2 The Refuge
 

Grass and sage habitats looking east into the Centennial Mountains. 

Mike Parker/USFWS 

This chapter explains the purposes, establishment, 

management history, and special values of Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, as well as the 

proposed vision and goals and a discussion of the 

planning issues. 

2.1 ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION, 

AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY 

PURPOSES 

Every refuge has a purpose for which it was 

established. This purpose is the foundation upon 

which to build all refuge programs, from biology 

and visitor services, to maintenance and facilities. 

No action undertaken by the Service or public 

may conflict with this refuge purpose. The refuge 

purposes are found in the legislative acts or 

administrative orders that provide the authorities 

to either transfer or acquire a piece of land for a 

refuge. Over time, an individual refuge may contain 

lands that have been acquired under a variety of 

transfer and acquisition authorities, giving a refuge 

more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, and 

strategies identified in this draft CCP are intended to 

support individual purposes for which the refuge was 

established. 

The legislative purposes for Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge include the following: 

1. 	 “As a refuge and breeding ground for wild birds 

and animals.” (Executive Order 7023, dated 

April 22, 1935) 

2. 	 “For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act 1929) 

3. 	 “Suitable for (a) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (b) 

the protection of natural resources, (c) 

the conservation of endangered species or 

threatened . . . species . . . The Secretary . . . 

may accept and use . . . real . . . property. Such 

acceptance may be accomplished under the 

terms and conditions of restrictive covenants 

imposed by donors.” (Refuge Recreation Act 

1962) 

4. 	 “The conservation of the wetlands of the 

Nation in order to maintain the public benefi ts 

they provide and to help fulfi ll international 

obligations contained in various migratory 

bird treaties and conventions.” (Emergency 

Wetlands Resources Act 1986)

5. 	 “For the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources . . . for the benefi t 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.” (Fish and Wildlife Act 1956) 
14 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

ESTABLISHMENT AND ACQUISITION HISTORY 

It is impossible to speak of the Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge history without fi rst 

addressing some of the history of the Centennial 

Valley within which the refuge lies. 

The Centennial Valley was well known by Native 

Americans long before the homestead era, as 

evidenced from the journal writing of explorer 

Osborne Russell. Upon entering the Centennial 

Valley in 1835, Russell wrote that the valley from 

which “flows the head stream of the Missouri . . . 

was full of Buffaloe when we entered it and large 

numbers of which were killed by hunters . . . We 

repeatedly saw signs of Blackfeet about us to 

waylay the Trappers . . . We stopped at this place 

to feast on fat Buffaloe.” (Russell and Haines 

1965) 

In 1876, Mrs. William C. Orr, one of the partners 

in the P&O Ranch, named this 60-mile long, 

east-west running valley the Centennial Valley 

to commemorate the nation’s Centennial. Along 

with other ranches, the P&O Ranch summered 

livestock in the valley. In the late 1890s, the 

Centennial Valley was homesteaded. In addition, 

the valley, and in particular the area that was 

to become the refuge, was used by hunting 

clubs, with people traveling long distances to 

hunt waterfowl in the area (Beaverhead County 

History Book Association 1990). 

The Centennial Valley provided good seasonal 

trapping and hunting grounds and was a 

favored route between the headwaters of the 

upper Bighole River and the Yellowstone 

area. The long winters and great distances to 

market made subsistence difficult at best, with 

few homesteaders remaining after the Great 

Depression. Many sold their land back to the 

Federal Resettlement Administration during the 

1930s. 

Nearly 100 years after Russell Osborne had 

entered the Centennial Valley, the Bureau of 

Biological Survey (a precursor to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service) conducted an evaluation 

and suggested that the area should become 

a migratory bird refuge. In 1935 Mr. Basyl 

Kercheval wrote a report and indicated that: 

“The economic situation is grave. A large part 

of the land is mortgaged. Taxes are delinquent 

in many cases. Livestock in very [sic] instance 

is mortgaged to various agencies for feed. It is 

conceded by every one that the Red Rock Lakes 

area has been the foremost breeding, nesting 

and resting place for migratory waterfowl with 

the state of Montana.” (Project of the Bureau of 

Biological Survey 1935) 

On April 22, 1935, President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt established the Red Rock Lakes 

Migratory Waterfowl Refuge (later named “Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge” on July 19, 

1961) under Executive Order 7023, “as a refuge 

and breeding ground for wild birds and animals.” 

On September 4, 1935, President Roosevelt 

enlarged the refuge under Executive Order 7172, 

“provided, that any private lands within the areas 

described shall become a part of the refuge upon 

the acquisition of title or lease thereto by the 

United States.” 

During the 70 years since the executive boundary 

was established, the Service has continued to 

acquire lands from willing landowners or receive 

land donations. The Service currently owns 

47,756 acres within this approved boundary (see 

figure 5). Table 2 summarizes the acquisition 

history and the means of acquisition between 

1935 and 2007. 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 15
 

Figure 5. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge approved acquisition boundary and acquired lands—refuge base 

map. 
16 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2007. 

