Draft Environmental Assessment - Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Plan
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Draft Environmental Assessment
Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
National Wildlife Refuges
Mountain Lion Hunting Plan
May 2021
Prepared by
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Lewistown, Montana
Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing
this Environmental Assessment: $18,000
EA Table of Contents
PROPOSED ACTION 3
BACKGROUND 4
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION 7
ALTERNATIVES 8
ALTERNATIVE A – [NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE] 8
ALTERNATIVE B – OPEN LIMITED MOUNTAIN LION HUNTING – [PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE] 8
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 11
NATURAL RESOURCES 12
VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 21
CULTURAL RESOURCES 22
REFUGE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 23
SOCIOECONOMICS 25
MONITORING 26
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS 26
ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 26
ALTERNATIVE B – OPEN LIMITED MOUNTAIN LION HUNT – [PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE] 27
LIST OF SOURCES, AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 27
LIST OF PREPARERS 28
STATE COORDINATION 28
TRIBAL CONSULTATION 28
PUBLIC OUTREACH 28
DETERMINATION 29
SIGNATURES 29
REFERENCES 30
APPENDIX A – APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS 32
APPENDIX B – MOUNTAIN LION HUNTING PLAN 33
APPENDIX C – COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 51
2
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Plan
Draft Environmental Assessment
Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges
Mountain Lion Hunting Plan
Date: May 6 2021
This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) to evaluate the effects associated with the proposed action and complies with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality
regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior
(43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. The NEPA requires
examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment.
Appendix A outlines all laws and executive orders evaluated through this draft EA.
Proposed Action
The Service is proposing to open a limited mountain lion hunting opportunity on the Charles M.
Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) (referred to as “the refuge”) in
accordance with the refuge’s comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and Mountain Lion
Hunting Plan. Mountain lion hunting would follow season dates detailed in Montana Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP) Archery Only and Fall Season regulations that run concurrently
with the traditional general deer and elk archery and firearms seasons. MTFWP also provides
clarification of regulations on national wildlife refuges under the Hunter Access section in their
mountain lion hunting regulations.
Public hunting is an historical wildlife-dependent use of the refuge and is designated as one of
the priority public uses as specified in National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 (Improvement Act).
A proposed action may evolve during the NEPA process as the Service refines its proposal and
gathers feedback from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed
action may be different from the original. The proposed action will be finalized at the
conclusion of the public comment period for this EA.
3
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Plan
The UL Bend NWR is within the boundaries of Charles M. Russell NWR and is managed as part
of that refuge (Figure 1). Together, they encompass an area of 1.1 million acres that span
approximately 125 air miles along the Missouri River, from the Fort Peck Dam west to the
boundary with the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. Throughout this
document, the two refuges are referred to as “the refuge” unless individually named.
Background
National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and
international treaties. Relevant guidance covers the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (NWRSAA), as amended by the Improvement Act, Refuge Recreation
Act of 1962, and selected parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual.
Although the UL Bend NWR is within the boundary of the Charles M. Russell NWR, they were
established through different authorities.
Charles M. Russell NWR was established pursuant to:
• Executive Order 7509, dated December 11, 1936
• Refuge Recreation Act
4
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Plan
• Bankhead–Jones Farm Tenant Act
• Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929
UL Bend NWR was established pursuant to:
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
• Migratory Bird Conservation Act
• Fish and Wildlife Act 1956
• Refuge Administration Act
• Wilderness Act legislation
Each refuge was established for specific purposes, as described below.
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
• “For the conservation and development of natural wildlife resources and for the
protection and improvement of public grazing lands and natural forage resources:
Provided, That nothing herein contained shall restrict prospecting, locating, developing,
mining, entering, leasing, or patenting the mineral resources of the lands under the
applicable laws: … Provided, however, that the natural forage resources therein shall be
first utilized for the purpose of sustaining in a healthy condition a maximum of four
hundred thousand (400,000) sharp-tailed grouse, and one thousand five hundred
(1,500) antelope, the primary species, and such nonpredatory secondary species in such
numbers as may be necessary to maintain a balanced wildlife population but, in no case,
shall the consumption of forage by the combined population of the wildlife species be
allowed to increase the burden of the range dedicated to the primary species: Provided
further, That all the forage resources within this range or preserve shall be available,
except as herein provided with respect to wildlife, for domestic livestock” (Executive
Order 7509, dated December 11, 1936).
• “Shall be administered by him [Secretary of the Interior] directly or in accordance with
cooperative agreements . . . and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the
conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its
habitat thereon” (16 U.S. Code 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act).
• “Suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or
threatened species” (16 U.S. Code 460k–1), “the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . .
real . . . property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and
conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S. Code 460k–2, Refuge
Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k–460k–4], as amended).
5
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Plan
• “Purposes of a land-conservation and land-utilization program” (7 U.S. Code 1011,
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act).
• “Particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program” (16
U.S. Code 667b, An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife).
• “Conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans” (16 U.S. Code 668dd [a] [2], NWRSAA).
• “For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds” (16 U.S. Code 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge
• “For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” (16 U.S. Code 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act), “reserved for the UL Bend
National Wildlife Refuge” (Public Land Order 4588, dated March 25, 1969), “for the
protection of lands for migratory waterfowl management” (Public Land Order 4826,
dated May 15, 1970).
