Glossary
 

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas and 

activities for people of different abilities, especially 

those with physical impairments. 

adaptive resource management—The rigorous 

application of management, research, and monitoring 

to gain information and experience necessary to assess 

and modify management activities; a process that uses 

feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation of 

management actions to support or modify objectives 

and strategies at all planning levels; a process in 

which policy decisions are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test 

predictions and assumptions inherent in management 

plans. Analysis of results helps managers determine 

whether current management should continue “as is” 

or whether it should be modified to achieve desired 

conditions. 

adfl uvial—Lake dwelling. 

Administration Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. 

alternative—A reasonable way to solve an identifi ed 

problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 1500.2); 

one of several different means of accomplishing refuge 

purposes and goals and contributing to the Refuge 

System mission (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

amphibian—A class of cold-blooded vertebrates 

including frogs, toads or salamanders. 

annual—A plant that flowers and dies within 1 year of 

germination. 

baseline—A set of critical observations, data, or 

information used for comparison or as a control. 

biological control—The use of organisms or viruses to 

control invasive plants or other pests. 

biological diversity, also biodiversity—The variety of 

life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and 

the communities and ecosystems in which they occur 

(Service Manual 052 FW 1.12B). The National Wildlife 

Refuge System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological processes. 

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms; caused, 

produced by, or comprised of living organisms. 

blowout— An area denuded of vegetation due to rapid 

wind erosion. 

calcareous—Consisting of or containing calcium 

carbonate. 

canopy—A layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory 

vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure (also 

canopy cover) is an estimate of the amount of overhead 

vegetative cover. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

cfs—Cubic feet per second. 

clonal—A group of genetically identical individuals (e. 

g., plants, fungi, or bacteria) that have grown in a given 

location, all originating vegetatively (not sexually) 

from a single ancestor. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—The codifi cation 

of the general and permanent rules published in the 

Federal Register by the executive departments and 

agencies of the federal government. Each volume of 

the CFR is updated once each calendar year. 

compatibility determination—See compatible use. 

compatible use—A wildlife-dependent recreational 

use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the director of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission 

of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge 

(Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible 

uses and identified stipulations or limits necessary to 

ensure compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to 

the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet other 

relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

cool-season grasses—Grasses that begin growth 

earlier in the season and often become dormant in 

the summer. These grasses will germinate at lower 

temperatures. Examples of cool-season grasses at the 

refuge are western wheatgrass, needle and thread, and 

green needlegrass. 
 

128 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present 

vegetation of an area. 

cultural resources—The remains of sites, structures, 

or objects used by people in the past. 

deme—A local, usually stable population of 

interbreeding organisms of the same kind or species. 

depredation—Destruction or consumption of eggs, 

broods, or individual wildlife due to a predatory animal; 

damage inflicted on agricultural crops or ornamental 

plants by wildlife. 

drawdown—The act of manipulating water levels in an 

impoundment to allow for the natural drying-out cycle 

of a wetland. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

ecosystem—A dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated 

nonliving environment; a biological community, 

together with its environment, functioning as a 

unit. For administrative purposes, the Service has 

designated 53 ecosystems covering the United States 

and its possessions. These ecosystems generally 

correspond with watershed boundaries and their sizes 

and ecological complexity vary. 

ecotone—The transition zone between two different 

plant communities, as that between forest and prairie. 

ecotype—A subspecies or race that is especially 

adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions. 

EIS—Environmental impact statement. 

emergent—A plant rooted in shallow water and having 

most of the vegetative growth above water such as 

cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, federal—A plant or animal 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or throughout a significant portion of its 

range. 

endangered species, state—A plant or animal 

species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated 

in a particular state within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations 

of these species are at critically low levels or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a 

signifi cant degree. 

endemic species—Plants or animals that occur 

naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality. 

environmental assessment (EA)—A concise public 

document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefl y discusses 

the purpose and need for an action and alternatives 

to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and 

analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare 

an environmental impact statement or a finding of no 

significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

eutrophication--Characterized by an abundant 

accumulation of nutrients that support a dense growth 

of algae and other organisms, the decay of which 

depletes the shallow waters of oxygen in summer. 

extinction—The complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing. 

extirpation—The extinction of a population; complete 

eradication of a species within a specifi ed area. 

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals of 

an area. 

federal trust resource—A trust is something managed 

by one entity for another who holds the ownership. 

The Service holds in trust many natural resources for 

the people of the United States of America as a result 

of federal acts and treaties. Examples are species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act, migratory birds 

protected by international treaties, and native plant or 

wildlife species found on a national wildlife refuge. 

federal trust species—All species where the federal 

government has primary jurisdiction including 

federally endangered or threatened species, migratory 

birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. 

fen—An area of low, flat, marshy land. 

fl ora—All the plant species of an area. 

forb—A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seedproducing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that does 

not develop persistent woody tissue but dies down at 

the end of the growing season. 

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original 

habitat that are interspersed with a variety of other 

habitat types; the process of reducing the size and 

connectivity of habitat patches, making movement of 

individuals or genetic information between parcels 

difficult or impossible. 

geographic information system (GIS)—A computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data; a set of computer hardware and software for 

analyzing and displaying spatially referenced features 

(such as points, lines and polygons) with nongeographic 

attributes such as species and age. 

gleyed soil—Greenish-gray in color and oxygendeprived due to high water content. 

GIS—See geographic information system. 

goal—A descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units (Draft 

Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). 
Glossary 129 

graminoid—Grasses or grasslike plants such as sedges 

and rushes. 

grassland tract—A contiguous area of grassland 

without fragmentation. 

GS—General schedule (pay rate schedule for certain 

federal positions). 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; 

the place where an organism typically lives and grows. 

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type—A land 

classification system based on the concept of distinct 

plant associations. 

hypereutrophic—Very nutrient-rich lakes 

characterized by frequent and severe nuisance algal 

blooms and low transparency. Hypereutrophic lakes 

are the most biologically productive lakes, and support 

large amounts of plants, fish and other animals. 

Hypereutropic lakes have a visibility depth of <3 feet, 

they have >40 micrograms/liter total chlorophyll and 

>100 micrograms/liter phosphorus. 

Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

indigenous—Originating or occurring naturally in a 

particular place. 

integrated pest management—Methods of managing 

undesirable species such as invasive plants; education, 

prevention, physical or mechanical methods of control, 

biological control, responsible chemical use, and 

cultural methods. 

introduced species—A species present in an area 

due to intentional or unintentional escape, release, 

dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem as a 

result of human activity. 

invasive plant—A species that is nonnative to the 

ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction 

causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental 

harm or harm to human health. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision; for example, a Service initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, a threat 

to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public 

concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource 

condition (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

lacustrine—Of or pertaining to a lake. 

lek—A dancing ground for male sage grouse used to 

attract breeding females. 

management alternative—See alternative. 

mesic—Of, pertaining to, or adapted to an 

environment having a balanced supply of moisture. 

mesotrophic— Commonly clear water lakes and ponds 

with beds of submerged aquatic plants and medium 

levels of nutrients. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically from one 

region or climate to another for feeding or breeding. 

migratory birds—Birds that follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and 

songbirds are all migratory birds. 

mission—Succinct statement of purpose and/or reason 

for being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an 

environmental impact or to make an impact less 

severe. 

monitoring—The process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time. 

national wildlife refuge—A designated area of land, 

water, or an interest in land or water within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not include 

coordination areas; a complete listing of all units of 

the Refuge System is in the current “Annual Report 

of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)— 

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of 

fish and wildlife, including species threatened with 

extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; 

areas for the protection and conservation of fi sh and 

wildlife that are threatened with extinction; wildlife 

ranges; game ranges; wildlife management areas; and 

waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act)—Sets the mission and the 

administrative policy for all refuges in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; defines a unifying mission 

for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation); 

establishes a formal process for determining 

appropriateness and compatibility; establish the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System; requires 

a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge 

by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of the 

Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966. 

native species—A species that historically occurred 

or currently occurs in that ecosystem; does not include 

species that are present in an ecosystem as a result of 

an introduction. 
130 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Neotropical migrant—A bird species that breeds north 

of the United States and Mexican border and winters 

primarily south of this border. 

nest success—The percentage of nests that successfully 

hatch one or more eggs of the total number of nests 

initiated in an area. 

nongovernmental organization (NGO)—Any group that 

is not composed of federal, state, tribal, county, city, 

town, local, or other governmental entities. 

noxious weed—Any plant or plant product that can 

directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops 

(including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, 

poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, 

navigation, natural resources of the United States, 

public health, or the environment. 

objective—Concise target statement of what will 

be achieved, how much will be achieved, when and 

where it will be achieved, and who is responsible for 

the work; derived from goals and provide the basis for 

determining management strategies. Objectives should 

be attainable and time-specific and should be stated 

quantitatively to the extent possible. If objectives 

cannot be stated quantitatively, they may be stated 

qualitatively (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

obligates—Species which must occupy a certain niche 

or behave in a certain way in order to survive. 

palustrine—Relating to a system of inland, nontidal 

wetlands characterized by the presence of trees, 

shrubs, and emergent vegetation (vegetation that 

is rooted below water but grows above the surface). 

Palustrine wetlands range from permanently saturated 

or flooded land (as in marshes, swamps, and lake 

shores) to land that is wet only seasonally. 

patch—An area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental 

conditions. 

pelagic—Open water. 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life span 

of more than two years. 

permanent seasonal employee—See temporary 

seasonal employee. A permanent position with 

benefits, 40 hours per week during the season of 

employment, usually summer. 

plant community—An assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition; occurs in particular locations 

under particular influences; a reflection or integration 

of the environmental influences on the site such as soil, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, 

and rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax plant 

community, such as ponderosa pine or bunchgrass. 

pluvial lake—A lake that experiences signifi cant 

increase in depth and extent as a result of increased 

precipitation and reduced evaporation. 

prescribed fi re—The skillful application of fi re to 

natural fuels under conditions such as weather, fuel 

moisture, and soil moisture that allow confi nement 

of the fire to a predetermined area and produces the 

intensity of heat and rate of spread to accomplish 

planned benefits to one or more objectives of habitat 

management, wildlife management, or hazard 

reduction. 

priority public use—One of six uses authorized by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 to have priority if found to be compatible 

with a refuge’s purposes. This includes hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. 

proposed action—The alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

(contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses 

the significant issues, and is consistent with principles 

of sound fish and wildlife management). 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; offi cials 

of federal, state, and local government agencies; Indian 

tribes; and foreign nations. It may include anyone 

outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in Service 

issues and those who do or do not realize that Service 

decisions may affect them. 

public involvement or scoping—A process that offers 

affected and interested individuals and organizations 

an opportunity to become informed about and to 

express their opinions on Service actions and policies. 

In the process, these views are studied thoroughly and 

thoughtful consideration of public views is given in 

shaping decisions for refuge management. 

purpose of the refuge—The purpose of a refuge is 

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation 

document, or administrative memorandum establishing 

authorization or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or 

refuge subunit (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

raptor—A carnivorous bird such as a hawk, a falcon, or 

a vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on meat taken by 

hunting or on carrion (carcasses). 

refuge operations needs system (RONS)—A national 

database that contains the unfunded operational needs 

of each refuge. Projects included are those required to 

implement approved plans and meet goals, objectives, 

and legal mandates. 

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System. 
Glossary 131 

refuge use—Any activity on a refuge, except 

administrative or law enforcement activity, carried 

out by or under the direction of an authorized Service 

employee. 

resident species—A species inhabiting a given locality 

throughout the year; nonmigratory species. 

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands. 

restoration—Management emphasis designed to move 

ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, such 

as healthy upland habitats and aquatic systems. 

riparian corridor—An area or habitat that is 

transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems 

including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent 

plant communities and their associated soils that 

have free water at or near the surface; an area whose 

components are directly or indirectly attributed 

to the influence of water; of or relating to a river; 

specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes the 

land immediately adjoining and directly infl uenced by 

streams. For example, riparian vegetation includes all 

plant life growing on the land adjoining a stream and 

directly influenced by the stream. 

scoping—The process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers. 

senior water users— water users with a water right 

that was filed “earlier” than the Services 

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

shorebird—Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds, 

such as a plover or a snipe, that frequent the seashore 

or mud fl at areas. 

sodic—Soil containing sodium. 

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the 

character of space. 

special use permit—A permit for special authorization 

from the refuge manager required for any refuge 

service, facility, privilege, or product of the soil 

provided at refuge expense and not usually available 

to the general public through authorizations in Title 50 

CFR or other public regulations (Refuge Manual 5 RM 

17.6). 

step-down management plan—A plan that provides 

the details necessary to implement management 

strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation 

plan (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

strategy—A specific action, tool, or technique or 

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 

1.5). 

temporal— Of or relating to time. 

temporary seasonal employee—See permanent 

seasonal employee. A temporary position without 

benefits, 40 hours per week during the season of 

employment, usually summer. The position will be reopened for candidates each year. 

threatened species, federal—Species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that are 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of their 

range. 

threatened species, state—A plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered in a particular state 

within the near future if factors contributing to 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue. 

trust resource—See federal trust resource. 

trust species—See federal trust species. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS, 

FWS)—The principal federal agency responsible for 

conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. The Service manages the 93-millionacre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of 

more than 530 national wildlife refuges and thousands 

of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 

national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological service fi eld 

stations, the agency enforces federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores national 

signifi cant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife 

habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered 

Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their 

conservation efforts. It also oversees the federal aid 

program that distributes millions of dollars in excise 

taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state 

wildlife agencies. 

USFWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—A federal agency 

whose mission is to provide reliable scientifi c 

information to describe and understand the earth; 

minimize loss of life and property from natural 

disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and 

mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality 

of life. 