Date Acquired Acres Acquired Means of Acquisition 

4/22/35 9,218 Reserved from Public Domain 

4/23/35 594 Reserved from Public Domain 

12/2/35 160 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

12/5/35 929 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

12/6/35 212 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

12/7/35 1,912 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

12/12/35 3,209 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

12/17/35 160 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

12/18/35 880 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

12/21/35 1,030 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

12/31/35 480 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

1/14/36 360 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

1/20/36 352 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

1/18/36 254 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

3/3/36 1,033 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/30/36 60 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

10/10/36 680 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

4/2/37 320 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

6/10/37 202 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

6/10/37 1,515 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/7/37 519 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

8/11/37 231 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

8/19/37 517 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 17 

Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2007. 

Date Acquired Acres Acquired Means of Acquisition
 

8/19/37 254 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

10/2/37 12 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

11/17/37 1,292 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

5/16/38 3 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/18/39 390 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/18/39 307 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/18/39 3,447 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/18/39 648 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/18/39 296 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/18/39 499 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/18/39 820 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/18/39 195 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/18/39 8 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/18/39 398 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

7/19/39 4 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

3/6/40 42 Acquired by Resettlement Administration 

2/25/54 1 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

12/31/56 1 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

9/30/76 6,855 Other 

2/14/79 1 Other 

12/15/86 1,673 Land and Water Conservation Fund 

2/2/88 431 Land and Water Conservation Fund 

2/28/88 120 Land and Water Conservation Fund 
18 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2007. 

Date Acquired Acres Acquired Means of Acquisition 

2/1/90 320 Land and Water Conservation Fund 

4/4/90 280 Land and Water Conservation Fund 

4/9/90 352 Land and Water Conservation Fund 

2/3/91 320 Land and Water Conservation Fund 

5/20/91 320 Gifted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

4/14/94 960 Land and Water Conservation Fund 

4/30/97 480 Land and Water Conservation Fund 

10/10/99 20 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

10/11/99 20 Gifted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

12/15/07	 2,159 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and Federal Land

Transaction Facilitation Fund 

Total	 47,756 

CENTENNIAL VALLEY CONSERVATION 

EASEMENT PROGRAM 

The refuge expanded its conservation efforts in 

the Centennial Valley in March 2001 through the 

initiation of a Centennial Valley Conservation 

Easement Program. This work is outlined in an 

environmental assessment and land protection plan 

(USFWS 2001). The purposes of the Centennial 

Valley Conservation Easement Program are to 

■	 protect native wet meadows, wetlands, uplands, 

and mountain foothills from future conversions 

to second and recreational home uses; 

■	 protect habitat integrity by preventing 


fragmentation;
 

■	 preserve key wilderness values and views 

throughout and adjacent to the Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge; 

■	 promote landscape integrity in order to 

maintain, sustain, and enhance the historic 

plant, animal, and insect biodiversity of native 

prairie habitats and associated ranching 

heritage; 

■	 minimize invasive plant infestations from soil 

disturbance, road building, and increased traffi c 

resulting from rural housing development; 

■	 minimize, to a lesser extent, future demands 

on local government resources necessitated by 

providing services associated with increasing 

rural development. 

Today, the refuge manages nine conservation 

easements for a total of 20,219 acres (see fi gure 6). 

Table 3 summarizes the acquisition history of this 

program since 2001. 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 19
 

Figure 6. Conservation easements within the Centennial Valley. 
20 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Table 3. Conservation easement acquisition history within the Centennial Valley, 2001–2006. 

Year Acquired Means of Acquisition Total Acres 

2001 Land and Water Conservation Fund 2,376 

2002 Land and Water Conservation Fund 3,771 

2003 Land and Water Conservation Fund 188 

2003 Land and Water Conservation Fund 1,361 

2003 Land and Water Conservation Fund 640 

2004 Land and Water Conservation Fund 990 

2004 Land and Water Conservation Fund 3,404 

2005 Land and Water Conservation Fund 4,137 

2006 Gifted 3,353 

Total 20,219 

MANAGEMENT HISTORY 

Red Rock Lakes NWR is one of the most remote 

refuges in the lower 48. It is located in the Centennial 

Valley in southwestern Montana in Beaverhead 

County, 47 miles west of West Yellowstone and 38 

miles east of the town of Lima. This 47,756-acre 

refuge sits at 6,670 feet above sea level and lies east 

of the Continental Divide near the uppermost reach 

of the Missouri drainage. 

Historically, management focused on protecting and 

enhancing the trumpeter swan population at the 

refuge. In the 1930s the refuge was their last known 

breeding location. Management actions included 

hatching eggs, raising cygnets to fledging age, and 

feeding adult swans during the winter months. 

Trumpeter swans were studied intensively at the 

refuge, and much of what is known about their 

breeding biology was published in The Trumpeter 

Swan, written by former refuge manager Winston E. 