• “Shall be administered by him [Secretary of the Interior] directly or in accordance with
cooperative agreements . . . and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the
conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its
habitat thereon” (16 U.S. Code 664, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act).
• “Particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program” (16
U.S. Code 667b, An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife).
• “For the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish
and wildlife resources” (16 U.S. Code 742f [a] [4]).
• “For the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities
and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or
affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude” (16 U.S. Code 742f [b] [1], Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956).
• “Conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans” (16 U.S. Code 668dd [a] [2], NWRSAA).
• “To secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an
enduring resource of wilderness . . . wilderness areas . . . shall be administered for the
use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as would leave them
unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the
protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the
6
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Plangathering and dissemination of information about their use and enjoyment as
wilderness” (16 U.S. Code 1131, Wilderness Act).
The mission of the Refuge System, as outlined by the NWRSAA, as amended by the
Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is:
“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management
and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
In addition, the NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the Refuge
System to (16 U.S. Code 668dd[a][4]):
• provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the
Refuge System;
• ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge
System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans;
• ensure that the mission of the Refuge System described at 16 U.S. Code 668dd(a)(2) and
the purposes of each refuge are carried out;
• ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land
adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the states in which the units of the
Refuge System are located;
• assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the
mission of the Refuge System and the purposes of each refuge;
• recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority public uses of
the Refuge System through which the American public can develop an appreciation for
fish and wildlife;
• ensure that opportunities are provided within the Refuge System for compatible
wildlife-dependent recreational uses; and
• monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.
Purpose and Need for the Action
The purpose of this proposed action is to expand wildlife-dependent recreation by opening a
limited mountain lion hunting opportunity on the refuge in accordance with the refuge’s CCP
and Mountain Lion Hunting Plan. Mountain lion hunting would follow season dates detailed in
MTFWP Archery Only and Fall Season regulations that run concurrently with the traditional
general deer and elk archery and firearms seasons. MTFWP provides clarification of access,
7
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Planrules, and regulations on national wildlife refuges under the Hunter Access section in their
mountain lion hunting regulations.
The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by
the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority
public uses of the System through which the American public can develop an appreciation for
fish and wildlife; and ensure that opportunities are provided within the System for compatible
wildlife-dependent recreational uses” (16 U.S. Code 668dd(a)(4)).
Alternatives
Alternative A – [No Action Alternative]
Under the No Action Alternative, the refuge would continue to prohibit mountain lion hunting.
Other hunting seasons would remain in place, as outlined in the refuge hunting regulations.
The current hunting program on the refuge allows for the take of elk, pronghorn, white-tailed
deer, mule deer, bighorn sheep, waterfowl (ducks and geese), upland gamebirds (turkey, ring-
necked pheasant, mourning dove, sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, Hungarian partridge), and
coyotes. Season dates, limits, and harvest methods are generally consistent with state
regulations, except for mule deer and coyotes. Both have refuge-specific restrictions at the time
of publishing. Specific regulations are available to the public at the web site www.fws.gov/cmr
or at any office of the refuge (Lewistown, Sand Creek, Jordan, and Fort Peck).
Public hunting on the refuge is compatible with the purposes of the refuge, as described in the
CCP and accompanying hunting compatibility determination, approved in 2012. The Service
solicited public review and comment through the posting of notices at the refuge, notices in
local newspapers and the Federal Register, public meetings, and formal public review of the
compatibility determination as part of the draft CCP and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the refuge.
Although this alternative supports the mission of the Refuge System, it does not offer increased
opportunities for public hunting and fishing in support of Secretarial Order (S.O.) 3347 and S.O.
3356.
Alternative B – Open Limited Mountain Lion Hunting – [Proposed Action
Alternative]
The refuge has prepared a Mountain Lion Hunting Plan (Appendix B), which is presented in this
document as the Proposed Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, big game
hunting opportunities would be expanded to include a limited mountain lion hunting
opportunity to support a national effort to increase hunting and fishing opportunities on public
lands (S.O. 3347 and S.O. 3356).
8
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanThe Service is proposing to open a limited mountain lion hunting opportunity on the refuge in
accordance with the refuge’s CCP and Mountain Lion Hunting Plan. Mountain lion hunting
would follow season dates detailed in MTFWP Archery Only and Fall Season regulations that
run concurrently with the traditional general deer and elk archery and firearms seasons.
MTFWP also provides clarification of regulations for national wildlife refuges under the Hunter
Access section in their mountain lion hunting regulations.
The refuge-specific regulations will be published in the Federal Register as part of the 2021-
2022 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations.
Measures to Avoid Conflicts
The Service can establish regulations for individual species or parts of the refuge depending on
conflicts with other wildlife-dependent priority uses. Hunting may be permanently or
periodically closed to species or to areas of the refuge if the Service decides it is needed for
wildlife, habitat, or public protection. Hunting opportunities are limited in season, area, and
methods of take to provide safe recreational experiences that are compatible with habitat goals
and objectives, and state and federal regulations. Carrying out the Mountain Lion Hunting Plan
would support applicable federal, refuge, and state regulations, and the Service would conduct
regular evaluation of mitigation measures.