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey. 

ungulate—A hooved animal such as a white-tailed deer 

or bison. 

vegetation alliance— A physiognomically (pertaining 

to physical features, character, or appearance) 

uniform group of vegetation associations sharing one 

or more diagnostic (dominant, differential, indicator, 

or character) species that, as a rule, are found in 

the uppermost stratum of the vegetation. This is 
132 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

the second finest level in the National Vegetation 

Classification Standard hierarchy. 

vision statement—A concise statement of the desired 

future condition of the planning unit, based primarily 

on the Refuge System mission, specifi c refuge 

purposes, and other relevant mandates (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of a plant 

community; the height of vegetation that blocks the 

view of predators and conspecifics to a nest. 

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—A method of 

visually quantifying vegetative structure and 

composition. 

VOR—See visual obstruction reading. 

wading birds—These birds have long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water; wading birds include 

egrets, great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, 

and bitterns. 

waterbird— Birds dependent upon aquatic habitats 

to complete portions of their life cycles (for example, 

breeding). 

waterfowl—A category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans. 

watershed—The region draining into a river, a river 

system, or a body of water. 

wetland management district (WMD)—Land that the 

Refuge System acquires with Federal Duck Stamp 

funds for restoration and management primarily as 

prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl and other 

wetland birds. 

WG—wage grade schedule (pay rate schedule for 

certain federal positions). 

wildland fi re—A free-burning fire requiring a 

suppression response; all fire other than prescribed fi re 

that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, or 

interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these are the 

six priority general public uses of the Refuge System. 

WMD—See wetland management district. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns which do 

not usually touch, generally forming 25–60% cover. 

WPA—Works Progress Administration or Waterfowl 

Production Area 

WUI—wildland–urban interface. 
Appendix A 

Key Legislation and Policies 

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and other policies 

and key legislation that guide the management of 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997) 

GOALS 

■	 To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge 

purpose(s) and further the Refuge System 

mission. 

■	 Conserve, restore where appropriate, and 

enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants 

that are endangered or threatened with 

becoming endangered. 

■	 Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional 

fish, and marine mammal populations. 

■	 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants. 

■	 Conserve and restore, where appropriate, 

representative ecosystems of the United States, 

including the ecological processes characteristic 

of those ecosystems. 

■	 To foster understanding and instill appreciation 

of fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

conservation, by providing the public with safe, 

high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent 

public use. Such use includes hunting, fi shing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

There are four guiding principles for management 

and general public use of the Refuge System 

established by Executive Order 12996 (1996): 

■	 Public Use—The Refuge System provides 

important opportunities for compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

■	 Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper 

without high-quality habitat and without 

fish and wildlife, traditional uses of refuges 

cannot be sustained. The Refuge System will 

continue to conserve and enhance the quality 

and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within 

refuges. 

■	 Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and 

women were the first partners who insisted 

on protecting valuable wildlife habitat within 

wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships 

with other federal agencies, state agencies, 

tribes, organizations, industry, and the general 

public can make significant contributions to the 

growth and management of the Refuge System. 

■	 Public Involvement—The public should be 

given a full and open opportunity to participate 

in decisions regarding acquisition and 

management of our national wildlife refuges. 

LEGAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE 

Management actions on national wildlife refuges are 

circumscribed by many mandates including laws and 

executive orders, the latest of which is the Volunteer 

and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 

1998. Regulations that affect refuge management the 

most are listed below. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(1978)—Directs agencies to consult with native 

traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate 

policy changes necessary to protect and preserve 

Native American religious cultural rights and 

practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorizes the scientifi c 

investigation of antiquities on federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects 

taken or collected without a permit. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 

(1974)—Directs the preservation of historic and 

archaeological data in federal construction projects. 
 

134 Draft CCP and EA,Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), 

as amended—Protects materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction 

and requires federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Requires federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977)—Requires consultation with 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for 

major wetland modifi cations. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)—Promotes 

wetland conservation for the public benefit to help 

fulfill international obligations in various migratory 

bird treaties and conventions. The act authorizes 

the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund monies. 

Endangered Species Act (1973)—Requires all federal 

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species. 

Executive Order No. 7023 (1935)—Establishes Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and 

breeding ground for birds.” 

Executive Order 11988 (1977)—Requires federal 

agencies to provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of 

floods on human safety, and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by the fl oodplains. 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General 

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(1996)—Defines the mission, purpose, and priority 

public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It 

also presents four principles to guide management of 

the Refuge System. 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites 

(1996)—Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such 

sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the 

confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—Requires the use of 

integrated management systems to control or contain 

undesirable plant species and an interdisciplinary 

approach with the cooperation of other federal and 

state agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950)—Requires the preservation 

of evidence of the government’s organization, functions, 

policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as 

basic historical and other information. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)— Directs the Secretary 

of the Interior to develop the policies and procedures 

necessary for carrying out fish and wildlife laws and 

to research and report on fish and wildlife matters. 

The act establishes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

within the Department of the Interior, as well as the 

positions of Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 

and Director of the Service. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)—Allows 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

management purposes. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—Establishes 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gifts 

of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

(1934)—Authorizes the opening of part of a refuge to 

waterfowl hunting. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designates 

the protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility; and enables the setting of seasons and 

other regulations, including the closing of areas, federal 

or nonfederal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—Requires 

all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public 

participation in the planning and implementation of all 

actions. Federal agencies must integrate this Act with 

other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision 

making. [From the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), 40 CFR 1500] 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as 

amended—Establishes as policy that the federal 

government is to provide leadership in the 

preservation of the nation’s prehistoric and historical 

resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966)—Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit 

any use of a refuge, provided such use is compatible 

with the major purposes for which the refuge was 

established. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997—Sets the mission and administrative policy for 

all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

mandates comprehensive conservation planning for all 

units of the Refuge System. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)—Requires federal agencies and museums 

to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allows the use of 

refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when suffi cient 

funds are available to manage the uses. 
Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Requires programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for 

all facilities and programs funded by the federal 

government to ensure that any person can participate 

in any program. 

Appendix A — Key Legislation and Policies 135 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act (1998)—Encourages the use of volunteers to help in 

the management of refuges within the Refuge System; 

facilitates partnerships between the Refuge System 

and nonfederal entities to promote public awareness 

of the resources of the Refuge System and public 

participation in the conservation of the resources; and 

encourages donations and other contributions. 

Appendix B 

List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination 

This document is the result of the extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by members of the 

planning team shown below. 

Team Member Position Work Unit 

Suzanne Beachaine 

Bob Brannon 

Mark Ely 

Wildlife refuge specialist (assistant 

manager) 

Area biologist 

Geographic information system (GIS) 

specialist 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, MT 

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; region 

3; Sheridan, Montana 

Division of Planning, Region 6, 

Lakewood, CO 

Susan Hale Editor TBC Solutions, Clinton, TN 

Laura King Planning team leader Division of Planning, Region 6, Cayuga, 

ND 

Karen Newlon 

Mike Parker 

Jeff Warren 

Former biological science technician 

(wildlife) 

Former Refuge manager 

Wildlife biologist 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, MT 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, MT 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, MT 

Many organizations, agencies, and individuals provided invaluable assistance with the preparation of this 

CCP. The Service acknowledges the efforts of the following individuals and groups towards the completion 

of this plan. The diversity, talent, and knowledge contributed dramatically improved the vision and 

completeness of this document. 

Contributor Position Work Unit 

Steve Berenzen Former refuge supervisor USFWS 

Glenn Boltz Fisheries biologist USFWS 

Rick Coleman Assistant regional director, Refuge 

System USFWS 

Tim Covino Graduate student, hydrology Montana State University 

Steve Custer Professor, earth sciences Montana State University 

John Esperance Chief, Comprehensive and Land 

Protection Planning USFWS 

Sheri Fetherman Chief, Division of Education and Visitor 

Services USFWS 

Sean Fields Wildlife biologist/GIS USFWS 
138 Draft CCP and EA,Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Contributor Position Work Unit 

Brian Hackett Range specialist BLM 

Dave Hamilton Ecologist USGS 

Shannon Heath Outdoor recreation planner USFWS 

Lynn Kaeding Fisheries biologist USFWS 

Richard Keigley Research ecologist USGS 

Wayne King Wildlife biologist USFWS 

Nathan Korb Biologist The Nature Conservancy 

Murray Laubhan Former ecologist USGS, formerly 

Rachel Laubhan Wildlife biologist USFWS 

Peter Lesica Range management consultant Independent consultant 

Brian McGlynn Professor, watershed hydrology Montana State University 

Jim Mogen Fisheries biologist USFWS 

Jana Mohrman Hydrologist USFWS 

Deb Parker Writer and Editor USFWS 

Ken Pierce Geologist emeritus USGS 

David Redhorse Former Native American liaison USFWS 

Jay Rotella Professor of ecology Montana State University 

Dean Rundle Refuge supervisor USFWS 

Rick Schroeder Wildlife biologist USGS 

Richard Sodja Wildlife biologist USGS 

Michael Spratt Chief, Division of Refuge Planning USFWS 

Meg Van Ness Regional archeologist USFWS 
Appendix C
 

Public Involvement 

A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and 

environmental assessment (EA) was published in 

the Federal Register on June 12, 2006. A mailing 

list of more than 250 names was compiled during 

preplanning; the list includes private citizens; local, 

regional, and state government representatives and 

legislators; other federal agencies; and interested 

organizations. Public scoping began immediately 

after publication of the NOI and was announced 

through news releases and issuance of the fi rst 

planning update in July 2006. Information was 

provided on the history of the refuge and the CCP 

process, along with an invitation to public scoping 

meetings. Each planning update included a comment 

form and postage-paid envelope to give the public an 

opportunity to provide written comments. Emails 

were also accepted at the refuge’s email address 

Redrocks@fws.gov. 

Three public scoping meetings were held within a 

2-hour drive of the refuge office. There were over 35 

attendees, primarily local citizens and surrounding 

ranchers. Following a presentation about the 

refuge and an overview of the CCP and National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, 

attendees were encouraged to ask questions and 

offer comments. Verbal comments were recorded, 

and each attendee was given a comment form to 

submit additional thoughts or questions in writing. 

All written comments were due September 15, 

2006. A total of 55 additional written comments 

were received throughout the scoping process. All 

comments were shared with the planning team and 

considered throughout the planning process. 

FEDERAL OFFICIALS 

U.S. Representative Dennis Rehberg, Washington 

DC 

Representative Rehberg State Office, Missoula, MT 

U.S. Senator Max Baucus, Washington DC 

Sen. Baucus’s Area Director, Bozeman, MT 

U.S. Senator John Tester, Washington DC 

Sen. Tester’s Area Director, Bozeman, MT 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

National Forest Service, Dillon, MT 

National Forest Service, Ennis, MT 

Bureau of Land Management, Dillon, MT 

National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, 

MT 

Bureau of Reclamation, Dillon, MT 

Agricultural Research Service, Dubois, ID 

U.S. Geological Service, Fort Collins Science Center, 

Fort Collins, CO 

U.S. Geological Service, Bozeman, MT 

TRIBAL OFFICIALS 

Eastern Shoshone Business Council, Ft. Washakie, 

WY 

Crow Tribe of Indians, Crow Agency, MT 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council, Lame Deer, MT 

Araphaho Business Council, Fort Washakie, WY 

STATE OFFICIALS 

Governor Brian Schweitzer, Helena, MT 

Mary Sexton, Office of the Governor, Helena, MT 

Representative Diane Rice, Harrison, MT 

Representative Bill Tash, Dillon, MT 

Representative Debbie Barrett, Dillon, MT 

Representative Roger Koopman, Bozeman, MT 

Representative John Sinrud, Bozeman, MT 

Representative Jack Wells, Bozeman, MT 

Senator Gary Perry, Manhattan, MT 

Senator Steve Gallus, Butte, MT 

Senator Joe Balyeat, Bozeman, MT 

STATE AGENCIES 

Montana Department of State Lands, Dillon, MT 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Bozeman, MT 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, West Yellowstone, 

MT 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Dillon, MT 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Sheridan, MT 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 

Helena, MT 

Harriman State Park, Island Park, ID 

Idaho Fish and Game, Boise, ID 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Dillon, MT 

Montana Historical Society and Preservation Offi ce, 

Helena, MT 
140 Draft CCP and EA,Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

Madison County Commissioners, Madison, MT 

Gallatin County Commissioners, Belgrad, MT 

Beaverhead County Commissioners, Dillon, MT 

Beaverhead County Road Department, Dillon, MT 

Beaverhead County Weed Coordinator, Dillon, MT 

Beaverhead County Planner, Dillon, MT 

ORGANIZATIONS 

Conservation Endowment Fund, Lima, MT 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Bozeman, MT 

Gallatin Wildlife Association, Bozeman, MT 

Centennial Valley Association, Idaho Falls, ID 

Henry’s Lake Foundation, Island Park, ID 

Montana Wildlife Federation, Helena, MT 

Montana Audubon, Helena, MT 

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, 

Bozeman, MT 

Wilderness Watch, Missoula, MT 

American Wildlands, Missoula, MT and Bozeman, MT 

Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, TN and Lincoln, MT 

Pintler Audubon Society, Dillon, MT 

Wildlife Conservation Society, Bozeman, MT 

Defenders of Wildlife, Bozeman, MT and Washington 

DC 

Trumpeter Swan Society, Wayan, ID 

Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA and Bozeman, MT 

The Nature Conservancy, Bozeman, MT 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula, MT 

Trout Unlimited, Missoula, MT 

Montana Wilderness Association, Dillon, MT 

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington 

DC 

The Wilderness Society, Washington D.C. and 

Bozeman, MT 

Audubon Society, Washington DC and New York, 

NY 

North American Nature Photography Association, 

Wheat Ridge, CO 

Animal Protection Institute 

Beyond Pesticides 

Wildlife Management Institute 

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA 

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, 

WV 

Fund for Animals 

Isaac Walton League, Gaithersburg, MD 

American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA 

U.S. Humane Society, Washington DC 

UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES, AND 

SCHOOLS 

Montana Tech, Butte, MT 

University of Montana–Western, Dillon, MT 

Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 

MEDIA 

Dillon Tribune, Dillon, MT 

Montana Standard, Butte, MT 

Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Bozeman, MT 

West Yellowstone News, West Yellowstone, MT 

KDBM Radio, Dillon, MT 

KBOW and KOPR Radio, Butte, MT 

KWYS and KEZQ Radio, Idaho Falls, ID 

The Missoulian, Missoula, MT 

KID Radio, Idaho Falls, ID 

KUPI Radio and Sandhills Media, Idaho Falls, ID 

The Post Register, Idaho Falls, ID 

Rexburg Standard Journal, Rexburg, ID 

Idaho State Journal, Pocatello, ID 

Dillonite Daily, Dillon, MT 

INDIVIDUALS 

78 private individuals 
Appendix D
 

Species List 

Below is a list of resident and migrant wildlife and 

plant species found at or adjacent to Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

This list includes all mammals, fish, and herpetofauna 

expected to occur on Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge based on refuge fi les, unpublished 

systematic survey data, and other relevant literature 

and data that pertains to southwest Montana. Bird 

species listed in this appendix are based on the Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Bird List, 

as well as additional information from refuge fi les. 