Banko (Banko 1960). Today, swans can still be seen 

breeding in the valley, but the intensive management 

of swan populations (through feeding and raising 

of young) has been altered in favor of allowing the 

swans to thrive under mostly natural conditions. 

The refuge has one of the most naturally diverse 

areas in the Refuge System. The refuge boasts 

the largest wetland complex within the Greater 

Yellowstone ecosystem, as well as expansive tracts 

of grassland and sagebrush-steppe habitats and a 

small amount of midelevation forested areas. These 

habitats support over 230 species of birds, including 

peregrine falcons, bald eagles, short-eared owls, 

sandhill cranes, sage grouse, and numerous species of 

waterfowl and waterbirds (see “Appendix D: Species 

List”). Common mammals include Shiras moose, elk, 

mule and white-tail deer, badger, coyote, and red 

fox. In recent years, wolves and grizzly bears have 

been documented using the refuge. There is also a 

remnant population of native lacustrine/adfl uvial 

Arctic grayling that occurs on the refuge. 

A full-time staff of five employees and various 

summer temporaries manage and study the refuge 

habitats and maintain visitor facilities. Domestic 

livestock grazing and prescribed fire are the primary 

management tools used to maintain and enhance 

upland habitats. Currently, four grazing cooperators 

are using refuge lands. Water level manipulation 

occurs in some areas of the refuge to improve 

wetland habitats. 

Approximately 12,000 people visit the refuge 

annually. Two refuge roads and three county roads 

that pass through the refuge account for the majority 

of visitor use. Visitors also use the trails at Sparrow 

Pond and Odell Creek to access the refuge. The 

refuge is open to limited fishing, with the majority of 

fishing occurring on Red Rock Creek where anglers 

can catch Arctic grayling, rainbow trout, Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout, and brook trout. In addition, the 

refuge is open to limited hunting of ducks, geese, 

coots, elk, pronghorn, moose, mule deer, and whitetail deer. 

2.2 VISION AND GOALS 

VISION STATEMENT 

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions 

for the future, that describes the essence of what the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to accomplish 

at the refuge. The vision for the refuge is a futureoriented statement designed to be achieved through 

refuge management throughout the life of this 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 21 

CCP and beyond. The following is the draft vision 

statement developed by the planning team for Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. 

The majestic Centennial Valley of southwest 


Montana is an expansive mosaic of mountain 


wetlands, grasslands, shrub lands, and forests 


framed by dramatic mountain peaks. Through 


partnerships and conservation programs, the 


valley has maintained its biological integrity 


and is a working landscape that remains largely 


undeveloped.
 

To this end, the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 


Refuge is a conservation leader in the valley 


working to maintain and restore natural processes 


to create and sustain native habitat for migratory 


and resident fish and wildlife. Visitors have a sense 


of solitude and wildness that lifts their spirits 


and stirs their souls. This fi rst-hand experience 


with the refuge encourages people to participate 


as stewards, not only of the refuge, but also of the 


natural resources in their own communities
 

GOALS 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a set 

of goals for the refuge based on the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act, the refuge’s 

purposes, and information developed during project 

planning. The goals direct efforts toward achieving 

the vision and purposes of the refuge and outline 

approaches for managing refuge resources. The 

Service established six goals for the refuge. 

Lake, Pond, and Marsh Habitat Goal—Provide 

habitat for breeding and migrating birds, native 

fishes, and resident wildlife that maintains the 

biological diversity and integrity of montane wetland 

systems. 

Riparian Habitat Goal—Maintain the processes 

necessary to sustain the biological diversity and 

integrity of native riparian vegetation for breeding 

birds, native fishes, and wintering ungulates. 

Wet Meadow, Grassland, and Shrub-steppe Habitat 

Goal—Provide structurally complex native meadow, 

grassland and shrub-steppe habitats within a 

watershed context, for sagebrush-dependent species, 

upland-nesting migratory birds, rare plant species, 

and other resident wildlife. 

Aspen Forest, Mixed Coniferous Forest, and 

Woodland Habitat Goal—Create and maintain aspen 

stands of various age classes within a mosaic of 

coniferous forest and shrub land for cavity-nesting 

birds and other migratory and resident wildlife. 

Visitor Services and Cultural Resources Goal— 

Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, 

interpretation, and outreach opportunities that 

nurture an appreciation and understanding of 

the unique natural and cultural resources of the 

Centennial Valley for visitors and local community 

members of all abilities, while maintaining the 

primitive and remote experience unique to the 

refuge. 

Refuge Operations Goal—Prioritize for wildlife fi rst 

and emphasize the protection of trust resources 

in the utilization of staff, funding, and volunteer 

programs. 