Biological Conflicts
The Service reduces biological conflicts with regulations and management. Hunting activities
would be limited or not allowed where there are significant biological concerns. Monitoring of
species and habitat conducted by the state, the Service, and others would be periodically
reviewed with a primary interest in natural resource protection. Limitations in seasons and
methods of take decrease hunting pressure and increase protections during specific wildlife
events. The proposed mountain lion hunting opportunity would occur only during the fall
season and would run concurrently with the general deer and elk season dates. The refuge
provides habitat and wildlife sanctuary during winter. Limiting hunting to the fall season would
support the purpose for which the refuge was established.
Public Use Conflicts
The Service reduces potential public use conflicts among hunting activities and other
compatible recreational uses on the refuge through the designation of areas closed to hunting,
and by carrying out state, federal, and refuge-specific regulations. Areas open and closed to
hunting are shown on refuge hunting brochures. In addition, limitations in hunting seasons and
methods of take further promote public safety and allow for an acceptable balance of multiple
hunting activities and other compatible visitor opportunities. Overall, the Service does not
anticipate that conflicts under this alternative would be greatly changed from current
9
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Planconditions, largely because deer and elk hunting is already permitted during the fall season, and
mountain lion hunting would only be permitted during this time.
Administrative Use Conflicts
The greatest potential for administrative use conflicts relates to the conduct of refuge habitat
management activities in areas and seasons open to hunting. If a problem is identified, the
Service has the authority to close areas for the protection of species, habitat, and the public.
Management activities that are unusual and conducted over a long time, such as construction,
typically are posted to the Refuge web site, or otherwise communicated to the public through
means such as by phone or news release.
The following measures would be used to reduce conflicts:
• The Slippery Ann Elk Viewing Area would remain closed to hunting to reduce conflicts
with visitors participating in wildlife observation and photography.
• The Sand Creek Administrative Site would remain closed to hunting to ensure the safety
of staff and visitors.
• The use of dogs would not be allowed to reduce disturbance to big game hunters and
other wildlife species present on the refuge.
• No motorized vehicles or game carriers would be allowed in designated wilderness
areas to ensure consistency with the purpose of wilderness designation.
Under the Proposed Action Alternative, limited mountain lion hunting would take place in the
fall, under refuge and state regulations. This alternative provides a recreational experience to
the public while maintaining a sustainable mountain lion population. The refuge incurs costs
annually by carrying out the existing hunting program. Starting a limited mountain lion hunt,
administered by MTFWP to run concurrently with the traditional general deer and elk archery
and firearms seasons, would not be expected to incur other costs for the refuge.
Under this alternative, the refuge law enforcement officer and MTFWP wardens would monitor
the hunting and would conduct license, bag limit, and access compliance checks. Refuge staff
would administer the hunt.
This alternative offers increased opportunities for public hunting and fulfills the Service’s
mandate under the NWRSAA. The Service has determined that the Mountain Lion Hunting Plan
is compatible with the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System
(Appendix C).
10
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanAffected Environment and Environmental Consequences
This section is organized by affected resource categories, and for each affected resource it
covers (1) the existing environmental and socioeconomic baseline in the action area, and (2) the
effects and impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives. The effects and impacts of the
proposed action considered here are changes to the human environment, whether adverse or
beneficial, that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to
the proposed action or alternatives. This EA covers the written analyses of the environmental
consequences on a resource only when the impacts on that resource would be more than
negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource.” Any resources that would not be
more than negligibly impacted by the action have been dismissed from further analyses.
The refuge consists of approximately 1,718 square miles in Fergus, Garfield, McCone,
Petroleum, Phillips, and Valley counties in Montana.
The refuge is comprised primarily of upland, wetland, and riparian habitat types. The proposed
action would occur across the entire Refuge, except for the Slippery Ann Elk Viewing Area and
the Sand Creek Administrative Area, in all habitat types (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Areas Closed to Hunting on Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.
11
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanFor more information regarding and the general characteristics of the refuge’s environment,
see Section 3 of the Refuges’ CCP, which can be found at https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/.
The following resources either (1) do not exist within the project area, or (2) would either not
be affected or would be only negligibly affected by the proposed action:
• geology and soils
• air quality
• water quality
• floodplains
As such, these resources are not analyzed further in this EA.
For more information on the environmental consequences of the proposed action, see the
refuge’s CCP. This EA tiers from the refuge CCP and associated EIS and provides further analysis
related to the proposed action.
Natural Resources
Mountain Lion
Affected Environment
Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource
The refuge is located in the Northern Great Plains and is comprised of diverse habitats such as
native prairie, forested coulees (ravines), river bottoms, and badlands (arid lands dissected by
steep, eroded slopes). Wildlife is as diverse as the topography and includes elk, mule deer,
white-tailed deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, sharp-tailed and sage grouse,
prairie dogs, other mammals, reptiles and amphibians, furbearers and small predators, and
more than 236 species of birds. See CCP sections 3.1-3.2 for more information.
MTFWP released their Montana Mountain Lion Monitoring and Management Strategy in 2019.