Plant species listed in this appendix are based upon 

plant collections made on or near the refuge (Dorn 

1969, Culver 1994, Paullin 1971), refuge files, and the 

recent vegetation mapping of the refuge (Newlon 

2007). 

Taxonomic order follows the Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (http://www.itis.gov) and the 

“Check-list of North American Birds” ([anon.] 2007). 

CLASS AMPHIBIA 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name 

Caudata Blotched tiger salamander Ambystoma mavortium melanostictum 

Anura Western toad Bufo boreas 

Anura Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris 

Anura Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris maculate 

CLASS REPTILIA 

Order 

Squamata 

Common Name 

Western terrestrial garter snake 

Scientifi c Name 

Thamnophis elegans 

CLASS AVES 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name 

Anseriformes Snow goose Chen caerulescens 

Anseriformes Ross’s goose Chen rossii 

Anseriformes Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons 

Anseriformes Canada goose Branta canadensis 

Anseriformes Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator 

Anseriformes Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus 

Anseriformes Mute swan Cygnus olor 

Anseriformes Black swan Cygnus atratus 

Anseriformes Wood duck Aix sponsa 

Anseriformes Gadwall Anas strepara 

Anseriformes American Pigeon Anas americana 

Anseriformes Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Anseriformes Blue-winged teal Anas discors 

Anseriformes Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera 

Anseriformes Northern shoveler Anas clypeata 

Anseriformes Northern pintail Anas acuta 

Anseriformes Green-winged teal Anas crecca 
142 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Order 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Anseriformes 

Galliformes 

Galliformes 

Galliformes 

Galliformes 

Galliformes 

Galliformes 

Gaviiformes 

Gaviiformes 

Podicipediformes 

Podicipediformes 

Podicipediformes 

Podicipediformes 

Podicipediformes 

Podicipediformes 

Pelicaniformes 

Pelicaniformes 

Ciconiiformes 

Ciconiiformes 

Ciconiiformes 

Ciconiiformes 

Ciconiiformes 

Ciconiiformes 

Ciconiiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Common Name 

Canvasback 

Redhead 

Ring-necked duck 

Lesser scaup 

Greater scaup 

Buffl ehead 

Common goldeneye 

Barrow’s goldeneye 

Hooded merganser 

Common merganser 

Red-breasted merganser 

Ruddy duck 

Surf scoter 

White-winged scoter 

Long-tailed duck 

Harlequin duck 

Ruffed grouse 

Blue grouse 

Greater sage grouse 

Columbia sharp-tailed grouse 

Gray partridge 

Ring-necked pheasant 

Common loon 

Arctic loon 

Pied-billed grebe 

Horned grebe 

Red-necked grebe 

Eared grebe 

Western grebe 

Clark’s grebe 

American white pelican 

Double-crested cormorant 

American bittern 

Great blue heron 

Great egret 

Snowy egret 

Black-crowned night-heron 

White-faced ibis 

Turkey vulture 

Osprey 

Bald eagle 

Northern harrier 

Sharp-shinned hawk 

Cooper’s hawk 

Northern goshawk 

Swainson’s hawk 

Red-tailed hawk 

Scientifi c Name 

Aythya valisineria 

Aythya Americana 

Aythya collaris 

Aythya affi nis 

Aythya marila 

Bucephala albeola 

Bucephala clangula 

Bucephala islandica 

Lophodytes cucullatus 

Mergus merganser 

Mergus serrator 

Oxyura jamaicensis 

Melanitta perspicillata 

Melanitta fusca 

Clangula hyemalis 

Histrionicus histrionicus 

Bonasa umbellus 

Dendragapus obscurus 

Centrocercus urophasianus 

Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus 

Perdix perdix 

Phasianus colchicus 

Gavia immer 

Gavia arctica 

Podylimbus podiceps 

Podiceps auritus 

Podiceps grisegena 

Podiceps nigricollis 

Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Aechmophorus clarkii 

Pelecanus erythrocephalus 

Phalacrocorax auritus 

Botaurus lentiginosus 

Ardea Herodias 

Ardea alba 

Egretta caerulea 

Nycticorax nycticorax 

Plegadis chihi 

Cathartes aura 

Pandion haliaetus 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Circus cyaneus 

Accipiter striatus 

Accipiter cooperii 

Accipiter gentilis 

Buteo swainsoni 

Buteo jamaicensis 
Appendix D— Species List 143 

Order 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Falconiformes 

Gruiformes 

Gruiformes 

Gruiformes 

Gruiformes 

Gruiformes 

Gruiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Common Name 

Ferruginous hawk 

Rough-legged hawk 

Golden eagle 

American kestrel 

Merlin 

Peregrine falcon 

Prairie falcon 

Gyrfalcon 

Virginia rail 

Yellow rail 

Sora 

American coot 

Sandhill crane 

Whooping crane 

Killdeer 

Semipalmated plover 

Mountain plover 

Snowy plover 

Black-bellied plover 

Black-necked stilt 

American avocet 

Greater yellowlegs 

Lesser yellowlegs 

Solitary sandpiper 

Willet 

Spotted sandpiper 

Upland sandpiper 

Long-billed curlew 

Marbled godwit 

Long-billed dowitcher 

Wilson’s snipe 

American woodcock 

Wilson’s phalarope 

Red-necked phalarope 

Parasitic jaeger 

Sanderling 

Semipalmated sandpiper 

Western sandpiper 

Least sandpiper 

White-rumped sandpiper 

Pectoral sandpiper 

Dunlin 

Baird’s sandpiper 

Franklin’s gull 

Ring-billed gull 

California gull 

Herring gull 

Scientifi c Name 

Buteo regalis 

Buteo lagopus 

Aquila chrysaetos 

Falco sparverius 

Falco columbarius 

Falco peregrinus 

Falco mexicanus 

Falco rusticolus 

Rallus limicola 

Coturnicops noveboracensis 

Porzana carolina 

Fulica Americana 

Grus canadensis 

Grus americana 

Charadrius vociferous 

Charadrius semipalmatus 

Charadrius montanus 

Charadrius alexandrius 

Pluvialis squatarola 

Himantopus mexicanus 

Recurvirostra americana 

Tringa melanoleuca 

Tringa fl avipes 

Tringa solitaria 

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Actitis macularia 

Bartamia longicauda 

Numenius americanus 

Limosa fedoa 

Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Gallinago delicata 

Scolopax minor 

Phalaropus tricolor 

Phalaropus lobatus 

Stercorarius parasiticus 

Calidris alba 

Calidris pusilla 

Calidris mauri 

Calidris minutilla 

Calidris fuscicollis 

Calidris melanotos 

Calidris alpina 

Calidris bairdii 

Larus pipixcan 

Larus delawarensis 

Larus californicus 

Larus argentatus 
144 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Order 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Charadriiformes 

Columbiformes 

Columbiformes 

Columbiformes 

Cuculiformes 

Cuculiformes 

Strigiformes 

Strigiformes 

Strigiformes 

Strigiformes 

Strigiformes 

Strigiformes 

Strigiformes 

Strigiformes 

Caprimulgiformes 

Apodiformes 

Apodiformes 

Apodiformes 

Apodiformes 

Apodiformes 

Coraciiformes 

Piciformes 

Piciformes 

Piciformes 

Piciformes 

Piciformes 

Piciformes 

Piciformes 

Piciformes 

Piciformes 

Piciformes 

Passeriformes 

Passeriformes 

Passeriformes 

Passeriformes 

Passeriformes 

Passeriformes 

Passeriformes 

Passeriformes 

Passeriformes 

Passeriformes 

Passeriformes 

Passeriformes 

Common Name 

Bonaparte’s gull 

Forster’s tern 

Black tern 

Caspian tern 

Common tern 

Mourning dove 

Band-tailed pigeon 

Rock pigeon 

Black-billed cuckoo 

Yellow-billed cuckoo 

Great horned owl 

Burrowing owl 

Long-eared owl 

Short-eared owl 

Northern saw-whet owl 

Northern pygmy-owl 

Western screech-owl 

Great gray owl 

Common nighthawk 

White-throated swift 

Broad-tailed hummingbird 

Rufous hummingbird 

Calliope hummingbird 

Black-chinned hummingbird 

Belted kingfi sher 

Lewis’ woodpecker 

Red-headed woodpecker 

Downy woodpecker 

Hairy woodpecker 

Black-backed woodpecker 

American three-toed woodpecker 

Pileated woodpecker 

Northern fl icker 

Red-naped sapsucker 

Williamson’s sapsucker 

Western kingbird 

Eastern kingbird 

Say’s phoebe 

Willow fl ycatcher 

Dusky fl ycatcher 

Hammond’s fl ycatcher 

Cordilleran fl ycatcher 

Least fl ycatcher 

Western wood-peewee 

Olive-sided fl ycatcher 

Horned lark 

Tree swallow 

Scientifi c Name 

Larus philadelphia 

Sterna forsteri 

Sterna niger 

Sterna caspia 

Sterna hirundo 

Zenaida macroura 

Patagioenas fasciata 

Columba livia 

Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Coccyzus americanus 

Bubo virginianus 

Athene cunicularia 

Asio otus 

Asio fl ammeus 

Aegolius acadicus 

Glaucidium gnoma 

Megascops kennicottii 

Strix nebulosa 

Chordeiles minor 

Aeronautes saxatalis 

Selasphorus platycercus 

Selasphorus rufus 

Stellula calliope 

Archilochus alexandri 

Ceryle alcyon 

Melanerpes lewis 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Picoides pubescens 

Picoides villosus 

Picoides arcticus 

Picoides dorsalis 

Dryocopus pileatus 

Colaptes auratus 

Sphyrapicus nuchalis 

Sphyrapicus thyroideus 

Tyrannus verticalis 

Tyrannus forfi catus 

Saynoris saya 

Empidonax traillii 

Empidonax oberholseri 

Empidonax hammondii 

Empidonax occidentalis 

Empidonax minimus 

Contopus sordidulus 

Contopus cooperi 

Eremophila alpestris 

Tachycineta bicolor 
Appendix D — Species List 145 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name 

Passeriformes Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina 

Passeriformes Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Passeriformes Bank swallow Riparia riparia 

Passeriformes Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Passeriformes Barn swallow Hirundo rustica 

Passeriformes Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri 

Passeriformes Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus 

Passeriformes Gray jay Perisoreus Canadensis 

Passeriformes Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata 

Passeriformes Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia 

Passeriformes American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Passeriformes Common raven Corvus corax 

Passeriformes Clark’s nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana 

Passeriformes Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricappila 

Passeriformes Mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli 

Passeriformes American dipper Cinclus mexicanus 

Passeriformes Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

Passeriformes White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

Passeriformes Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea 

Passeriformes Brown creeper Certhia americana 

Passeriformes House wren Troglodytes aedon 

Passeriformes Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes 

Passeriformes Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus 

Passeriformes Canyon wren Catherpes mexicanus 

Passeriformes Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 

Passeriformes Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Passeriformes Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 

Passeriformes Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus 

Passeriformes American robin Turdus migratorius 

Passeriformes Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi 

Passeriformes Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Passeriformes Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus 

Passeriformes Veery Catharus fuscescens 

Passeriformes Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides 

Passeriformes Western bluebird Sialia mexicana 

Passeriformes Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Passeriformes Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula 

Passeriformes American pipit Anthus rubescens 

Passeriformes Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii 

Passeriformes Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulous 

Passeriformes Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

Passeriformes Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Passeriformes Northern shrike Lanius excubitor 

Passeriformes European starling Sturnus vulgaris 

Passeriformes Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 

Passeriformes Cassin’s vireo Vireo cassinii 

Passeriformes Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 
146 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name 

Passeriformes Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina 

Passeriformes Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata 

Passeriformes Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 

Passeriformes Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata 

Passeriformes Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi 

Passeriformes Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Passeriformes Common yellowthroat Geothlipis trichas 

Passeriformes MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei 

Passeriformes Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla 

Passeriformes Yellow-brested chat Icteria virens 

Passeriformes American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

Passeriformes House sparrow Passer domesticus 

Passeriformes Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Passeriformes Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 

Passeriformes Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Passeriformes Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Passeriformes Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Passeriformes Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Passeriformes Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater 

Passeriformes Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii 

Passeriformes Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana 

Passeriformes Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus 

Passeriformes Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Passeriformes Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Passeriformes Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena 

Passeriformes Cassin’s fi nch Carpodacus cassinii 

Passeriformes House fi nch Carpodacus mexicanus 

Passeriformes Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator 

Passeriformes Gray-crowned rosy fi nch Leucosticte tephrocotis 

Passeriformes Black rosy fi nch Leucosticte atrata 

Passeriformes White-winged crossbill Loxia leucoptera 

Passeriformes Common redpoll Carduelis fl ammea 

Passeriformes Pine siskin Carduelis pinus 

Passeriformes American goldfi nch Carduelis tristis 

Passeriformes Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra 

Passeriformes Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus 

Passeriformes Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus 

Passeriformes Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Passeriformes Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys 

Passeriformes Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Passeriformes Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus 