SPECIAL VALUES OF THE REFUGE 

Early in the planning process, the planning team 

and public identified the outstanding qualities of 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Refuge 

qualities are the characteristics and features of the 

refuge that make it special, valuable for wildlife, 

and worthy of refuge status. It was essential to 

identify these special values and ensure that they 

are conserved, protected, and enhanced through the 

planning process. Refuge qualities can be unique 

biological values, as well as something as simple as, 

“a quiet place to see a variety of birds and enjoy 

nature.” There are many attributes that make Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge unique and 

valued because it 

■	 is located in the middle of an important wildlife 

corridor linking the Greater Yellowstone and 

Bitterroot ecosystems (Merrill and Mattson 

2003, Servheen and Sandstrom 1993, Walker 

and Craighead 1999); 

■	 protects over 62,000 acres of the Centennial 

Valley in southwest Montana—the least 

developed valley of its size in the state; 

■	 encompasses the largest wetland complex in the 

Greater Yellowstone ecosystem; 

■	 contains 3,300 acres of sandhills habitat—one 

of only two places this habitat can be found in 

Montana; 

■	 represents one of the most diverse refuges 

in the contiguous United States, with 45 

identified vegetation associations according to 

the National Vegetation Classifi cation System 

(Anderson et al. 1998); 

■	 played an integral role in the continental 


restoration of trumpeter swans;
 

■	 continues to provide critical nesting habitat for 

a tri-state flock of trumpeter swans; 

■	 supports the last native lacustrine/adfl uvial 

population of Arctic grayling in the contiguous 

United States; 

■	 provides habitat for one of the highest-density 

wintering moose populations in Montana; 

■	 is in an area that has been a gathering spot for 

people and wildlife throughout time; 

■	 occurs in an area with rich paleohistory, early 

exploration, and settlement; 
22 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

■	 has historic buildings originally constructed by 

the Works Progress Administration; 

■	 has potential for a broad range of partnerships 

that are integral to every aspect of refuge 

management (that is, hunting, fi shing, research, 

and research); 

■	 provides visitors with a multitude of wildlifedependent recreational opportunities in a 

remote, peaceful, beautiful setting; 

■	 encompasses a 32,500-acre designated 


wilderness area
 

PLANNING ISSUES 

Several key issues were identified following the 

analysis of comments collected from refuge staff 

and the public and a review of the requirements 

of the Improvement Act and NEPA. Substantive 

comments (those that could be addressed within 

the authority and management capabilities of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) were considered 

during formulation of the alternatives for future 

management. Challenges abound within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and these issues will have to 

be reviewed, changed, and added to as management 

actions are put into place and as environmental and 

social issues interact with refuge purposes and plans. 

The key issues identified during this planning process 

are summarized below. 

Habitat And Wildlife Management 

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Caused 

by Residential Development 

Habitat loss is the greatest threat faced by North 

American wildlife. Maintaining the integrity of 

existing habitats and providing linkage zones 

between existing habitats is a key wildlife 

conservation strategy. Centrally situated between 

the Greater Yellowstone and Bitterroot ecosystems, 

two of the most intact, biologically diverse 

ecosystems in the contiguous United States, the 

refuge is ideally located to be a conservation leader 

to protect the Centennial Valley from fragmentation 

and residential development. 

Successful conservation leadership is attained 

through the development of partnerships. Partnering 

with conservation partners, local residents, and the 

Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, 

the refuge works to preserve the integrity of the 

Centennial Valley through conservation easements. 

These easements prevent further residential 

or commercial development while fostering 

the relationships necessary to pursue habitat 

improvements on adjacent private lands. The refuge 

also partners with state and other federal agencies 

and nongovernmental organizations to address local 

and regional wildlife management challenges. Recent 

efforts to improve the current status of Arctic 

grayling in the Red Rock Creek watershed have 

led to partnerships with the MFWP, The Nature 

Conservancy, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Management Assistance Offi ce. 

Grazing 

Demonstrating good stewardship of refuge lands 

is another example of how the refuge can be a 

conservation leader. Managing refuge resources 

based on the best available knowledge should be the 

starting point for management actions. This does 

not ensure success or lack of controversy due to the 

uncertainties regarding relationships among wildlife, 

habitat, and management activities. For example, 

the current grazing program on the refuge draws 

considerable criticism. It is known that Centennial 

Valley grasslands evolved with grazing by large 

native ungulates. The refuge currently provides 

that disturbance via cattle grazing, a controversial 

practice on public lands in the American West. 

While several public comments were supportive 

of a scientifically-based grazing system designed 

to benefit wildlife, there was also support for the 

termination of the grazing program and repatriation 

of bison on the refuge. 

Currently, the refuge has an Upland Management 

Plan that was written in 1994. The selected 

alternative was Adaptive Management by 

Prescription. Although details of how this 

management alternative would be implemented 

are described, this plan was never fully actualized. 

The grazing program is currently run on what is 

basically a 3-year rest or rotation schedule with very 

little monitoring of grazing impacts on habitats. In 

addition, fences have been removed or allowed to 

deteriorate, resulting in large units that preclude the 

prescribed “short duration—high intensity” grazing. 

Changes in the grazing program must take place in 

order for this to be an effective management tool for 

habitat manipulation and wildlife benefi t. 