The refuge lies within MTFWP’s Eastern Mountain Lion Ecoregion. Lion populations in the
ecoregion occur at an overall low density, and subpopulations occur in discontinuous patches of
suitable habitat, such as on the refuge and the surrounding area. MTFWP reports that “Lion
distribution and abundance has significantly increased in eastern Montana since the 1980s and
recovery likely continued through the 2010s.”
Mountain lions can be found in all the refuge’s habitat types, but use forested coulees and river
bottoms most often. Although the population on the refuge is currently unknown, several
studies have been conducted on the refuge and the surrounding region during the last decade.
This work has focused on habitat selection, dispersal, and survival rates. Generally, the studies
show the lion population is highly mobile, moving on and off the refuge frequently. The refuge
is neither a “source” nor a “sink” for the lion population in the region; lions found on the refuge
12
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Planare fully susceptible to mortality factors that exist in the area surrounding the refuge, and the
region’s lion population generally appears to be stable.
MTFWP manages mountain lion hunting in the State of Montana. Lion hunting in the ecoregion
is allowed during three distinct seasons; Archery Only (concurrent with the deer and elk archery
only season), Fall Season Without Dogs (concurrent with the general deer and elk season), and
Winter Season. MTFWP manages harvest with a set of Hunting District specific quotas using
season and sex-specific sub quotas. During the past 15 years, approximately 95 percent of all
hunter harvested lions in Montana were taken during the Winter Season with the aid of dogs.
Harvest has steadily increased since the 1990s.
Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions
The climate of the region is typical of the Northern Great Plains, with moderately cold winters
and occasional cold periods exceeding -20 degrees Fahrenheit(°F), and generally pleasant
summers with occasional hot periods exceeding 100°F. Precipitation is generally less than 20
inches annually, falling as rain and snow, with the months of May and June being the wettest
period of the year. Both climate and precipitation are quite variable from season-to-season and
year-to-year, with extreme wet periods and extreme dry periods occurring somewhat regularly.
Wet periods and droughts that occur for multiple years are not uncommon.
As the climate warms globally due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, the Northern Great
Plains is experiencing longer, hotter, and drier dry periods. This causes naturally occurring fuels
such as dry grass, shrubs, and dead standing and downed trees to become more flammable.
The refuge has experienced an increase in both the occurrence and size of wildland fires over
the last 25 years. See CCP sections 3.2 and 4.5 for more information.
Vegetated land such as what occurs on the refuge is a tremendous factor in carbon
sequestration. Large naturally occurring communities of plant and animals that occupy major
habitats are effective both in preventing carbon emission and in acting as biological “scrubbers”
of atmospheric carbon dioxide. See CCP section 3.1 for more information.
Mountain lions are a wide-ranging habitat generalist that exist currently in all the major
ecoregions within North America, except the Arctic region. Lions are opportunistic and
adaptable predators that prey and scavenge on a variety of species, but in Montana prey
primarily on elk and deer. Climate change is expected to negligibly affect lions in the refuge
region during the near term.
Impacts on Affected Resource
Alternative A
Estimated Hunter Numbers: 0
Estimated Take: 0
13
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanHunting for mountain lion is not currently allowed on the refuge. Hunting is currently allowed
for big game, waterfowl, and upland game birds. Not opening a limited mountain lion hunting
season would not impact any other refuge resources from current conditions. Mountain lion
populations would not be expected to change, and populations of their primary prey species,
elk and deer, would not be expected to change. Associated habitat and vegetation conditions
would not be expected to change.
Alternative B
Estimated Hunter Numbers: fewer than 1,000
Potential Take: 0-20
Estimated Take: fewer than five
Hunting of mountain lion would only be allowed during Montana’s Archery Only Season and
Fall Season Without Dogs, which runs concurrently with the general elk and deer seasons. It is
very difficult to purposefully target lion during these seasons, and hunting lions without dogs is
an opportunistic endeavor that results in a low probability of harvest.
Opening lion hunting during these seasons is not expected to attract more hunters that are
specifically targeting lions. Instead, it is expected that elk and deer hunters that are interested
and properly licensed to hunt lion would take advantage of opportunistic lion encounters to
attempt harvest. Therefore, opening lion hunting is not expected to increase the number of big
game hunter visits to the refuge, which the Service estimates to be approximately 90,000 a
year.
Mountain lion harvest would be managed by MTFWP through their existing season and quota
system. MTFWP has a sub-quota system in place that limits the number of lions that may be
harvested during the Archery Only Season and Fall Season Without Dogs. Total possible lion
harvest for the MTFWP hunting districts that contain refuge lands is 20 lions. The refuge lands
make up a small proportion of land jurisdiction within these districts, and annual lion take on
the refuge is expected to be fewer than five lions annually. Overall, lion harvest in the hunting
districts and region surrounding the refuge would not increase.
Opening lion hunting on the refuge is not expected to reduce the lion population on the refuge
from current levels. Mountain lions are highly mobile and move on and off the refuge regularly.
They are already susceptible to harvest off the refuge during the Archery Only Season and Fall
Season Without Dogs, as well as during the Winter Season (with dogs), which results in 95
percent of the lion harvest in Montana. Populations of their primary prey species, elk and deer,
would not be expected to change. Associated habitat and vegetation conditions would not be
expected to change.