Passeriformes Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 

Passeriformes American tree sparrow Spizella arborea 

Passeriformes Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 

Passeriformes Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri 

Passeriformes Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida 

Passeriformes White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia laucophrys 
Appendix D — Species List 147 

Order
 Common Name
 Scientifi c Name
 

Passeriformes White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

Passeriformes Harris’ sparrow Zonotrichia querula 

Passeriformes Fox sparrow Passerelia iliaca 

Passeriformes Song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Passeriformes Lincoln sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Passeriformes Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 

Passeriformes Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli 

Passeriformes McCown’s longspur Calcarius mccownii 

Passeriformes Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus 

Passeriformes Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus 

Passeriformes Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 

CLASS MAMMALIA 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name 

Insectivora 

Insectivora 

Chiroptera 

Chiroptera 

Chiroptera 

Chiroptera 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Carnivora 

Artiodactyla 

Artiodactyla 

Artiodactyla 

Artiodactyla 

Artiodactyla 

Artiodactyla 

Artiodactyla 

Lagomorpha 

Lagomorpha 

Masked shrew 

Water shrew 

Little brown bat 

Small-footed bat 

Hoary bat 

Silver-haired bat 

Black bear 

Grizzly bear 

Ermine 

Long-tailed weasel 

Mink 

Marten 

Fisher 

Wolverine 

River otter 

Badger 

Striped skunk 

Raccoon 

Red fox 

Coyote 

Gray wolf 

Bobcat 

Canada lynx 

Mountain lion 

Moose 

Pronghorn 

Bison 

Elk 

Mule deer 

White-tailed deer 

Bighorn sheep 

White-tailed jackrabbit 

Black-tailed jackrabbit 

Sorex cinereus 

Sorex palustris 

Myotis lucifugus 

Myotis leibii 

Lasiurus cinereus 

Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Ursus americanus 

Ursus arctos 

Mustela erminea 

Mustela frenata 

Mustela vison 

Martes americana 

Martes pennanti* 

Gulo gulo 

Lontra canadensis 

Taxidea taxus 

Mephitis mephitis 

Procyon lotor 

Vulpes vulpes 

Canis latrans 

Canis lupus 

Lynx rufus 

Lynx canadensis 

Puma concolor 

Alces alces 

Antilocapra americana 

Bison bison* 

Cervus elaphus 

Odocoileus hemionus 

Odocoileus virginianus 

Ovis Canadensis* 

Lepus townsendii 

Lepus californicus 
Order
 Common Name
 Scientifi c Name
 

Lagomorpha Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus 

Lagomorpha Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis 

Lagomorpha Pika Ochotona princeps 

Rodentia Wyoming ground squirrel Spermophilus elegans 

Rodentia Golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis 

Rodentia Northern flying squirrel Spermophilus lateralis 

Rodentia Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 

Rodentia Least chipmunk Tamias minimus 

Rodentia Yellow-pine chipmunk Tamias amoenus 

Rodentia Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota fl aviventris 

Rodentia Bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea 

Rodentia Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 

Rodentia Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides 

Rodentia Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Rodentia Beaver Castor canadensis 

Rodentia Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

Rodentia Western jumping mouse Zapus princeps 

Rodentia Southern red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi 

Rodentia Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Rodentia Montane vole Microtus montanus 

Rodentia Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus 

148 Draft CCP and EA,Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

CLASS OSTEICHTHYES
 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name
 

Cypriniformes White sucker Catostomus commersonii 

Cypriniformes Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus 

Cypriniformes Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus 

Cypriniformes Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae 

Gadiformes Burbot Lota lota 

Salmoniformes Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus 

Salmoniformes Mountain whitefi sh Prosopium williamsoni 

Salmoniformes Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri 

Salmoniformes Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Salmoniformes Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis 

Scorpaeniformes Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdii 
Appendix D — Species List 149 

PLANTS 

CLASS PINOPSIDA 

Order 

Pinales 

Common Name 

Subalpine fi r 

Scientifi c Name 

Abies lasiocarpa 

Pinales Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii 

Pinales Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis 

Pinales Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta 

Pinales Limber pine Pinus fl exilis 

Pinales Douglas-fi r Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Pinales Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum 

Pinales Common juniper Juniperus communis 

Pinales Creeping juniper Juniperus horizontalis 

CLASS MAGNOLIOPSIDA
 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Salicales 

Sapindales 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Balsam poplar 

Quaking aspen 

Bebb willow 

Booth’s willow 

Sageleaf willow 

Drummond’s willow 

Geyer willow 

Grayleaf willow 

Pacifi c willow 

Yellow willow 

Blueberry willow 

Diamondleaf willow 

False mountain willow 

Scouler’s willow 

Wolf’s willow 

Rocky Mountain maple 

Little sagebrush 

Alkali sagebrush 

Silver sagebrush 

Prairie sagewort 

Basin big sagebrush 

Mountain big sagebrush 

Threetip sagebrush 

Green rabbitbrush 

Whitestem goldenbush 

Rubber rabbitbrush 

Dwarf goldenbush 

Singlehead goldenbush 

Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa 

Populus tremuloides 

Salix bebbiana 

Salix boothii 

Salix candida 

Salix drummondiana 

Salix geyeriana 

Salix glauca 

Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra 

Salix lutea 

Salix myrtillifolia 

Salix planifolia 

Salix pseudomonticola 

Salix scouleriana 

Salix wolfi i 

Acer glabrum 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. arbuscula 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia cana ssp. viscidula 

Artemisia frigida 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita 

Chrysothamnus viscidifl orus 

Ericameria discoidea 

Ericameria nauseosa 

Ericameria nana 

Ericameria suffruticosa 

150 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Order 

Asterales 

Common Name 

Spineless horsebrush 

Scientifi c Name 

Tetradymia canescens 

Asterales Common yarrow Achillea millefolium 

Asterales Orange agoseris Agoseris aurantiaca 

Asterales Pale agoseris Agoseris glauca 

Asterales Western pearly everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea 

Asterales Alpine pussytoes Antennaria alpina 

Asterales Pearly pussytoes Antennaria anaphaloides 

Asterales Flat-top pussytoes Antennaria corymbosa 

Asterales Rush pussytoes Antennaria luzuloides 

Asterales Littleleaf pussytoes Antennaria microphylla 

Asterales Raceme pussytoes Antennaria racemosa 

Asterales Rosy pussytoes Antennaria rosea 

Asterales Chamisso arnica Arnica chamissonis 

Asterales Heartleaf arnica Arnica cordifolia 

Asterales Broadleaf arnica Arnica latifolia 

Asterales Hairy arnica Arnica mollis 

Asterales Twin arnica Arnica sororia 

Asterales Biennial wormwood Artemisia biennis 

Asterales Tarragon Artemisia dracunculus 

Asterales White sagebrush Artemisia ludoviciana 

Asterales Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata 

Asterales Nodding beggartick Bidens cernua 

Asterales Musk thistle Carduus nutans* 

Asterales Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe* 

Asterales Douglas’ dustymaiden Chaenactis douglasii 

Asterales Canada thistle Cirsium arvense* 

Asterales Graygreen thistle Cirsium canovirens 

Asterales Meadow thistle Cirsium scariosum 

Asterales Wavyleaf thistle Cirsium undulatum 

Asterales Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare* 

Asterales Tapertip hawksbeard Crepis acuminata 

Asterales Fiddleleaf hawksbeard Crepis runcinata 

Asterales Giant sumpweed Cyclachaena xanthifolia 

Asterales Tufted fl eabane Erigeron caespitosus 

Asterales Cutleaf daisy Erigeron compositus 

Asterales Longleaf fl eabane Erigeron corymbosus 

Asterales Streamside fl eabane Erigeron glabellus 

Asterales Quill fl eabane Erigeron gracilis 

Asterales Shortray fl eabane Erigeron lonchophyllus 

Asterales Buff fl eabane Erigeron ochroleucus 

Asterales Philadelphia fl eabane Erigeron philadelphicus 

Asterales Subalpine fl eabane Erigeron peregrinus 

Asterales Rydberg’s fl eabane Erigeron rydbergii 
Appendix D — Species List 151 

Order 

Asterales 

Asterales 

Common Name 

Aspen fl eabane 

Tweedy’s fl eabane 

Scientifi c Name 

Erigeron speciosus 

Erigeron tweedyi 

Asterales Common woolly sunfl ower Eriophyllum lanatum 

Asterales Elegant aster Eucephalus elegans 

Asterales Engelmann’s aster Eucephalus engelmannii 

Asterales Western showy aster Eurybia conspicua 

Asterales Thickstem aster Eurybia integrifolia 

Asterales Common gaillardia Gaillardia aristata 

Asterales Western marsh cudweed Gnaphalium palustre 

Asterales Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa 

Asterales Onefl ower helianthella Helianthella unifl ora 

Asterales Common sunfl ower Helianthus annuus 

Asterales Nuttall’s sunfl ower Helianthus nuttallii 

Asterales Showy goldeneye Heliomeris multifl ora 

Asterales White hawkweed Hieracium albifl orum 

Asterales Houndstongue hawkweed Hieracium cynoglossoides 

Asterales Slender hawkweed Hieracium gracile 

Asterales Fineleaf hymenopappus Hymenopappus fi lifolius 

Asterales Owl’s-claws Hymenoxys hoopesii 

Asterales Lava aster Ionactis alpina 

Asterales Tall blue lettuce Lactuca biennis 

Asterales Blue lettuce Lactuca tatarica 

Asterales Hoary tansyaster Machaeranthera canescens 

Asterales Mountain tarweed Madia glomerata 

Asterales Disc mayweed Matricaria discoidea 

Asterales Nodding microseris Microseris nutans 

Asterales Meadow prairie-dandelion Nothocalais nigrescens 

Asterales Woolly groundsel Packera cana 

Asterales Weak groundsel Packera debilis 

Asterales Elegant groundsel Packera indecora 

Asterales Balsam groundsel Packera paupercula 

Asterales Falsegold groundsel Packera pseudaurea 

Asterales Rocky Mountain groundsel Packera streptanthifolia 

Asterales Hoary groundsel Packera werneriifolia 

Asterales Arctic sweet coltsfoot Petasites frigidus 

Asterales Many-stemmed goldenweed Pyrrocoma integrifolia 

Asterales Lanceleaf goldenweed Pyrrocoma lanceolata 

Asterales Plantain goldenweed Pyrrocoma unifl ora 

Asterales Western conefl ower Rudbeckia occidentalis 

Asterales Thickleaf ragwort Senecio crassulus 

Asterales Dwarf mountain ragwort Senecio fremontii 

Asterales Tall ragwort Senecio hydrophiloides 

Asterales Water ragwort Senecio hydrophilus 
152 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Order 

Asterales 

Common Name 

Lambstongue ragwort 

Scientifi c Name 

Senecio integerrimus 

Asterales Small blacktip ragwort Senecio lugens 

Asterales Tall ragwort Senecio serra 

Asterales Ballhead ragwort Senecio sphaerocephalus 

Asterales Arrowleaf ragwort Senecio triangularis 

Asterales Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis 

Asterales Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis 

Asterales Manyray goldenrod Solidago multiradiata 

Asterales Gray goldenrod Solidago nemoralis 

Asterales Dwarf goldenrod Solidago simplex 

Asterales Moist sowthistle Sonchus arvensis* 

Asterales Stemless mock goldenweed Stenotus acaulis 

Asterales Woolly mock goldenweed Stenotus lanuginosus 

Asterales Narrowleaf wirelettuce Stephanomeria minor 

Asterales Western meadow aster Symphyotrichum campestre 

Asterales Eaton’s aster Symphyotrichum eatonii 

Asterales White prairie aster Symphyotrichum falcatum 

Asterales Alpine leafybract aster Symphyotrichum foliaceum 

Asterales White panicle aster Symphyotrichum lanceolatum 

Asterales Western mountain aster Symphyotrichum spathulatum 

Asterales Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare* 

Asterales Rock dandelion Taraxacum laevigatum* 

Asterales Common dandelion Taraxacum offi cinale* 

Asterales Graylocks four-nerve daisy Tetraneuris grandifl ora 

Asterales Wyoming Townsend daisy Townsendia alpigena 

Asterales Cushion Townsend daisy Townsendia condensata 

Asterales Parry’s Townsend daisy Townsendia parryi 

Asterales Yellow salsify Tragopogon dubius* 

Asterales Jack-to-bed-at-noon Tragopogon lamottei* 

Asterales Mule-ears Wyethia amplexicaulis 

Asterales Sunfl ower mule-ears Wyethia helianthoides 

Fagales Bog birch Betula pumila 

Caryophyllales Brittle pricklypear Opuntia fragilis 

Caryophyllales Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus 

Dipsacales Twinberry honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata 

Dipsacales Utah honeysuckle Lonicera utahensis 

Dipsacales Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa 

Dipsacales Mountain snowberry Symphoricarpos oreophilus 

Dipsacales Squashberry Viburnum edule 

Dipsacales Twinfl ower Linnaea borealis 

Dipsacales Tobacco root Valeriana edulis 

Dipsacales Western valerian Valeriana occidentalis 

Cornales Redosier dogwood Cornus sericea 
Appendix D — Species List 153 

Order 

Cornales 

Rhamnales 

Common Name 

Bunchberry dogwood 

Russet buffaloberry 

Scientifi c Name 

Cornus canadensis 

Shepherdia canadensis 

Rhamnales Alderleaf buckthorn Rhamnus alnifolia 

Ericales Kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 

Ericales Thinleaf huckleberry Vaccinium membranaceum 

Ericales Grouse whortleberry Vaccinium scoparium 

Ericales Pipsissewa Chimaphila umbellata 

Ericales Sidebells wintergreen Orthilia secunda 

Ericales Liverleaf wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia 

Ericales Single delight Moneses unifl ora 

Ericales Greenfl owered wintergreen Pyrola chlorantha 

Fabales Siberian peashrub Caragana arborescens* 

Fabales Purple milkvetch Astragalus agrestis 

Fabales Alpine milkvetch Astragalus alpinus 

Fabales American milkvetch Astragalus americanus 

Fabales Silverleaf milkvetch Astragalus argophyllus 

Fabales Canadian milkvetch Astragalus canadensis 

Fabales Browse milkvetch Astragalus cibarius 

Fabales Drummond’s milkvetch Astragalus drummondii 

Fabales Elegant milkvetch Astragalus eucosmus 

Fabales Flexile milkvetch Astragalus fl exuosus 

Fabales Bent milkvetch Astragalus infl exus 

Fabales Spiny milkvetch Astragalus kentrophyta 

Fabales Prairie milkvetch Astragalus laxmannii 

Fabales Freckled milkvetch Astragalus lentiginosus 

Fabales Park milkvetch Astragalus leptaleus 

Fabales Timber milkvetch Astragalus miser 

Fabales Woollypod milkvetch Astragalus purshii 

Fabales Railhead milkvetch Astragalus terminalis 

Fabales Bentfl ower milkvetch Astragalus vexillifl exus 

Fabales Utah sweetvetch Hedysarum boreale 

Fabales White sweetvetch Hedysarum sulphurescens 

Fabales Silvery lupine Lupinus argenteus 

Fabales Velvet lupine Lupinus leucophyllus 

Fabales Bigleaf lupine Lupinus polyphyllus 

Fabales Silky lupine Lupinus sericeus 

Fabales Yellow sweetclover Melilotus offi cinalis* 

Fabales Nodding locoweed Oxytropis defl exa 

Fabales Haresfoot locoweed Oxytropis lagopus 

Fabales White locoweed Oxytropis sericea 

Fabales Slimfl ower scurfpea Psoralidium tenuifl orum 

Fabales Alsike clover Trifolium hybridum* 

Fabales Longstalk clover Trifolium longipes 
154 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Order 