Sage thrasher. 

Dave Menke/USFWS 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 23 

Red Rock Lakes Management 

Wetlands in the Intermountain West provide 

important habitat for migratory birds and other 

wetland-dependent wildlife. Similar to wetland 

habitats in other regions of North America, 

agriculture and development have resulted in the 

loss of approximately 57 % of Intermountain West 

wetlands to drainage. The significance of this loss is 

magnified due to the region’s largely arid landscape. 

However, management of these habitats is hindered 

by the relative scarcity of information on the ecology 

of montane wetlands, making it difficult to predict 

the response of these habitats to management actions 

intended to improve habitat quality for migratory 

birds. Greater understanding of montane wetland 

ecology would therefore improve the ability of 

managers to make sound science-based decisions 

regarding management of these important fl yway 

resources. 

“Red Rock Lakes” management is a broad priority 

encompassing Lower and Upper Red Rock lakes, 

Swan Lake, the River Marsh, and associated wetland 

areas. Species (such as swans, ibis, waterfowl, 

gulls, cormorants, and fishes) using this system of 

wetlands are inherently included in this priority. 

Current refuge objectives for wetland habitat 

management are to mimic disturbance processes 

believed necessary for maintaining ecological 

function of montane wetlands. The primary process 

of management interest is the dynamic wet/ 

dry hydrological cycle, a key driver of wetland 

productivity and vegetation community structure. 

Lower Red Rock Lake and the lower River Marsh 

have been influenced by a series of water control 

structures (WCSs) at the western boundary of 

the refuge since 1930. There are concerns that the 

WCSs may be negatively affecting the hydrological 

system of Lower Red Rock Lake and the River 

Marsh. Increasing temperatures and decreasing 

precipitation have also raised concerns regarding 

reduced water resources in the future and the impact 

on refuge wetland habitats. There is a question as 

to whether this structure would need to be used 

as a management tool to capture depleting water 

resources or if it should be removed. 

Arctic Grayling 

The restoration of wildlife populations and habitats 

has been a common theme of the planning process 

and public comments, and Arctic grayling are a 

particularly poignant example. The refuge population 

of Arctic grayling represents the only naturallyoccurring lacustrine/adfluvial population in the lower 

48 states. Currently, spawning numbers are very low. 

In addition, Arctic grayling are not spawning in most 

of their traditional spawning creeks (such as Tom 

Creek). Spawning only occurs in Red Rock and Odell 

creeks, putting this population at additional risk. 

Shiras Moose 

Shiras moose, a subspecies of moose found in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, commonly occur 

on the refuge. The state permits hunting of moose 

in Montana through a drawing for limited permits, 

some of which are issued in the unit encompassing 

the refuge. Numerous comments were received 

from the public addressing the refuge’s moose 

management and hunting programs. Many believed 

that moose populations have declined, stating that it 

is more difficult to view a moose on the refuge than in 

the past. MFWP winter survey data indicate moose 

numbers are relatively high and increasing on the 

refuge. Conversely, recent assessment of key moose 

habitat on the refuge indicates that there has been 

a reduction in willow browse intensity. This change 

in browse activity could be due to an undetected 

decline of moose or a redistribution of moose during 

nonwinter periods. Like many ungulates, moose will 

move into areas that have been recently disturbed by 

fire. A wildland fire in the Centennial Mountains in 

2003 burned over 14,000 acres, stimulating new aspen 

growth, a favorite food source of moose. If moose are 

capitalizing on this new growth during the summer, 

this would lead to their dispersion, a reduction 

in observation opportunities for visitors, and the 

perception of an overall decline in moose abundance. 

Refuge moose management is coordinated with 

the state to manipulate harvest for population 

regulation. Although the refuge comprises only 

a small proportion of the hunting district, a high 

percentage (approximately 90%) of moose harvested 

in the district is taken on refuge lands. Currently, 

three demes (resident, summer migrants, and winter 

migrants) are thought to comprise the refuge moose 

population. A deme is a local population which 

interbreed and share a distinct gene pool. Basic 

information regarding population status and trends, 

population structure, and landscape-level habitat 

use patterns is needed to assess the possible impacts 

of current management on both consumptive and 

nonconsumptive uses on the refuge. 

Willow and Aspen Habitats 

Herbivory frequently produces a landscape that 

would not have been created by the physical 

environment alone. Browsing by large mammalian 

herbivores can reduce the survival and competitive 

reproductive capacity of trees and shrubs, resulting 

in alterations to the structure and dynamics of plant 

communities. For example, Berger et al. (2001) found 

willows to be taller and have greater volume where 

moose densities were limited by predation (in the 

form of hunting). Similarly, elk overabundance has 

been linked to reduced reduced regeneration of aspen 

in the Rocky Mountains (Romme et al. 1995). 

Winter surveys conducted by MFWP between 

1966 and 2006 show that winter moose abundance 

in and around the refuge has increased by more 
24 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

than 2% annually throughout the period surveyed. 