14
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanNon-Target Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Affected Environment
Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource
The refuge is located in the Northern Great Plains, and is comprised of diverse habitats such as
native prairie, forested coulees (ravines), river bottoms, and badlands (arid lands dissected by
steep, eroded slopes). Wildlife is as diverse as the topography and includes elk, mule deer,
white-tailed deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, sharp-tailed and sage grouse,
prairie dogs, other mammals, reptiles and amphibians, furbearers and small predators, and
more than 236 species of birds. See CCP sections 3.1-3.2 for more information.
Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions
Opening lion hunting on the refuge is not expected to attract more hunters that are specifically
targeting lions. Instead, it is expected that elk and deer hunters that are interested and properly
licensed to hunt lion would take advantage of opportunistic lion encounters to attempt harvest.
Therefore, opening lion hunting is not expected to increase the number of big game hunter
visits, expand the area or time periods where hunters are present, or add disturbance or impact
to any other non-targeted wildlife on the refuge.
Impacts on Affected Resource
Alternative A
Disturbance or impacts to any non-targeted wildlife would not be expected to change from
current levels.
Alternative B
Disturbance or impacts to any non-targeted wildlife would not be expected to change from
current levels. The small potential harvest of mountain lion (range 0 to 20, with fewer than five
expected) would not increase appreciably the risk of lead ingestion by birds and other wildlife
that scavenge gut piles from hunter harvested game.
Threatened and Endangered Species, and Other Special Status Species
Affected Environment
Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource
There are currently eight species known to be found on the refuge that are listed on the
threatened and endangered species list (Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.
Code 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450):
• Endangered: black-footed ferret, interior least tern, pallid sturgeon, whooping crane
• Threatened: Canada lynx, northern long-eared bat, piping plover, red knot
15
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanA former candidate species, greater sage-grouse, is found throughout the refuge in sage-steppe
habitats on the edge of core areas and found in greater abundance in higher quality and larger
core areas next to the refuge. See refuge CCP section 3.2 for more information.
Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions
Opening lion hunting on the refuge is not expected to attract more hunters that are specifically
targeting lions. Instead, it is expected that elk and deer hunters that are interested and properly
licensed to hunt lion would take advantage of opportunistic lion encounters to attempt harvest.
Therefore, opening lion hunting is not expected to increase the number of big game hunter
visits, expand the area or time periods where hunters are present, or add disturbance or impact
to threatened or endangered species on the refuge.
There is a concern about the bioavailability of spent lead ammunition (bullets) on the
environment, endangered and threatened species, birds (especially raptors), mammals, and
humans, or other fish and wildlife susceptible to biomagnification. Lead shot and bullet
fragments found in animal carcasses and gut piles are the most likely source of lead exposure
(Kelly et al. 2011). Many hunters do not realize that the carcass or gut pile they leave in the
field usually contains lead bullet fragments. Research continues on the effects of lead
ammunition and the fragments it can deposit in killed game. Avian predators and scavengers
can be susceptible to lead poisoning when they ingest lead fragments or pellets in the tissues of
animals killed or wounded by lead ammunition. Lead poison may weaken raptors and increase
mortality rate by leaving them unable to hunt or making them more susceptible to vehicles or
power line accidents (Kramer and Redig 1997). In a study of bald eagles and golden eagles
admitted to the Raptor Rehabilitation Program at the College of Veterinary Medicine at
Washington State University from 1991 to 2008, researchers found that 48 percent of bald
eagles and 62 percent of golden eagles tested had blood lead levels considered toxic by current
standards. Of the bald and golden eagles with toxic lead levels, 91 percent of bald and 58
percent of golden respectively, were admitted to the rehabilitation facility after the end of the
general deer and elk hunting seasons in December (Stauber 2010).
Impacts on Affected Resource
Alternative A
Under alternative A, the existing hunting program would continue. Disturbance or impact to
threatened or endangered species would not be expected to change from current levels. The
Service prepared an Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation during the CCP and EIS process
completed in 2012 (see refuge CCP Appendix H).
Alternative B
Disturbance or impacts to any threatened or endangered species would not be expected to
change from current levels. Lead ammunition can be used during the mountain lion and big
game hunting seasons. However, the amount of lead introduced to the environment because of
16
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Planthis activity would be negligible and many participants in these hunts will choose non-lead
methods of take such as archery. The Service encourages the use of non-toxic ammunition and
educates hunters and anglers about the issues of lead. The small potential harvest of mountain
lion (range 0 to 20, with fewer than five expected) would not increase appreciably the risk of
lead ingestion by birds and other wildlife that scavenge gut piles from hunter harvested game.
The refuge prepared a Section 7 Biological Evaluation in coordination with the Montana
Ecological Services Field Office for the proposed action.
Black-footed ferrets: Black-footed ferrets have been extirpated in the UL Bend part of the
refuge. Ferret habitat consists primarily of complexes of prairie dog towns. After continued
occupancy on the refuge since 1994, the last known individual was seen on the refuge in 2019
during spring breeding surveys. Prairie dog colony collapse due to an epizootic sylvatic plague
outbreak that began in 2017 and continued through 2020 is believed to be the cause of the
extirpation of the black-footed ferret on the refuge. Black-footed ferrets are a prairie dog
obligate species, and the prairie dog colony on which the ferrets relied has decreased by more
than 75 percent during the last three years. These areas are only marginal and infrequently
used as lion habitat. Actual levels of disturbance would be insignificant and would not increase
from that which currently occurs with existing hunting activity in these areas. Mountain lion
hunting may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, black-footed ferrets or their habitat.
