknown]. for Montana Power Company and U.S. Bureau of Smith, Jane Kapler; editor. 2000. Wildland fire in eco- Reclamation. Fort Collins, CO: National Biologi- systems: effects of fire on fauna. General Techni- cal Survey, National Ecology Research Center. cal Report RMRS–GTR–42, Volume 1. Ogden, UT: 43 p. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Scott, Michael L.; Auble, Gregor T.; Friedman, Jon- Station. athan M. 1994. Impacts of dams and high flows accessed March 2010. 83 p. along the Upper Missouri River, Montana. Pre- Smucker, Kristina M.; Hutto, Richard L.; Steele, pared for Montana Power Company, Inc. Fort Brian M. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after Collins, CO: National Biological Survey, Midcon- wildfire: importance of fire severity and time since tinent Ecological Science Center. 19 p. fire. Ecological Applications 15(5):1,535–49. Scott, M.L.; Auble, G.T. 2002. Conservation and res- Stewart, E. Ray; Reese, Scott A.; Ultsch, Gordon R. toration of semi-arid riparian forests: a case study 2004. The physiology of hibernation in Canadian from the upper Missouri River, Montana, USA. leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) and bullfrogs (Rana In: Middleton, B.; editor. Flood pulsing and wet- catesbeiana). Physiological and Biochemical Zool- land restoration in North America. [City and ogy 77(1):65–73. State published unknown]: John Wiley and Sons, Stewart, I.T.; Cayan, D.R.; Dettinger, M.D. 2004. Inc. 145–90. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western Scott, M.L.; Auble, G.T.; Friedman, J.M. 1997. Flood North America under a “business as usual” cli- dependency of cottonwood establishment along mate change scenario. Climate Change 62:217–32. the Missouri River, Montana, USA. Ecological Stewart, Joanne E. 2007. An analysis of bat activity Applications 7:677–90. patterns along a prairie riparian corridor in east- Shackford, John S. 1996. The importance of shade to ern Montana at multiple spatial scales [master’s breeding mountain plovers. Bulletin of the Okla- thesis]. Denver, CO: University of Denver. 148 p. homa Ornithological Society 29(3):17–24. Stewart, Kelley M.; Bowyer, R. Terry; Kie, John G.; Shearer, LeRoy A. 1960. Use of dugouts by breeding [and others]. 2002. Temporospatial distributions ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 24(2):213–15. of elk, mule deer, and cattle: resource partitioning Bibliography 319

and competitive displacement. Journal of Mam- Thompson, William H.; Ehart, Robert C.; Hansen, malogy 83(1):229–44. Paul L. [and others]. 1998. Assessing health of Stewart, Robert E. 1975. Breeding birds of North a riparian site. In: Proceedings: Specialty Con- Dakota. Version 06JUL2000. Fargo, ND: Tri-College ference on Rangeland Management and Water Center for Environmental Studies. Jamestown, Resources; [Date of conference unknown]; [City ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center and State of conference unknown]. [City and State Online. 295 p. Association. 13 p. Stewart, Robert E.; Kantrud, Harold A. 1973. Eco- Thompson, William H.; Hansen, Paul L. 1999. Lotic logical distribution of breeding waterfowl pop- health assessment of selected streams on the ulations in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Con- Management 37(1):39–50. tract completion report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Stynes, D. 1998. Guidelines for measuring visitor Service, Cooperative Agreement Number 14–48– spending. [City unknown], MI: Michigan State 0006–95–939, Modification Number 2. Missoula, University, Department of Park, Recreation and MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Tourism Resources. [Pages unknown]. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Sta- Swetnam, T.W.; Betancourt, J.L. 1990. Fire-southern tion, Riparian and Wetland Research Program. 35 p. oscillation relations i