Elk populations in southwestern Montana have 

experienced similar population growth. High browse 

intensity on aspen and willow has been documented 

in portions of the Centennial Valley, including refuge 

riparian habitats. This has led to concerns regarding 

possible impacts on the breeding migratory land bird 

community. Many western land bird populations are 

sensitive to diminution of aspen and willow due to 

their reliance on riparian habitats, and many riparian 

bird species are experiencing regional declines. Both 

bird species composition and community diversity in 

riparian habitats are broadly associated with vertical 

structural diversity of woody vegetation. The 

reduction of structural diversity due to high levels 

of browsing may alter the attractiveness of riparian 

habitats to some birds. 

There is general agreement among managers 

that browse intensity should be reduced in these 

habitats. However, there is uncertainty regarding 

the appropriate means to reach the desired habitat 

condition for breeding migratory land birds. 

Centennial Sandhills 

The Centennial Sandhills are one of only two 

significant sandhill areas in Montana. It is the highest 

sandhill system in the northern Rocky Mountains. 

Five plant species found in the sandhills are listed as 

rare in Montana. Two of these plant species (Idaho 

painted milkvetch and Idaho evening-primrose) only 

occur in the Centennial Sandhills and the sandhills 

located in southeast Idaho. The continued existence 

of these rare plant species depends on the existence 

of early successional habitat, which is currently 

lacking in the Centennial Sanhills on the refuge. 

Fire and grazing are two tools that may be used to 

improve conditions for the rare plants. The sandhills 

also contain rare fauna. Four state mammal species 

of special concern have been documented: Preble’s 

shrew, black-tailed jackrabbit, Great Basin pocket 

mouse, and pygmy rabbit. Four Montana Partners in 

Flight priority II bird species (Casey 2000) also use 

the sandhill habitat: long-billed curlew, sage thrasher, 

Brewer’s sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. 

While much of the refuge’s history has been focused 

on reducing the negative impacts of human activities 

on habitats (through reduced grazing and water 

diversion, elimination of haying), the management of 

the Centennial Sandhills may take a disparate path. 

The long-term reduction of disturbances (such as 

fire and grazing) has resulted in loss of early seral 

stage habitats, such as blowouts. Early seral sandhill 

habitat supports a variety of rare flora and fauna. 

This is evident by the species of plants and wildlife 

using the heavily-disturbed sandhills found on 

neighboring lands managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management. The refuge needs to determine the 

frequency and intensity of disturbance to achieve a 

desired mosaic while minimizing impacts on species 

such as sage grouse and Brewer’s sparrow, both 

dependent on late-seral sagebrush growth. 

Mixed Conifer Management 

Woodlands cover approximately 3,745 acres of the 

refuge. Little or no management has occurred in 

this habitat. Condition assessments and potential 

management actions need to be investigated. 

Stream Restoration 

There are several creeks/streams on the refuge that 

have been rerouted from their original streambeds. 

In addition, there are several streams where 

the riparian habitats have been degraded due to 

overgrazing, but have not been restored. Restoring 

these streams would be beneficial to wildlife using 

the refuge. 

Invasive Plant Species 

Integrated pest management is an important focus 

to minimize infestations due to the relatively natural 

state of the refuge. Although the refuge does have 

most native plant species represented, some of the 

areas that have historically been heavily grazed 

have converted to nonnative grasses, such as 

Kentucky bluegrass. Other invasive grass species 

were planted for increased forage, such as smooth 

brome. While these grasses provide some structure 

for grassland nesting birds, native grasses are much 

more desirable for their varied structure and rich 

nutrients in the seeds they produce. The refuge will 

be challenged to eradicate these hearty, widespread 

invasive grasses and restore treated sites. 

Wilderness 

Over 68% of the refuge (32,350 acres) is 

congressionally-designated wilderness. This 

designation recognizes the remote setting and 

relatively untrammeled nature of the refuge, 

while protecting these very attributes for future 

generations. This designation does add complexity to 

the management of the refuge. Habitat management 

may seem “inefficient” at times due to wilderness 

restrictions that prohibit the use of mechanized tools 

commonly used elsewhere. However, the Wilderness 

Act was designed to protect the attributes of, and not 

the efficiencies of managing wilderness areas. 

Prescribed Fire Program 

There is limited use of prescribed fire on the refuge. 


Only two burns have been conducted since 2004. 


A fire management plan (FMP) for the refuge was 


approved in 2002, but very little work has been done 


to carry out prescribed fire on the refuge for habitat 


management.
 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 25 

Visitor Services Program 

During the planning process it was clear that 

many people greatly appreciate the refuge for 

its wildlife, remoteness, and solitude. Designated 

both as a National Wilderness Area and National 

Natural Landmark, the refuge provides quiet, 

uncrowded wildlife-dependent recreation in a 

breath-taking setting. Many of the comments 

supported preserving the pristine character of the 

refuge. 