Canada lynx: Canada lynx typically live in subalpine forest habitats and are known to occur west
of the continental divide in Montana. These habitat types and historical range do not exist on
the refuge. There have been no known sightings nor would they be expected to occur on the
refuge. Therefore, mountain lion hunting would not affect Canada lynx.
Greater sage-grouse: The refuge has both greater sage-grouse and sage-step habitat
throughout the refuge. Mountain lion hunting may indirectly effect sage-grouse habitat though
disturbance from vehicle traffic by hunters traveling along established routes through these
habitat types. However, this vehicle impact would not be significant, as disturbance associated
with this hunting would not increase more than what already occurs during current hunts.
Mountain Lion hunting may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, sage-grouse or their
habitat.
Interior least tern: Interior least terns have been documented on the shoreline of Fort Peck
Reservoir within the refuge. Mountain lion hunting may indirectly affect least terns from boat
traffic associated with access to hunting areas by lion hunters. Boating use and shoreline foot
travel would be insignificant as it relates to mountain lion hunting, as use of shoreline habitat
by terns during hunting season would be minimal to low. Mountain lion hunting may affect, but
is not likely to adversely affect, interior least terns or their habitat.
17
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanNorthern long-eared bat: In Montana, this species is known to occupy specific habitat within a
limited range along the Missouri and Yellowstone river drainages near the North Dakota
border. The most likely habitat type that would be suitable for this species on the refuge would
be cottonwood river bottom along the Missouri River corridor. Mountain lion hunting may
occur in and possibly affect this habitat type. However, the hunting would not result in
additional impacts to this habitat type than currently exist with ongoing hunting seasons.
Mountain lion hunting may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, northern long-eared bats
or their habitat.
Pallid sturgeon: Pallid sturgeon are present in the Missouri River section of the refuge.
However, mountain lion hunting would not affect pallid sturgeon.
Piping plovers: Piping plovers have been documented on the shoreline of Fort Peck Reservoir
within the refuge. Mountain lion hunting may indirectly affect plovers from boat traffic
associated with access to hunting areas by lion hunters. Boating use and shoreline foot travel
would be insignificant as it relates to mountain lion hunting as use of shoreline habitat by
plovers during hunting season would be low or non-existent. Mountain Lion hunting may affect,
but is not likely to adversely affect, piping plovers or their habitat.
Red knots: Red knots migrate through Montana. Migratory stopovers in Montana are rare but
are most common at larger wetlands. Actual occurrence of this species on the refuge is
unknown. Potential habitat could be found in the eastern part of the Fort Peck Reservoir.
Mountain lion hunting could affect this species indirectly through the use of boats and foot
access along shorelines. However, there would be no increase in this type of use over current
hunting seasons. Mountain lion hunting may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, red
knots or their habitat.
Whitebark pine: Whitebark pine exist in the subalpine forest of the Snowy Mountains in Fergus
County and are not present on the refuge. Therefore, mountain lion hunting would not effect
whitebark pine.
Whooping cranes: Whooping cranes migrate through Montana and potentially across the
refuge. Nesting by whooping cranes has not been documented on the refuge. Mountain lion
hunting may potentially affect possible stop-over areas of whooping cranes should it occur.
However, this affect would be insignificant as most of the mountain lion hunting season would
occur after potential migration and stop-over by whooping cranes. Therefore, mountain lion
hunting may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, whooping cranes or their habitat.
18
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanHabitat and Vegetation (including vegetation of special management concern)
Affected Environment
Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource
Uplands make up most of the refuge, and comprise grassland, shrubland, and forest. The
grassland and shrubland communities compose more than 60 percent of the upland area, while
forest communities cover approximately 30 percent of the uplands. Common grass species
include western wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, green needlegrass, and blue grama. Shrubs
important to wildlife include big sagebrush, silver sagebrush, juniper, chokecherry, golden
currant, redosier dogwood, and silver buffaloberry. Key upland trees include ponderosa pine,
Douglas fir, and some limber pine.
Riparian habitat areas include wetland and upland vegetation associated with rivers, streams,
and other drainage ways. The riparian areas of the refuge occupy a relatively small part of the
landscape, but wildlife use these areas disproportionately more than any other habitat type.
Vegetation within the larger riparian systems is dominated by mature forests of plains
cottonwood with an understory of shrubs, grasses, and wetlands. Other trees and shrubs
include green ash, redosier dogwood, common chokecherry, and silver sagebrush, while the
riparian understory includes grasses (redtop, inland saltgrass, western wheatgrass, and foxtail
barley) and a variety of forbs, sedges, and rushes.
See refuge section CCP 3.2 for a detailed description of these habitats.
Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions
In the uplands, Japanese brome has invaded all grasslands, especially those in poor condition or
in the sage-steppe shrublands. Some areas of cottonwood riparian areas along the Missouri
River are in a degraded condition with monotypic nonnative grasses such as smooth brome and
crested wheatgrass. Within the last few decades, the occurrence of salt cedar in river bottoms
along the Missouri River in the western third of the refuge has increased.