Fabales 

Common Name 

Red clover 

Scientifi c Name 

Trifolium pratense* 

Fabales White clover Trifolium repens* 

Fabales American vetch Vicia americana 

Rosales Wax currant Ribes cereum 

Rosales Northern black currant Ribes hudsonianum 

Rosales Whitestem gooseberry Ribes inerme 

Rosales Gooseberry currant Ribes montigenum 

Rosales Inland gooseberry Ribes oxyacanthoides 

Rosales Sticky currant Ribes viscosissimum 

Rosales Shrubby cinquefoil Dasiphora fruticosa 

Rosales Mat rockspirea Petrophyton caespitosum 

Rosales Chokecherry Prunus virginiana 

Rosales Woods’ rose Rosa woodsii 

Rosales American red raspberry Rubus idaeus 

Rosales Thimbleberry Rubus parvifl orus 

Rosales Greene’s mountain ash Sorbus scopulina 

Rosales White spirea Spiraea betulifolia 

Rosales Ledge stonecrop Rhodiola integrifolia 

Rosales Redpod stonecrop Rhodiola rhodantha 

Rosales Leiberg stonecrop Sedum leibergii 

Rosales Spearleaf stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum 

Rosales Silverweed cinquefoil Argentina anserina 

Rosales Virginia strawberry Fragaria virginiana 

Rosales Largeleaf avens Geum macrophyllum 

Rosales Old man’s whiskers Geum trifl orum 

Rosales Gordon’s ivesia Ivesia gordonii 

Rosales Varileaf cinquefoil Potentilla diversifolia 

Rosales Sticky cinquefoil Potentilla glandulosa 

Rosales Slender cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis 

Rosales Sheep cinquefoil Potentilla ovina 

Rosales Platte River cinquefoil Potentilla plattensis 

Rosales Roundleaf alumroot Heuchera cylindrica 

Rosales Smallfl ower woodland-star Lithophragma parvifl orum 

Rosales Smallfl ower miterwort Mitella stauropetala 

Rosales Fringed grass of Parnassus Parnassia fi mbriata 

Rosales Smallflower grass of Parnassus Parnassia palustris 

Rosales Yellowdot saxifrage Saxifraga bronchialis 

Rosales Brook saxifrage Saxifraga odontoloma 

Rosales Diamondleaf saxifrage Saxifraga rhomboidea 

Solanales Granite prickly phlox Linanthus pungens 

Solanales Dwarf hesperochiron Hesperochiron pumilus 

Solanales Ballhead waterleaf Hydrophyllum capitatum 

Solanales Basin nemophila Nemophila brevifl ora 
Appendix D— Species List 155 

Order 

Solanales 

Solanales 

Common Name 

Franklin’s phacelia 

Silverleaf phacelia 

Scientifi c Name 

Phacelia franklinii 

Phacelia hastata 

Solanales Silky phacelia Phacelia sericea 

Solanales Tiny trumpet Collomia linearis 

Solanales Spiny phlox Phlox hoodii 

Solanales Kelsey’s phlox Phlox kelseyi 

Solanales Longleaf phlox Phlox longifolia 

Solanales Western polemonium Polemonium occidentale 

Solanales Jacob’s-ladder Polemonium pulcherrimum 

Solanales Sticky polemonium Polemonium viscosum 

Solanales Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger* 

Scrophulariales Bush penstemon Penstemon fruticosus 

Scrophulariales Flat-top broomrape Orobanche corymbosa 

Scrophulariales Clustered broomrape Orobanche fasciculata 

Scrophulariales Louisiana broomrape Orobanche ludoviciana 

Scrophulariales Wyoming besseya Besseya wyomingensis 

Scrophulariales Yellow Indian paintbrush Castilleja fl ava 

Scrophulariales Giant red Indian paintbrush Castilleja miniata 

Scrophulariales Sulphur Indian paintbrush Castilleja sulphurea 

Scrophulariales Maiden blue eyed Mary Collinsia parvifl ora 

Scrophulariales Water mudwort Limosella aquatica 

Scrophulariales Seep monkeyfl ower Mimulus guttatus 

Scrophulariales Yellow owl’s-clover Orthocarpus luteus 

Scrophulariales Field locoweed Oxytropis campestris 

Scrophulariales Elephanthead lousewort Pedicularis groenlandica 

Scrophulariales Parry’s lousewort Pedicularis parryi 

Scrophulariales Sickletop lousewort Pedicularis racemosa 

Scrophulariales Sulphur penstemon Penstemon attenuatus 

Scrophulariales Cordroot beardtongue Penstemon montanus 

Scrophulariales Matroot penstemon Penstemon radicosus 

Scrophulariales Rydberg’s penstemon Penstemon rydbergii 

Scrophulariales American speedwell Veronica americana 

Scrophulariales American alpine speedwell Veronica wormskjoldii 

Scrophulariales Common bladderwort Utricularia macrorhiza 

Alismatales Arumleaf arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata 

Apiales Lyall’s angelica Angelica arguta 

Apiales Small-leaf angelica Angelica pinnata 

Apiales American thorow wax Bupleurum americanum 

Apiales Western water hemlock Cicuta douglasii 

Apiales Plains springparsley Cymopterus acaulis 

Apiales Snowline springparsley Cymopterus nivalis 

Apiales Common cowparsnip Heracleum maximum 

Apiales Fernleaf licorice-root Ligusticum fi licinum 
156 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Order 

Apiales 

Common Name 

Wyeth biscuitroot 

Scientifi c Name 

Lomatium ambiguum 

Apiales Cous biscuitroot Lomatium cous 

Apiales Desert biscuitroot Lomatium foeniculaceum 

Apiales Bigseed biscuitroot Lomatium macrocarpum 

Apiales Nineleaf biscuitroot Lomatium triternatum 

Apiales Leafy wildparsley Musineon divaricatum 

Apiales Sweetcicely Osmorhiza berteroi 

Apiales Bluntseed sweetroot Osmorhiza depauperata 

Apiales Western sweetroot Osmorhiza occidentalis 

Apiales Gardner’s yampah Perideridia gairdneri 

Apiales Henderson’s wavewing Pteryxia hendersonii 

Apiales Hemlock waterparsnip Sium suave 

Apiales Meadow zizia Zizia aptera 

Lamiales Sanddune cryptantha Cryptantha fendleri 

Lamiales Roundspike cryptantha Cryptantha humilis 

Lamiales Torrey’s cryptantha Cryptantha torreyana 

Lamiales Watson’s cryptantha Cryptantha watsonii 

Lamiales Gypsyfl ower Cynoglossum offi cinale 

Lamiales Manyfl ower stickseed Hackelia fl oribunda 

Lamiales Jessica sticktight Hackelia micrantha 

Lamiales Spotted stickseed Hackelia patens 

Lamiales Flatspine stickseed Lappula occidentalis 

Lamiales Narrowleaf stoneseed Lithospermum incisum 

Lamiales Western stoneseed Lithospermum ruderale 

Lamiales Tall fringed bluebells Mertensia ciliata 

Lamiales Oblongleaf bluebells Mertensia oblongifolia 

Lamiales Tall bluebells Mertensia paniculata 

Lamiales Asian forget-me-not Myosotis asiatica 

Lamiales True forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides 

Lamiales Sleeping popcornfl ower Plagiobothrys scouleri 

Lamiales Nettleleaf giant hyssop Agastache urticifolia 

Lamiales Wild mint Mentha arvensis 

Lamiales Common selfheal Prunella vulgaris 

Lamiales Marsh skullcap Scutellaria galericulata 

Lamiales Marsh hedgenettle Stachys palustris 

Capparales Pale madwort Alyssum alyssoides* 

Capparales Desert madwort Alyssum desertorum 

Capparales Spreadingpod rockcress Arabis ×divaricarpa 

Capparales Hairy rockcress Arabis hirsuta 

Capparales Collins’ rockcress Arabis holboellii 

Capparales Lemmon’s rockcress Arabis lemmonii 

Capparales Littleleaf rockcress Arabis microphylla 

Capparales Nuttall’s rockcress Arabis nuttallii 
Appendix D — Species List 157 

Order 

Capparales 

Capparales 

Common Name 

Sicklepod rockcress 

American yellowrocket 

Scientifi c Name 

Arabis sparsifl ora 

Barbarea orthoceras 

Capparales Littlepod false fl ax Camelina microcarpa 

Capparales Shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris* 

Capparales Brewer’s bittercress Cardamine breweri 

Capparales Crossfl ower Chorispora tenella 

Capparales Mountain tansymustard Descurainia incana 

Capparales Western tansymustard Descurainia pinnata 

Capparales Herb sophia Descurainia sophia* 

Capparales Golden draba Draba aurea 

Capparales Cushion draba Draba breweri 

Capparales Snowbed draba Draba crassifolia 

Capparales Lancepod draba Draba lonchocarpa 

Capparales Woodland draba Draba nemorosa 

Capparales Fewseed draba Draba oligosperma 

Capparales Payson’s draba Draba paysonii 

Capparales Western wallfl ower Erysimum asperum 

Capparales Wormseed wallfl ower Erysimum cheiranthoides* 

Capparales Shy wallfl ower Erysimum inconspicuum 

Capparales Common pepperweed Lepidium densifl orum 

Capparales Mountain pepperweed Lepidium montanum 

Capparales Clasping pepperweed Lepidium perfoliatum* 

Capparales Virginia pepperweed Lepidium virginicum 

Capparales Idaho bladderpod Lesquerella carinata 

Capparales Onerow yellowcress Nasturtium microphyllum* 

Capparales Watercress Nasturtium offi cinale* 

Capparales Meadow pennycress Noccaea parvifl ora 

Capparales Common twinpod Physaria didymocarpa 

Capparales Curvepod yellowcress Rorippa curvisiliqua 

Capparales Bog yellowcress Rorippa palustris 

Capparales Small tumbleweed mustard Sisymbrium loeselii* 

Capparales Alpine smelowskia Smelowskia calycina 

Capparales Northwestern thelypody Thelypodium paniculatum 

Capparales Arrow thelypody Thelypodium sagittatum 

Capparales Field pennycress Thlaspi arvense 

Campanulales Bluebell bellfl ower Campanula rotundifolia 

Campanulales Great Basin calicofl ower Downingia laeta 

Caryophyllales Slender mountain sandwort Arenaria capillaris 

Caryophyllales Ballhead sandwort Arenaria congesta 

Caryophyllales Field chickweed Cerastium arvense 

Caryophyllales Bering chickweed Cerastium beeringianum 

Caryophyllales Big chickweed Cerastium fontanum 

Caryophyllales Nuttall’s sandwort Minuartia nuttallii 
158 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Order 

Caryophyllales 

Common Name 

Twinfl ower sandwort 

Scientifi c Name 

Minuartia obtusiloba 

Caryophyllales Beautiful sandwort Minuartia rubella 

Caryophyllales Bluntleaf sandwort Moehringia laterifl ora 

Caryophyllales Tuber starwort Pseudostellaria jamesiana 

Caryophyllales Western pearlwort Sagina decumbens 

Caryophyllales Moss campion Silene acaulis 

Caryophyllales Bladder campion Silene latifolia* 

Caryophyllales Menzies’ campion Silene menziesii 

Caryophyllales Nightfl owering silene Silene noctifl ora* 

Caryophyllales Parry’s silene Silene parryi 

Caryophyllales Northern starwort Stellaria calycantha 

Caryophyllales Fleshy starwort Stellaria crassifolia 

Caryophyllales Curled starwort Stellaria crispa 

Caryophyllales Longleaf starwort Stellaria longifolia 

Caryophyllales Longstalk starwort Stellaria longipes 

Caryophyllales Rocky Mountain chickweed Stellaria obtusa 

Caryophyllales Spear saltbrush Atriplex patula 

Caryophyllales Wedgescale saltbush Atriplex truncata 

Caryophyllales Lambsquarters Chenopodium album* 

Caryophyllales Blite goosefoot Chenopodium capitatum 

Caryophyllales Oakleaf goosefoot Chenopodium glaucum* 

Caryophyllales Red goosefoot Chenopodium rubrum 

Caryophyllales Nuttall’s povertyweed Monolepis nuttalliana 

Caryophyllales Red swampfi re Salicornia rubra 

Caryophyllales Lanceleaf springbeauty Claytonia lanceolata 

Caryophyllales Bitter root Lewisia rediviva 

Caryophyllales Water minerslettuce Montia chamissoi 

Papaverales Scrambled eggs Corydalis aurea 

Gentianales Elkweed Frasera speciosa 

Gentianales Pleated gentian Gentiana affi nis 

Gentianales Moss gentian Gentiana fremontii 

Gentianales Autumn dwarf gentian Gentianella amarella 

Gentianales Oneflower fringed gentian Gentianopsis simplex 

Gentianales Felwort Swertia perennis 

Geraniales Richardson’s geranium Geranium richardsonii 

Geraniales Sticky geranium Geranium viscosissimum 

Malvales Streambank wild hollyhock Iliamna rivularis 

Myrtales Fireweed Chamerion angustifolium 

Myrtales Tall annual willowherb Epilobium brachycarpum 

Myrtales Fringed willowherb Epilobium ciliatum 

Myrtales Glaucus willowherb Epilobium glaberrimum 

Myrtales Hornemann’s willowherb Epilobium hornemannii 

Myrtales Marsh willowherb Epilobium palustre 
Appendix D — Species List 159 

Order 

Myrtales 

Myrtales 

Common Name 

Spreading groundsmoke 

Dwarf groundsmoke 

Scientifi c Name 

Gayophytum diffusum 

Gayophytum humile 

Myrtales Tufted evening-primrose Oenothera caespitosa 

Myrtales Yellow evening-primrose Oenothera fl ava 

Myrtales Pale evening-primrose Oenothera pallida 

Myrtales Idaho pale evening-primrose Oenothera pallida ssp. pallida 

Plantaginales Common plantain Plantago major 

Plantaginales Tweedy’s plantain Plantago tweedyi 

Polygonales Matted buckwheat Eriogonum caespitosum 

Polygonales Cushion buckwheat Eriogonum ovalifolium 

Polygonales Sulphur-fl ower buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum 