Overall, many participants and visitors identifi ed 

a need for greater public understanding and 

appreciation of the refuge and the recreational 

opportunities it offers. Many comments included 

poor directional signage, “unfriendly” boundary 

signage, inadequate brochures, outdated interpretive

panels, confusing regulations, and minimal visitor 

center information. A number of other recreational 

issues became apparent during the planning process 

and deserve further discussion. Specifi c recreational 

concerns and issues are summarized as follows. 

The refuge office, one of several historical structures. 

Laura King/USFWS 

Hunting 

Hunting for waterfowl and big game, including elk, 

mule and white-tailed deer, pronghorn, and moose, 

is a popular activity for visitors. Certain portions of 

the refuge are closed to big game hunting. Waterfowl 

hunting is limited to Lower Red Rock Lake. The 

remaining waterbodies are designated as sanctuaries 

for migratory waterbirds. All hunting seasons 

(except for moose) follow state regulations and 

limits. There is no commercial guiding or trapping 

permitted. Hunting on the refuge is important not 

only as a wildlife-dependent recreational activity 

but as a management tool to control large game that 

become concentrated in protected areas, damaging 

habitat. 

The public expressed many different points of view 

on whether to permit hunting on the refuge. The 

greatest concern was over moose hunting. Many 

commentors believed that the moose population 

is being impacted by the 11 permits (on average) 

issued by the state each year for the hunting district 

in which the refuge is located. Some commentors 

requested that all moose hunting be stopped. 

Overall, there are concerns about what species 

should be hunted and knowing the refuge’s goals 

and objectives with respect to management of game 

species. All commentors agreed that law enforcement 

is needed to better monitor and regulate this use. 

The illegal shooting of game from roads is a major 

concern on the refuge and in the valley. Because of 

the expansive views, many hunters drive up and 

down the road until they find an animal near the 

road. Instead of giving fair chase and moving off 

of the road past the right-of-way fence, it has been 

witnessed several times that the hunter(s) jump out 

of their vehicles and shoot from the road. Aside from 

being illegal, shooting from the road is unethical 

and unsafe for other hunters in the field and visitors 

driving the road. 

Fishing 

Fishing is a popular recreational activity on the 

refuge and is permitted on Red Rock, Odell, and 

Elk Springs creeks and Culver, MacDonald, and 

Widgeon ponds. Some of the most popular fi shing 

is for nonnative, invasive species such as brook 

trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and rainbow 

trout. The habitat alterations on the refuge, such as 

damming streams to create ponds, have supported 

these nonnative game fish. These habitat alterations 

and invasive fish have had a negative impact on 

the populations of native lacustrine/adfl uvial Arctic 

grayling and Westslope cutthroat trout, both species 

of concern and found in refuge waters. Fishing 

these nonnative game fish has become a popular 

refuge activity. A few public comments requested 

expanding fishing opportunities on the lakes, creating 

ponds, and other creeks but imposing restrictive 

regulations. There are concerns of potential impacts 

of increasing fishing pressure (especially on Red 

Rock Creek) on native fish species and the visitor 

experience. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The breath-taking scenery and abundant wildlife 

make wildlife observation and photography two of 

the most popular visitor service activities on the 

refuge. Most visitors independently explore the 

refuge, but many visitors request guidance on the 

best areas to view wildlife. Many of these areas 

are along the roads which are not improved for 

parking. There are two interpreted sites on the 

refuge, but no interpreted trails. Trails on the refuge 

and trails to access other public lands are minimal, 

in poor condition, are not interpreted, or are not 

listed in the general brochure. The refuge does 

not have an auto tour route. Numerous comments 

received during public scoping were in support of 

identifying hiking trails and other infrastructure to 
26 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

make wildlife observation and photography easier. 

Most emphasized that activities should not impact 

wildlife habitats or wilderness values, including the 

undeveloped qualities (limited and primitive signs, 

minimal roads, and abounding wildlife) of the refuge.

 Winter time wildlife viewing is particularly 

challenging, given the extreme winter weather and 

the unmaintained county gravel roads 

Environmental Education, Interpretation, and Outreach 

Environmental education programs are almost 

nonexistent. The closest schools are over 45 miles 

away and it can be challenging for buses to maneuver 

the county access roads during the school year. 

The refuge does not have an outdoor recreation or 

education specialist, and refuge-specific programs or 

kits are limited. The refuge’s website does provide 

information about the refuge, its management and 

resources, and wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities. It does not provide any interactive 

activities. The refuge’s remote location offers 

minimal opportunities to educate students and 

about the refuge’s purposes, current management 

programs, issues, and the importance of conserving 

the Centennial Valley. 