The climate is typical of the Northern Great Plains, with moderately cold winter and occasional
cold periods exceeding -20°F, and generally pleasant summers with occasional hot periods
exceeding 100°F. Precipitation is generally less than 20 inches annually, falling as rain and snow,
with the months of May and June being the wettest period of the year. Both climate and
precipitation are quite variable from season-to-season and year-to-year, with extreme wet
periods and extreme dry periods occurring somewhat regularly. Wet periods and droughts that
occur for multiple years are not uncommon.
As the climate warms globally due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, the Northern Great
Plains is experiencing longer, hotter, and drier dry periods. This causes naturally occurring fuels
such as dry grass, shrubs, and dead standing and downed trees to become more flammable.
19
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanThe refuge has experienced an increase in both the occurrence and size of wildland fires over
the last 25 years. See refuge CCP sections 3.2 and 4.5 for more information.
Vegetated land, such as what occurs on the refuge, is a tremendous factor in carbon
sequestration. Large naturally occurring communities of plants and animals that occupy major
habitats are effective both in preventing carbon emission and in acting as biological “scrubbers”
of atmospheric carbon dioxide. See refuge CCP section 3.1 for more information.
Opening lion hunting on the refuge is not expected to attract more hunters that are specifically
targeting lions. Instead, it is expected that elk and deer hunters that are interested and properly
licensed to hunt lion would take advantage of opportunistic lion encounters to attempt harvest.
Therefore, opening lion hunting is not expected to increase the number of big game hunter
visits, expand the area or time periods where hunters are present, or add disturbance or impact
to habitats and vegetation on the refuge.
Impacts on Affected Resource
Alternative A
Current habitat and vegetation conditions would not be expected to be impacted.
Alternative B
Current habitat and vegetation conditions would not be expected to be impacted.
Wilderness or Other Special Designation
Affected Environment
Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource
The refuge contains designated wilderness, proposed wilderness, wilderness research areas
that were recommended to be designated as proposed wilderness in the refuge CCP, and
several other special management areas.
In 1976, Congress designated approximately 20,890 acres as the UL Bend Wilderness Area,
which was later modified to its current size of approximately 20,819. The refuge currently
maintains 15 areas of nearly 155,288 acres as proposed wilderness units and maintains nine
areas of approximately 19,942 acres of wilderness study area (see CCP Appendix F for locations,
boundaries, and descriptions).
Other special management areas either on or running through the refuge are the Lewis and
Clark National Historic Trail, Hell Creek and Bug Creek National Natural Landmarks, Research
Natural Areas, Upper Missouri Breaks Wild and Scenic River, and Missouri Breaks Back Country
Byway. See refuge CCP section 3.3 for more information.
Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions
The region’s climate is typical of the Northern Great Plains, with moderately cold winters and
occasional cold periods exceeding -20°F, and generally pleasant summers with occasional hot
20
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Planperiods exceeding 100°F. Precipitation is generally less than 20 inches annually, falling as rain
and snow, with the months of May and June being the wettest period of the year. Both climate
and precipitation are quite variable from season-to-season and year-to-year, with extreme wet
periods and extreme dry periods occurring somewhat regularly. Wet periods and droughts that
occur for multiple years are not uncommon.
As the climate warms globally due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, the Northern Great
Plains is experiencing longer, hotter, and drier dry periods. This causes naturally occurring fuels
such as dry grass, shrubs, and dead standing and downed trees to become more flammable.
The refuge has experienced an increase in both the occurrence and size of wildland fires over
the last 25 years. See refuge CCP sections 3.2 and 4.5 for more information.
Vegetated land, such as what occurs on the refuge, is a tremendous factor in carbon
sequestration. Large naturally occurring communities of plants and animals that occupy major
habitats are effective both in preventing carbon emission and in acting as biological “scrubbers”
of atmospheric carbon dioxide. See refuge CCP section 3.1 for more information.
Wilderness and other special management areas are expected to be influenced similarly to
refuge areas that do not have special designations.
Impacts on Affected Resource
Alternative A
Current uses and conditions of wilderness and other special management areas would not be
expected to change.
Alternative B
Current uses and conditions of wilderness and other special management areas would not be
expected to change.
Visitor Use and Experience
Affected Environment
Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource
The refuge attracts approximately 250,000 visitors to enjoy a variety of recreational activities
related to the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses that are identified in the Improvement
Act as priority uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and
environmental education). Approximately 103,900 hunters come to the refuge; 90,000 of which
hunt big game. Approximately 60,000 fishing visits are attributed to the refuge throughout the
year, which does not include the roughly 160,000 fishing visits attributed to Fort Peck Lake. The
refuge provides outstanding wildlife-viewing opportunities due to the abundance of wildlife,
generating nearly 20,300 photography visits a year. The auto tour route and Slippery Ann Elk
21
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanViewing Area receive approximately 4,000 visitors during the elk rut each year. See refuge CCP
section 3.4 for more information.
Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions
Opening lion hunting on the refuge is not expected to attract more hunters that are specifically
targeting lions. Instead, it is expected that elk and deer hunters that are interested and properly
licensed to hunt lion would take advantage of opportunistic lion encounters to attempt harvest.