Polygonales Alpine mountainsorrel Oxyria digyna 

Polygonales American bistort Polygonum bistortoides 

Polygonales Douglas’ knotweed Polygonum douglasii 

Polygonales Curlytop knotweed Polygonum lapathifolium 

Polygonales Western dock Rumex aquaticus 

Polygonales Alpine sheep sorrel Rumex paucifolius 

Polygonales Water knotweed Polygonum amphibium 

Primulales Pygmyfl ower rockjasmine Androsace septentrionalis 

Primulales Darkthroat shootingstar Dodecatheon pulchellum 

Primulales Silvery primrose Primula incana 

Ranunculales Red baneberry Actaea rubra 

Ranunculales Little Belt Mountain thimbleweed Anemone lithophila 

Ranunculales Pacifi c anemone Anemone multifi da 

Ranunculales Yellow columbine Aquilegia fl avescens 

Ranunculales Western columbine Aquilegia formosa 

Ranunculales Hairy clematis Clematis hirsutissima 

Ranunculales Duncecap larkspur Delphinium ×occidentale 

Ranunculales Little larkspur Delphinium bicolor 

Ranunculales Twolobe larkspur Delphinium nuttallianum 

Ranunculales Eastern pasquefl ower Pulsatilla patens 

Ranunculales Sharpleaf buttercup Ranunculus acriformis 

Ranunculales Alkali buttercup Ranunculus cymbalaria 

Ranunculales Sagebrush buttercup Ranunculus glaberrimus 

Ranunculales Gmelin’s buttercup Ranunculus gmelinii 

Ranunculales High northern buttercup Ranunculus hyperboreus 

Ranunculales Graceful buttercup Ranunculus inamoenus 

Ranunculales Cursed buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus 

Ranunculales Longbeak buttercup Ranunculus longirostris 

Ranunculales Fendler’s meadow-rue Thalictrum fendleri 

Ranunculales Western meadow-rue Thalictrum occidentale 

Ranunculales Veiny meadow-rue Thalictrum venulosum 

Ranunculales Creeping barberry Mahonia repens 
160 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Order 

Rubiales 

Common Name 

Northern bedstraw 

Scientifi c Name 

Galium boreale 

Rubiales Fragrant bedstraw Galium trifl orum 

Santalales Bastard toadfl ax Comandra umbellata 

Urticales Stinging nettle Urtica dioica 

Violales Hookedspur violet Viola adunca 

Violales Northern bog violet Viola nephrophylla 

Violales Goosefoot violet Viola purpurea 

Callitrichales Northern water-starwort Callitriche hermaphroditica 

Callitrichales Vernal water-starwort Callitriche palustris 

Callitrichales Common mare’s-tail Hippuris vulgaris 

Nymphaeales Coon’s tail Ceratophyllum demersum 

Haloragales Shortspike watermilfoil Myriophyllum sibiricum 

Linales 

Linales 

Lewis fl ax Linum lewisii 

Class Liliopsida 

CLASS LILIOPSIDA
 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name 

Najadales Seaside arrowgrass Triglochin maritima 

Najadales Nodding waternymph Najas fl exilis 

Najadales Leafy pondweed Potamogeton foliosus 

Najadales Fries’ pondweed Potamogeton friesii 

Najadales Whitestem pondweed Potamogeton praelongus 

Najadales Small pondweed Potamogeton pusillus 

Najadales Richardson’s pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii 

Najadales Flatstem pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis 

Najadales Sago pondweed Stuckenia pectinata 

Najadales Sheathed pondweed Stuckenia vaginata 

Najadales Fineleaf pondweed Stuckenia fi liformis 

Najadales Horned pondweed Zannichellia palustris 

Liliales Rocky Mountain iris Iris missouriensis 

Liliales Narrowleaf blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium angustifolium 

Liliales Tapertip onion Allium acuminatum 

Liliales Shortstyle onion Allium brevistylum 

Liliales Nodding onion Allium cernuum 

Liliales Geyer’s onion Allium geyeri 

Liliales Wild chives Allium schoenoprasum 

Liliales Textile onion Allium textile 

Liliales White mariposa lily Calochortus eurycarpus 

Liliales Sego lily Calochortus nuttallii 

Liliales Small camas Camassia quamash 

Liliales Bride’s bonnet Clintonia unifl ora 

Liliales Yellow avalanche-lily Erythronium grandifl orum 
Appendix D — Species List 161 

Order 

Liliales 

Common Name 

Spotted fritillary 

Scientifi c Name 

Fritillaria atropurpurea 

Liliales Yellow fritillary Fritillaria pudica 

Liliales Common alplily Lloydia serotina 

Liliales Feathery false lily of the valley Maianthemum racemosum 

Liliales Starry false lily of the valley Maianthemum stellatum 

Liliales Roughfruit fairybells Prosartes trachycarpa 

Liliales Claspleaf twistedstalk Streptopus amplexifolius 

Liliales Meadow deathcamas Zigadenus venenosus 

Orchidales Fairy slipper Calypso bulbosa 

Orchidales Summer coralroot Corallorhiza maculata 

Orchidales Pacifi c coralroot Corallorhiza mertensiana 

Orchidales Western rattlesnake plantain Goodyera oblongifolia 

Orchidales Northern twayblade Listera borealis 

Orchidales Slender-spire orchid Piperia unalascensis 

Orchidales Northern green orchid Platanthera aquilonis 

Orchidales Slender bog orchid Platanthera stricta 

Orchidales Hooded lady’s tresses Spiranthes romanzoffi ana 

Typhales Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia 

Typhales Narrowleaf bur-reed Sparganium angustifolium 

Typhales Broadfruit bur-reed Sparganium eurycarpum 

Typhales Floating bur-reed Sparganium fl uctuans 

Cyperales Water sedge Carex aquatilis 

Cyperales Slenderbeak sedge Carex athrostachya 

Cyperales Golden sedge Carex aurea 

Cyperales Lesser panicled sedge Carex diandra 

Cyperales Softleaf sedge Carex disperma 

Cyperales Douglas’ sedge Carex douglasii 

Cyperales Needleleaf sedge Carex duriuscula 

Cyperales Threadleaf sedge Carex fi lifolia 

Cyperales Geyer’s sedge Carex geyeri 

Cyperales Cloud sedge Carex haydeniana 

Cyperales Hood’s sedge Carex hoodii 

Cyperales Idaho sedge Carex idahoa 

Cyperales Inland sedge Carex interior 

Cyperales Woollyfruit sedge Carex lasiocarpa 

Cyperales Kellogg’s sedge Carex lenticularis 

Cyperales Smallwing sedge Carex microptera 

Cyperales Manyrib sedge Carex multicostata 

Cyperales Nebraska sedge Carex nebrascensis 

Cyperales Chamisso sedge Carex pachystachya 

Cyperales Dunhead sedge Carex phaeocephala 

Cyperales Clustered fi eld sedge Carex praegracilis 

Cyperales Raynolds’ sedge Carex raynoldsii 
162 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Order 

Cyperales 

Cyperales 

Common Name 

Ross’ sedge 

Northern singlespike sedge 

Scientifi c Name 

Carex rossii 

Carex scirpoidea 

Cyperales Mountain sedge Carex scopulorum 

Cyperales Analogue sedge Carex simulata 

Cyperales Northwest Territory sedge Carex utriculata 

Cyperales Valley sedge Carex vallicola 

Cyperales Whitescale sedge Carex xerantica 

Cyperales Needle spikerush Eleocharis acicularis 

Cyperales Pale spikerush Eleocharis macrostachya 

Cyperales Common spikerush Eleocharis palustris 

Cyperales Fewfl ower spikerush Eleocharis quinquefl ora 

Cyperales Tall cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium 

Cyperales Simple bog sedge Kobresia simpliciuscula 

Cyperales Hardstem bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus 

Cyperales Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides 

Cyperales Columbia needlegrass Achnatherum nelsonii 

Cyperales Western needlegrass Achnatherum occidentale 

Cyperales Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum* 

Cyperales Spike bentgrass Agrostis exarata 

Cyperales Redtop Agrostis gigantea 

Cyperales Seashore bentgrass Agrostis pallens 

Cyperales Rough bentgrass Agrostis scabra 

Cyperales Shortawn foxtail Alopecurus aequalis 

Cyperales Boreal alopecurus Alopecurus alpinus 

Cyperales Water foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus 

Cyperales American sloughgrass Beckmannia syzigachne 

Cyperales Fringed brome Bromus ciliatus 

Cyperales Smooth brome Bromus inermis* 

Cyperales Mountain brome Bromus marginatus 

Cyperales Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum* 

Cyperales Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis 

Cyperales Plains reedgrass Calamagrostis montanensis 

Cyperales Pinegrass Calamagrostis rubescens 

Cyperales Northern reedgrass Calamagrostis stricta 

Cyperales Water whorlgrass Catabrosa aquatica 

Cyperales Drooping woodreed Cinna latifolia 

Cyperales Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata 

Cyperales Timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia 

Cyperales Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa 

Cyperales Slender hairgrass Deschampsia elongata 

Cyperales Saltgrass Distichlis spicata 

Cyperales Baker’s wheatgrass Elymus bakeri 

Cyperales Blue wildrye Elymus glaucus 
Appendix D — Species List 163 

Order 

Cyperales 

Common Name 

Thickspike wheatgrass 

Scientifi c Name 

Elymus lanceolatus 

Cyperales Quackgrass Elymus repens 

Cyperales Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus 

Cyperales Alpine fescue Festuca brachyphylla 

Cyperales Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 

Cyperales Western fescue Festuca occidentalis 

Cyperales Small fl oating mannagrass Glyceria borealis 

Cyperales American mannagrass Glyceria grandis 

Cyperales Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata 

Cyperales Needle-and-thread Hesperostipa comata 

Cyperales Meadow barley Hordeum brachyantherum 

Cyperales Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum 

Cyperales Prairie junegrass Koeleria macrantha 

Cyperales Basin wildrye Leymus cinereus 

Cyperales Yellow wildrye Leymus fl avescens 

Cyperales Purple oniongrass Melica spectabilis 

Cyperales Marsh muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa 

Cyperales Mat muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis 

Cyperales Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii 

Cyperales Alpine timothy Phleum alpinum 

Cyperales Common timothy Phleum pratense 

Cyperales Canada bluegrass Poa compressa 

Cyperales Cusick’s bluegrass Poa cusickii 

Cyperales Fowl bluegrass Poa palustris 

Cyperales Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis 

Cyperales Sandberg’s bluegrass Poa secunda 

Cyperales Rough bluegrass Poa trivialis 

Cyperales Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata 

Cyperales Nuttall’s alkaligrass Puccinellia nuttalliana 

Cyperales Alkali cordgrass Spartina gracilis 

Cyperales Spike trisetum Trisetum spicatum 

Juncales Baltic rush Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis 

Juncales Toad rush Juncus bufonius 

Juncales Colorado rush Juncus confusus 

Juncales Drummond’s rush Juncus drummondii 

Juncales Common rush Juncus effusus 

Juncales Swordleaf rush Juncus ensifolius 

Juncales Hall’s rush Juncus hallii 

Juncales Longstyle rush Juncus longistylis 

Juncales Parry’s rush Juncus parryi 

Juncales Rocky Mountain rush Juncus saximontanus 

Juncales Smallfl owered woodrush Luzula parvifl ora 

Hydrocharitales Canadian waterweed Elodea canadensis 
164 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name 

Arales Star duckweed Lemna trisulca 

Arales Common duckweed Lemna minor 

Polypodiales Brittle bladderfern Cystopteris fragilis 

Polypodiales Oregon cliff fern Woodsia oregana 

Polypodiales Brewer’s cliffbrake Pellaea breweri 

CLASS EQUISETOPSIDA
 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name 

Equisetales Field horsetail Equisetum arvense 

Equisetales Smooth horsetail Equisetum laevigatum 

Equisetales Water horsetail Equisetum fl uviatile 

Equisetales Marsh horsetail Equisetum palustre 

CLASS LYCOPODIOPSIDA
 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name 

Isoetales Quillwort Isoetes spp. 