The refuge interpretive program is limited. A 

significant portion of the refuge is wilderness, and to 

protect the wilderness characteristic of the refuge, 

signage and trails are limited. There are four kiosks 

located at the office, entrance areas along county 

roads, and Upper Lake campground. There are two 

interpreted sites on the refuge but no interpreted 

trails. The refuge’s general brochure has been 

updated and meets Service standards. There is a 

need for an accurate fish and wildlife observation list 

that meets Service standards. Interpretive displays 

in the visitor contact area found in the refuge offi ce 

have recently been updated and expanded to provide 

information on the refuge’s role within the Greater 

Yellowstone Area and the Refuge System and to 

acquaint visitors with the natural and recreational 

resources at the refuge. 

Campgrounds 

The refuge has two primitive campgrounds, one at 

Upper Red Rock Lake (Upper Lake campground) 

and one at Lower Red Rock Lake (River Marsh 

campground). Although camping is not a wildlifedependent recreational activity, these campground 

areas are important for refuge visitors engaged 

in wildlife observation, photography, fi shing, and 

hunting. The remote location, minimally maintained 

county road condition, and lack of local lodging 

facilities have made these campgrounds essential 

to those visitors who wish to stay for multiple days. 

Most campground visitors have come to the refuge 

to bird watch, photograph wildlife, fish, hunt, and 

hike or bike the Continental Divide trails found in 

and around the refuge. There was overwhelming 

support and concern from the public to keep these 

campgrounds open. The refuge campgrounds are 

unique in that they require little maintenance by 

refuge staff. Visitors keep campsites clean, collect 

their trash, and cause little disturbance to other 

campers and visitors. 

Cultural Resources 

The refuge has only limited inventories of cultural 

resources, known primarily through investigations 

initiated by refuge activities that required 

compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. The refuge has several 

historical structures, most of which are still being 

used, including the refuge office, staff housing, and 

maintenance facilities. It can be challenging to keep 

these structures functional while maintaining their 

historical characteristics. 

Law Enforcement 

The refuge has no law enforcement staff and is 

almost 5 hours from the nearest station with region 

6 Service law enforcement staff. The refuge has 

always been a very popular hunting area for both big 

game and waterfowl. While most visitors respect the 

refuge and its resources, there will always be those 

who will “step outside” the laws and regulations. 

It is very difficult to prevent or respond to these 

violations without law enforcement staff on-site. 

The refuge has been contacted by numerous visitors 

and neighbors reporting suspected violators. The 

main issues include off-road use, illegal hunting, and 

trespass. Many public comments identified the need 

for law enforcement for all visitor service programs 

to protect wildlife, visitors, and wildlife habitat. 

Facilities, Staff, and Administration 

The refuge is responsible for managing over 62,000 

acres, both in fee title and conservation easements, 

all within the Centennial Valley. Current staff, 

funding levels, and facilities available to manage 

this large land base is inadequate. The refuge 

currently has a full-time staff of fi ve, including 

two managers, a biologist, an administrative 

assistant, and a maintenance worker. Supporting 

facilities include an office, four refuge houses, 

one maintenance building, a bunkhouse, and one 

outbuilding for storage. Although the refuge has 

been able to conduct many refuge programs through 

existing resources and partnerships, visitor services 

programs have been limited, and there have been 

missed opportunities for greater understanding, 

conservation, and enhancement of refuge resources. 

Some of the specific needs include: additional 

baseline data for some species, more effective 

management and enhancement of refuge habitats, 

monitoring of management actions, and orienting and 

educating visitors. In addition there is no on-site law 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 27 

enforcement presence to ensure the safety of staff, 

visitors, wildlife, and facilities. 

The refuge headquarters was recently expanded, 

to provide additional offices and a larger visitor 

contact area. Interpretive displays are being 

designed, highlighting the resources and wildlife 

that use this refuge and the Centennial Valley. Most 

of the remaining facilities are in need of repair, 

including the refuge residences, maintenance, other 

visitor facilities, signs, and fencing. The refuge has 

several historical structures including the refuge 

offi ce, fire tower, maintenance buildings, and two 

refuge houses. These structures are occupied, used 

daily, and require maintenance to not only keep 

them functional, but to preserve their historical 

character and integrity. This can be costly and timeconsuming. Universal accessibility can also be an 

issue with historical structures. Currently, only 

the office visitor contact area and restrooms are 

designated as universally accessible. The public also 

asked for proper maintenance of refuge facilities, 

but most requested that any changes to the refuges 

infrastructure be complimentary to the refuge’s 

rugged, undeveloped character. Due to a lack of 

private housing surrounding this remote refuge, 

most current refuge employees rent government 

housing. There are currently four refuge houses, 

built between the 1930s and 1950s. The lack of 

adequate housing has limited the recruitment of 

added staff and the expansion of refuge programs. 

Most refuge roads currently open to the public are 

in need of repair, some due to failed bridges. Many 

county roads that provide access through the refuge 

are not recommended for passenger vehicles due to a 

lack of regular maintenance and inadequate drainage. 

There are areas with insufficient visitor parking 

throughout the refuge. 

Directional, interpretive, boundary, and entrance 

signs are also in need of updating. 

Pronghorn are native to the refuge. 

Mike Parker/USFWS