Therefore, opening lion hunting is not expected to increase the number of big game hunter
visits, expand the area or time periods where hunters are present, or add disturbance or impact
to any other current visitor activity on the refuge.
Impacts on Affected Resource
Alternative A
Current visitor use experiences would not be expected to change.
Alternative B
Current visitor use experiences would not be expected to change. Up to 20 big game hunters
that are properly licensed and fortunate enough to see a mountain lion while hunting would
have the opportunity to harvest a lion.
Cultural Resources
Affected Environment
Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource
The refuge has a rich human history that has shaped the landscape from prehistoric times to
the present day. The refuge has 363 known archaeological sites. Approximately 275 of those
sites are either National Register-eligible or have not been evaluated and therefore are treated
as eligible. There are several traditional tribal cultural properties on the refuge, including burial
locations, plant-gathering areas, and ceremonial locations, although some were inundated by
the creation of Fort Peck Lake. See refuge CCP section 3.5 for more information.
The refuge offers various exposures of geologic and paleontological interest, including 465
known paleontological sites. Several of these sites have been designated as “national natural
landmarks” for paleontological resources. As a general practice of the Service, these sites are
not identified in public facing documents to protect the sites from potential looting. See refuge
CCP section 3.6 for more information.
Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions
Opening lion hunting on the refuge is not expected to attract more hunters that are specifically
targeting lions. Instead, it is expected that elk and deer hunters that are interested and properly
licensed to hunt lion would take advantage of opportunistic lion encounters to attempt harvest.
Therefore, opening lion hunting is not expected to increase the number of big game hunter
22
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting Planvisits, expand the area or time periods where hunters are present, or add disturbance or impact
to any cultural or paleontological resources on the refuge.
Impacts on Affected Resource
Alternative A
Disturbance or impacts to any cultural or paleontological resources would not be expected to
change from current levels.
Alternative B
Disturbance or impacts to any cultural or paleontological resources would not be expected to
change from current levels.
Refuge Management and Operations
Land Use on the Refuge
Affected Environment
Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource
Refuge operations include management of facilities, structures, and other land or water use.
The refuge relies on staff, equipment, and facilities to carry out both day-to-day operations and
long-term programs such as land acquisition.
The refuge maintains three field stations (Sand Creek Wildlife Station, Fort Peck Wildlife
Station, and Jordan Wildlife Station) and a headquarters facility (Lewistown). All areas have
office buildings, maintenance shops, and equipment storage buildings. The field stations also
have fire equipment caches and various residences and bunkhouse units. Currently, there are
approximately 670 miles of road.
The refuge’s primary land use is to protect habitat for wildlife conservation, with a secondary
use for livestock grazing. The Service issues approximately 55 livestock grazing special use
permits annually, for an average total use of roughly 16,000 animal unit months per year . The
period of use varies between areas, but livestock grazing primarily occurs from May through
October.
Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions
Opening lion hunting on CMR is not expected to attract more hunters that are specifically
targeting lions. Instead, it is expected that elk and deer hunters that are interested and properly
licensed to hunt lion would take advantage of opportunistic lion encounters to attempt harvest.
Therefore, opening lion hunting is not expected to increase the number of big game hunter
visits, expand the area or time periods where hunters are present, or add disturbance or impact
to refuge management and operations on the refuge.
23
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanImpacts on Affected Resource
Alternative A
Disturbance or impacts to refuge management and operations would not be expected to
change from current levels.
Alternative B
Disturbance or impacts to refuge management and operations would not be expected to
change from current levels.
Administration
Affected Environment
Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource
The refuge has approximately 20 staff, including refuge managers, refuge specialists,
maintenance mechanics, federal wildlife officers, firefighters, a wildlife biologist, a budget
analysist, and an office assistant. The refuge has an operations and maintenance budget of
nearly $2.5 million, and a fire management budget of nearly $900,000.
Hunting activities are time-consuming and costly. The Service estimates that law enforcement
activities may involve approximately 30 to 35 hours per week from September through
February. Transportation costs associated with law enforcement are estimated at nearly $400
per week but fluctuate with fuel and maintenance costs. Communication related to refuge
violations and public safety requires an estimated 8 to 10 hours per week during the hunting
season. Many hours are required to provide information to the public throughout the season,
using methods such as by phone, web site, brochures, news releases, and at the visitor’s center.
Approximately $10,000 per year is associated with planning and printing hunting information
for distribution at offices, kiosks, and the visitor center. The money required for maintenance of
refuge infrastructure (such as roads, parking areas, signs, and facilities) is variable, but often
can be more than $250,000 per year. In addition, time and cost are associated with public
coordination with MTFWP on the administration of activities such as special hunts. Wildlife
monitoring for hunted species is completed by MTFWP.
Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions
Opening lion hunting on the refuge is not expected to attract more hunters that are specifically
targeting lions. Instead, it is expected that elk and deer hunters that are interested and properly
licensed to hunt lion would take advantage of opportunistic lion encounters to attempt harvest.
Therefore, opening lion hunting is not expected to increase the number of big game hunter
visits, expand the area or time periods where hunters are present, or add impact or other costs
to the administration or budget of the refuge.
24
Draft Environmental Assessment for Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife
Refuges Mountain Lion Hunting PlanYou can also read