CLASS CHAROPHYCEAE
 

Order Common Name Scientifi c Name 

Charales Common stonewort Chara vulgaris 
Appendix E 

Draft Compatibility Determinations 

Refuge Name: Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Date Established: April 22, 1935 

ESTABLISHING AND 

ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES 

■	 Executive Order 7023, April 22, 1935 

■	 Executive Order 7172, September 4, 1935 

■	 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act) 

■	 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act) (16 

U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended 

■	 16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands 


Resources Act of 1986)
 

■	 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) and 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) 

(Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

■	 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife 


Refuge System Administration Act)
 

REFUGE PURPOSES 

■	 “As a refuge and breeding ground for wild birds 

and animals.” [Executive Order 7023] 

■	 “For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” [16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act)] 

■	 “Suitable for— (1) incidental fi sh and 

wildlife-oriented recreational development, 

(2) the protection of natural resources, (3) 

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.” [16 U.S.C. § 460k-1, 

k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

460k-460k-4), as amended)] 

■	 “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.” [16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986)] 

■	 “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.” [16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4), (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.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)] 

■	 “Wilderness areas . . . shall be administered for 

the use and enjoyment of the American people 

in such manner as will 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 gathering and 

dissemination of information regarding their 

use and enjoyment as wilderness.” [16 U.S.C. § 

1131 (Wilderness Act)] 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SYSTEM MISSION 

The mission of the System is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations 

of Americans. 

DESCRIPTION OF USE: BIG GAME 

HUNTING 

Hunting in the Centennial Valley is a traditional 

form of wildlife-dependent recreation. Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge has a long history 

of allowing hunting. Waterfowl hunting has been 

allowed on the refuge since its establishment. 

However, big game hunting on the refuge was not 
166 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

allowed until 1952 when a limited moose hunt was 

initiated. This limited hunt occurred until 1958. 

From 1959 to 1962, the only hunting allowed on the 

refuge was for waterfowl. A very limited pronghorn 

hunt was allowed in 1963 in the northeast corner 

of the refuge. This hunt area was expanded in 1964 

to include all refuge lands on the north side of the 

refuge (north of Lower lake, the River Marsh area 

and Upper lake). In 1965 hunting of waterfowl, 

elk, deer, pronghorn and moose was allowed on 

the refuge. The hunt was separated in space with 

waterfowl hunting occurring on Lower lake, deer 

and elk hunting occurring south of the Southside 

Centennial Road, pronghorn hunting occurring on 

“the north side” of the refuge (north of the River 

Marsh area, Upper and Lower Red Rock lakes), and 

moose hunting occurring in the southwest corner of 

the refuge (also known as willow fen area). Big game 

and waterfowl hunting have continued on the refuge, 

using various scenarios of time and space separation 

to manage potential and observed confl icts. 

The Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

proposes to continue to provide limited opportunities 

for big game hunting that are compatible with 

the refuge purpose. Hunting is identified as a 

priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. Hunting of deer (whitetailed and mule deer), pronghorn, elk, and moose 

will be permitted in designated hunting areas on 

the refuge. Hunting will be conducted in accordance 

with state of Montana regulations and refuge-specifi c 

regulations. When appropriate, zoning (utilizing time 

and space separation) will be used to resolve confl icts 

with other user groups. 

The refuge big game hunting program objectives are 

to (1) control and maintain ungulate populations at a 

level that is compatible with plant and wildlife animal 

communities on the refuge (for example, to prevent 

over-browsing of willow communities), and (2) 

provide the public with high-quality wildlife-oriented 

recreation. 

The refuge proposes to allow deer, elk, and 

pronghorn hunting on approximately 20,592 acres, 

or of the entire refuge. In addition, the refuge is 

proposing to have the option of opening an additional 

2,982 acres (the area between Upper and Lower Red 

Rock lakes) to limited primitive weapons only hunt. 

This hunt would only be opened if degraded habitat 

conditions (such as over-browsing of vegetation by 

native ungulates) were documented. The hunting 

area will be delineated by signs and physical features 

(such as roads and creeks). To create a contiguous 

hunting area and eliminate hunting boundary 

confusion, moose hunting would be open in the area 

west and north of South Valley Road (Red Rock Pass 

Road). The area south of South Valley Road would be 

closed to eliminate a road hunting issue. Closed areas 

in the northern section of the refuge would be opened 

to deer, elk, and pronghorn hunting. Moose hunting 

will be permitted on approximately 2,675 acres, or 

less than 6% of the entire refuge. This hunting area 

will be delineated by signs, roads, creeks, and lake 

shores. 

Seasons and regulations vary for each big game 

species. The typical seasons for each species are 

shown in table 1. There will be no limit on the 

number of hunters and hunt days and no designated 

blind sites. Refuge staff estimate 800 hunter visits 

during the big game season. Hunting pressure varies 

but is usually heaviest during the openers of each 

season. 

Table 1. Typical hunting seasons for pronghorn, deer, 

elk and moose in the state of Montana. 

Typical Start Typical End 

Species Date Date 

Pronghorn—archery 1st Saturday in 2nd Saturday in 

September October 

Pronghorn—archery 1st Sunday in 2nd Sunday in 

October November 

Deer and elk— 1st Saturday in 2nd Sunday in 

archery September October 

Deer and elk— 3rd Sunday in 5 weeks after 

archery October opening 

Moose—general* September 15 December 15 

Access will be on foot for a majority of the area 

because most of the hunting area exists in a 

designated wilderness area. However, stock animals 

would be allowed south of the Southside Centennial 

Road, mainly to allow access into the Centennial 

Mountains. Stock may be used in order to retrieve 

big game on the refuge within designated hunt 

areas. Stock may not be used in areas north of the 

Southside Centennial Road for hunting purposes— 

only retrieval purposes. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

The following annual costs would be required to 

administer and manage waterfowl hunting activities: 

Item Cost

Buy and post signs $10,000 

Maintenance of campgrounds and 

parking areas 

$7,000 

Law enforcement $5,000 

Administration (brochures, 

monitoring, etc.) 

$15,000 

Total $37,000 

Adequate funding exists to administer the big game 

hunt program. There is currently no law enforcement 

staff on-site although it is typically available during 

periods of heavy use. Partnerships have been 

developed with the Bureau of Land Management and 
Appendix E— Draft Compatibility Determinations 167 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to assist with law 

enforcement needs and provide for a safe, quality 

visitor services program as described above. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF USE 

The direct effects of hunting on big game include 

mortality, wounding, and changes in distribution. 

However, regulated big game hunting has been 

used as a management tool to control ungulate 

populations, which helps ensure high-quality 

habitats and thus producing healthy individuals 

and populations of big game species. In addition, 

it is well recognized that hunting has given many 

people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better 

understanding of the importance of conserving 

their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to 

the Refuge System mission. Despite the potential 

negative impacts of hunting, a goal of the refuge is to 

provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation. By law (see above), hunting is one of the 

six priority visitor services of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. The key focus is to offer a safe 

quality program and maintain adverse impacts within 

acceptable limits. 

Hunting on the refuge does affect big game 

movements, distribution, and behavior. Big game 

species will likely spend more time in wooded 

habitats during the day as well as in closed areas 

(regardless of habitat type) on the refuge. Hunting 

also increases agitation, nervousness, and energetic 

expenditures associated with running from hunters 

and the sounds of weapons being fired. Changing the 

areas where hunting is allowed from 1 year to the 

next may increase these impacts because big game 

would have to learn where the “safe zones” are every 

year. This would also negatively impact wildlife 

viewing opportunities because there may not be a 

particular area each year where big game animals 

would congregate. Areas on the refuge that have 

traditionally been closed to hunting provide some 

of the best big game viewing opportunities to see 

white-tailed deer, elk, and moose. Big game animals 

typically congregate in these closed areas. 

Direct negative impacts of big game hunting on 

other wildlife will be minimal because hunting occurs 

in the fall when breeding and nesting seasons are 

over. Most land birds and many of the waterfowl 

have migrated out of the valley when the peak big 

game hunting occurs. Other birds (such as owls, 

ravens, and magpies) do remain in the area during 

hunting season; however, impacts on these species 

are expected to be minimal. Any disturbance impacts 

on most predators and scavengers will probably be 

outweighed by an increase in food in the form of gut 

piles and carcass remains. 

Recreational hunting activities may, in some cases, 

result in competition for limited resources (such as 

preferred campsites or use areas) between hunters 

and other refuge users. However, campsites are 

typically available even during the peak hunting 

seasons. In addition, a portion of the areas closed to 

hunting are still open to other wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities such as wildlife viewing, 

wildlife photography. Some big game animals tend 

to congregate in the closed areas. This behavior may 

ultimately provide refuge visitors with increased 

opportunities to view animals such as moose, elk, and 

deer. However, the aesthetic value of the viewing 

may be diminished by the occasional sound of 

gunshots. 

DETERMINATION 

Recreational big game hunting is a compatible use at 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY 

TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY 

The refuge big game hunt program will be designed 

to provide quality experiences. A quality hunt 

experience means that (1) hunters are safe; 

(2) hunters exhibit high standards of ethical behavior; 

(3) hunters are provided with uncrowded conditions; 

(4) hunters have reasonable harvest opportunities; 

(5) hunters are clear on which areas are open and 

closed to hunting; and (6) minimal confl icts occur 

between hunters and other visitors, especially those 

engaging in wildlife-dependent priority visitor 

services. 

The 7-day per week hunt program proposed on the 

refuge would include the following restrictions to 

reduce impacts: 

1. 	 a limited hunt area (areas will be posted and 

enforced) 

2. 	 use of stock animals to retrieve game 

3. 	 use of stock animals south of the Southside 

Centennial Road to access other areas of the 

Centennial Mountains 

4. 	 periodic biological and social monitoring and 

evaluation of the hunting program, including 

feedback from users to determine if objectives 

of a quality experience are being met 

Hunter compliance with current State of Montana 

big game and refuge specific regulations would 

be achieved through a combination of printed 

information, signing, outreach efforts, and 

enforcement of regulations by law enforcement 

offi cers. 

JUSTIFICATION 

Hunting is one of the six priority visitor services of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing for 

a quality hunting program contributes to achieving 

one of the refuge goals. This program as described 

was determined to be compatible in view of the 

potential impacts that hunting, camping, and use 
168 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

of stock animals can have on the Service’s ability 

to achieve refuge purposes and goals. The refuge 

would be opened to big game hunting, with suffi cient 

restrictions in place on hunting, use of stock animals, 

and other visitor services to ensure a quality hunting 

program. 

Refuge hunt programs are designed to provide 

quality experiences. In general, hunting on refuges 

should be superior to that available on other public 

lands, which may require special restrictions (Refuge 

Manual 8RM5). Measures are often used to ensure 

quality. The limited hunt program is proposed on the 

refuge to (1) provide a quality hunting experience 

that meets refuge guidelines and policies; (2) prevent 

conflicts with other priority wildlife-dependent 

visitor services; and (3) control and maintain 

ungulate populations at a level that is compatible 

with plant and wildlife animal communities on the 

refuge and meets habitat objectives (for example, 

preventing over-browsing of willow communities) 

outlined in the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan. 

The hunting areas provide distinct, manageable units 

that can be easily delineated, posted, and enforced. It 

is anticipated that big game will fi nd suffi cient food 

resources and resting places, both inside and outside 

of the hunt area, hunting pressure will not cause 

premature departure from the area, the physiological 

condition of big game and other wildlife species will 

not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity 

patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their 

overall state and national population status will 

not be impaired (that is, the species will not be 

in jeopardy of becoming federally threatened or 

endangered). 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2023 

DESCRIPTION OF USE: 

WATERFOWL HUNTING 

The Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

proposes to continue to provide limited opportunities 

for waterfowl hunting (a wildlife-dependent 

recreation) that are compatible with the refuge’s 

purpose. Hunting is identified as a priority public 

use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997. Hunting of waterfowl (limited to coots, 

ducks, and geese) will be permitted in a designated 

hunting area on and surrounding the Lower Red 

Rock lake (also known as Lower lake) and Red Rock 

Creek/River Marsh area. 

The refuge proposes to allow waterfowl hunting on 

approximately 7,750 acres–less than 17% of the entire 

refuge. However, 3,550 acres of this is upland habitat 

where little or no hunting occurs because few geese 

or ducks are present in this habitat. As such, due to 

habitat constraints, hunting typically only occurs on 

4,200 acres of the refuge, less than 10% of the entire 

refuge. The hunting area will be delineated by signs 

along the eastern and northern boundaries, the 

refuge boundary fence and signs along the western 

boundary, and the Southside Centennial Road along 

the southern boundary. 

Hunting will be allowed consistent with annual 

Montana State hunting regulations and seasons, 

as well as applicable specific refuge and federal 

regulations. The waterfowl hunting season generally 

falls within the period from October through early 

January. However, waterfowl hunting on the refuge 

typically does not occur after October because all 

water is frozen, and very few waterfowl remain 

in the area. There will be no limit on the number 

of hunters and hunt days and no designated blind 

sites. Refuge staff estimate 300 hunter visits during 

the waterfowl season. A majority of hunter visits 

occur on the first two weekends of the year. Hunting 

pressure is almost nonexistent during weekdays and 

after the second weekend of the hunting season. 

Access will be on foot and nonmotorized boats for a 

majority of the area because most of the hunting area 

exists in a designated wilderness area. However, 

motorized boats would be allowed from the Lower 

Red Rock lake water control structure downstream 

on Red Rock Creek. During the hunting season, 

hunting dogs will be allowed off leash and under 

voice control for the purpose of retrieving waterfowl. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

The following annual costs would be required to 

administer and manage waterfowl hunting activities: 

Item Cost 

Buy and post signs $7,000 

Maintenance of access roads, $12,000 

parking lots, boat ramps 

Law enforcement $3,000 

Administration (brochures, $10,000 

monitoring, etc.) 

Total $32,000 

Adequate funding exists to administer the waterfowl 

hunt program. Law enforcement staffing does not 

currently occur on-site but typically is available 

during periods of heavy use. Partnerships have been 

developed with the Bureau of Land Management and 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to assist with law 

enforcement needs and provide for a safe, quality 

visitor services program. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF USE 

Adequate funding exists to administer the waterfowl 

hunt program. There is currently no law enforcement 

staff on-site. There is some law enforcement presence 

during periods of heavy use. Partnerships have been 
Appendix E— Draft Compatibility Determinations 169 

developed with the Bureau of Land Management and 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to assist with law 

enforcement needs. 

By its very nature, waterfowl hunting has very 

few, if any, positive effects on waterfowl and other 

birds while the activity is occurring. However, it is 

well recognized that this activity has given many 

people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better 

understanding of the importance of conserving their 

habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the 

Refuge System mission. Furthermore, despite the 

potential impacts of hunting, a goal of the refuge is to 

provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation. By law (see above), hunting is one of the 

six priority visitor services of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. A key concern is to offer a safe and 

quality program and to keep adverse impacts to 

within acceptable limits. 

Although hunting directly impacts individual birds, 

the amount of waterfowl harvest is not expected 

to have a measurable effect on refuge, national or 

international populations, especially since waterfowl 

hunting activity is extremely limited (in time and 

space) on the refuge. For example, the refuge staff 

estimates that approximately 300 hunter visits 

are made annually to the refuge. Over the entire 

season, the average hunter visit per day would 

be approximately 3.0 during an average season. 

However, since the refuge hunting season is typically 

nonexistent after October, the average on the 

refuge is probably closer to 9.1 hunter visits per day. 

Hunting may be either compensatory or additive to 

natural mortality (Anderson 1995). Compensatory 

mortality occurs when hunting substitutes for other 

forms of mortality (such as disease, competition, 

predation, and severe weather). Additive mortality 

occurs when hunting compounds the total mortality. 

In some cases, hunting can be used as a management 

tool to control populations. In concert with Canada, 

Mexico, and multistate flyway councils, the Service 

and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks regulate 

hunting so that harvest does not reduce populations 

to unsustainable levels. 

Direct effects of hunting on waterfowl are mortality, 

wounding, and disturbance (Delong 2002). Hunting 

can alter behavior (such as foraging time), population 

structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife 

(Bartelt 1987, Cole and Knight 1990, Madsen 

1985, Owens 1977, Raveling 1979, Thomas 1983, 

White-Robinson 1982). In Denmark, hunting was 

documented to affect the diversity and number of 

birds using a site (Madsen 1995). Bird diversity 

changed from predominantly mute swan and mallard 

to a more even distribution of a greater number of 

species when a sanctuary was established. Hence, 

species diversity increased with the elimination 

of hunting. There also appears to be an inverse 

relationship between the number of birds using 

an area and hunting intensity (DeLong 2002). In 

Connecticut, lesser scaup were observed to forage 

less in areas that were heavily hunted (Cronan 

1957). In California, the numbers of northern pintails 

on Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge nonhunt 

areas increased after the first week of hunting and 

remained high until the season was over in early 

January (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Following 

the close of hunting season, ducks generally 

increased their use of the hunt area; however, use 

was lower than before the hunting season began. 

Human disturbance to wintering birds and other 

wildlife using the open waters and marshes on the 

refuge would occur as a result of hunting activity. 

Migratory and wintering waterfowl generally 

attempt to minimize time spent in fl ight and 

maximize foraging time because fl ight requires 

considerably more energy than any other activity, 

other than egg laying. Human disturbance associated 

with hunting includes loud noises and rapid 

movements, such as those produced by shotguns 

and boats powered by motors. This disturbance, 

especially when repeated over a period of time, 

compels waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at 

night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas (Belanger 

and Bedard 1990; Madsen 1995; Wolder 1993). 

Disturbance levels from hunting activity outside 

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge were found to 

be high enough to force wintering black ducks into a 

pattern of nocturnal feeding within surrounding salt 

marsh and diurnal resting with refuge impoundments 

(Morton et al. 1989a, 1989b). Unhunted populations 

have been documented to behave differently from 

hunted ones (Wood 1993). 

These impacts can be reduced by the presence of 

sanctuary areas where hunting does not occur, and 

birds can feed relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries 

or nonhunt areas have been identified as the most 

common solution to disturbance problems caused 

from hunting (Havera et al. 1992). Prolonged and 

extensive disturbances may cause large numbers 

of waterfowl to leave disturbed areas and migrate 

elsewhere (Madsen 1995; Paulins 1984). In Denmark, 

hunting disturbance effects were experimentally 

tested by establishing two sanctuaries (Madsen 

1995). Over a 5-year period, these sanctuaries became 

two of the most important staging areas for coastal 

waterfowl. Numbers of dabbling ducks and geese 

increase 4- to 20-fold within the sanctuary (Madsen 

1995). Thus, sanctuary areas are very important to 

minimize disturbance to waterfowl populations to 

ensure their continued use of the refuge. 

Intermittent hunting can be a means of minimizing 

disturbance, especially if rest periods in between 

hunting events are weeks rather than days (Fox and 

Madsen 1997). It is common for refuges with heavily 

used hunt programs to manage their programs with 

nonhunt days. At Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, 3%–16% of northern pintails were located 

in hunt units during nonhunt days, but they were 

almost entirely absent in those same units on hunt 

days (Wolder 1993). In addition, northern pintails, 
170 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

American wigeon, and northern shovelers decreased 

time spent feeding on days when hunting occurred 

on public shooting areas, as compared to nonhunt 

days (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). However, 

intermittent hunting may not always greatly 

reduce hunting impacts. At Sacramento National 

Wildlife Refuge, the intermittent hunting of three 

hunt days per week results in lower northern 

pintail densities on hunt areas during nonhunt days 

than establishing nonhunt areas (Wolder 1993). In 

Germany, several studies reported a range from a 

few days to approximately 3 weeks for waterbird 

numbers to recover to pre-disturbance levels (Fox 

and Madsen 1997). The proposed hunt program at 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge will not be 

intermittent due to the limited nature of the hunting 

season, limited use that occurs during the week 

days, and the limited amount of area that is open to 

hunting. 

Boating activity associated with hunting during the 

fall can alter distribution, reduce use of particular 

habitats or entire areas by waterfowl and other 

birds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, 

and cause premature departure from areas (Knight 

and Cole 1995). In the upper Midwest, motor boating 

and hunting have been found to be the two main 

activities that disturb waterfowl (Korschgen et al. 

1985). In Connecticut, selection of feeding sites by 

lesser scaup was influenced by disturbances from 

hunters, anglers, and pleasure boats (Cronan 1957). 

In Germany, boat pressure on wintering waterfowl 

had reached such a high level that it was necessary 

to establish larger sanctuaries, implement a seasonal 

closure on water sports and angling, and impose 

a permanent ban on hunting (Bauer et al. 1992). 

Impacts of boating can occur even at low densities, 

given their noise, speed, and ability to cover 

extensive areas in a short amount of time. However, 

impacts from boating at Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge will be greatly reduced because a 

majority of the proposed hunting area will be open 

to only nonmotorized boating. Thus, much of the 

disturbance impacts (identified above due to motor 

boats quick movements, noise, and ability to cover 

large areas in a short amount of time) will not apply 

to this refuge. As such, the use of nonmotorized boats 

is one way of minimizing disturbance to waterbirds at 

this refuge. In addition, allowing only nonmotorized 

boating on a majority of the hunting area provides 

for a very unique experience not easily found in 

southwest Montana. Each year, the refuge staff 

receives comments from hunters who specifi cally 

come to this refuge because of the nonmotorized 

regulations. 

Additional impacts from hunting activity include 

conflicts with individuals participating in wildlifedependent priority visitor services, such as 

canoing, kayaking, and other wildlife observations. 

However, the refuge currently provides a minimum 

of 3,200 acres that are closed to hunting but open 

to nonmotorized boating and wildlife observation. 

In addition, approximately 4,500 acres of upland 

habitat is closed to hunting but open for visitors to 

participate in wildlife observation activities on foot. 

DETERMINATION 

Waterfowl hunting is a compatible use at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY 

The refuge’s waterfowl hunt program will be 

designed to provide quality experiences. A quality 

hunt experience means that (1) hunters are safe; (2) 

hunters exhibit high standards of ethical behavior; (3) 

hunters are provided with uncrowded conditions; (4) 

hunters have reasonable harvest opportunities; (5) 

hunters are clear on which areas are open and closed 

to hunting; and (6) minimal conflicts occur between 

hunters and other visitors, especially those engaging 

in wildlife-dependent priority visitor services. 

The 7-days-per-week hunt program proposed on the 

refuge would include the following restrictions to 

reduce impacts: (1) a limited hunt area (areas will be 

posted and enforced); (2) use of nonmotorized boats, 

except downstream (west) of the Lower Red Rock 

lake water control structure; (3) use of closed areas, 

as needed, to provide sufficient feeding and resting 

habitat for waterfowl; and (4) periodic biological 

and social monitoring and evaluation of the hunting 

program, including feedback from users to determine 

if the objectives for a high-quality experience (as 

defined above) are being met. 

Hunter compliance with current migratory bird 

and refuge regulations would be achieved through a 

combination of printed information, signing, outreach 

efforts, and enforcement of regulations by law 

enforcement offi cers. 

JUSTIFICATION 

Hunting is one of the six priority visitor services 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing 

for a quality hunting program contributes to 

achieving one of the refuge goals. This program as 

described was determined to be compatible, in view 

of potential impacts that hunting and supporting 

activities (boating) can have on the Service’s 

ability to achieve refuge purposes and goals. The 

refuge would be opened to waterfowl hunting, with 

sufficient restrictions in place on hunting, boating, 

and other visitor services to ensure that an adequate 

amount of quality feeding and resting habitat 

would be available in relatively undisturbed areas 

(sanctuaries) for a majority of waterfowl and other 

wetland birds using the refuge. 

Refuge hunt programs are designed to provide 

high-quality experiences. In general, hunting on 
Appendix E— Draft Compatibility Determinations 171 

refuges should be superior to that available on other 

public lands, which may require special restrictions 

(Refuge Manual 8RM5). Measures are often used 

to ensure quality. The limited hunt program is 

proposed on the refuge to accomplish the following 

(1) provide a quality hunting experience that meets 

refuge guidelines and policies, (2) provide suffi cient 

waterfowl sanctuary, and (3) prevent confl icts with 

other priority wildlife-dependent visitor services. 

Consolidation of the hunting area into a single 

block of land provides a distinct, manageable unit 

that can be easily delineated, posted, and enforced. 

It is anticipated that birds will fi nd suffi cient food 

resources and resting places, both inside and outside 

the hunt area, such that their abundance and use of 

the refuge will not be measurably lessened, hunting 

pressure will not cause premature departure from 

the area, the physiological condition of waterfowl and 

other waterbirds will not be impaired, their behavior 

and normal activity patterns will not be altered 

dramatically, and their overall population status will 

not be impaired. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2023 

DESCRIPTION OF USE: 

RECREATIONAL FISHING 

Recreational fishing (a wildlife-dependent activity) 

has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public 

use, provided it is compatible with the purpose for 

which the refuge was established. An establishment 

authority for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, the Refuge Recreation Act, provides for 

“incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational 

development.” 

Currently, fishing is allowed on Odell, Red Rock, and 

Elk Springs (west of Elk Lake Road) under state 

seasons. Culver, Widgeon, and MacDonald ponds 

and Elk Springs Creek (east of Elk Lake Road) are 

open seasonally (July 15-October 1). All other refuge 

waters are closed to fishing to protect breeding 

waterfowl and trumpeter swans. Game fi sh include 

native Westslope cutthroat trout (although mostly 

hybridized with nonnatives), Arctic grayling, and 

limited mountain whitefish. Nonnative game species 

include brook, Yellowstone cutthroat, and rainbow 

trout. There are unimproved parking areas at the 

ponds. Vehicle access points with minimal parking 

exist at two locations on Red Rock Creek and one 

each at Elk Springs and Odell creeks. Commercial 

guiding is not allowed. 

Anglers must use nontoxic artificial lures or fl ies. 

Lead sinkers are prohibited. Fishing with bait is 

not permitted in order to reduce introduction of 

nonnative invasive species and increase the survival 

of released native fish. The refuge has not collected 

data on fishing use. From observations, Red Rock 

Creek receives the greatest fishing pressure. There 

is the potential for some Arctic grayling mortality 

due to such things as trampling of eggs and catch and 

release fishing. To minimize future impacts on Arctic 

grayling from fishing, no additional parking areas will 

be created. 

The refuge does not stock nonnative fi sh species 

to protect Arctic grayling populations. A primary 

objective of the proposed alternative (B) is to restore 

Arctic grayling and Westslope cutthroat trout 

populations. While refuge streams will be open in 

compliance with state regulations, fishing closures in 

target creeks and ponds may be implemented while 

restoration work is being completed. 

The CCP proposes the following fi shing 

opportunities: 

■	 Until they are restored, MacDonald, Widgeon, 

and Culver ponds would be open under 

state regulations to fishing from the bank, 

unless necessary to protect nesting swans or 

lacustrine/adfluvial Arctic grayling restoration 

efforts. 

■	 All refuge streams would be open to fi shing in 

compliance with state and refuge regulations. 

■	 To protect native Arctic grayling and Westslope 

cutthroat populations, visitors would be 

encouraged to keep all nonnative fish they catch 

in accordance with state regulations. 

■	 Red Rock Creek west of Lower lake structure 

would be opened to fi shing. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

Sufficient resources are available at the current 

levels of fishing pressure. The refuge will continue 

to work with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to 

conduct fish and creel surveys. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF USE 

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance 

to wildlife. This disturbance may have cumulative 

impacts on wildlife, habitat, and the fi sheries 

resource. This includes more disturbances to wildlife, 

vegetation trampling, potential introduction and 

spread of exotic aquatic and terrestrial plants, 

potential transmission of diseases including whirling 

disease, problems associated with disposal of 

human waste, and deposition of lead sinkers and 

fishing line. Birds or mammals feeding or resting 

may be disturbed by anglers fishing from the bank. 

The current visitor use is often low enough that 

disturbance by anglers cause minimal impacts on 

most wildlife species. Opening the remaining creeks 

on the refuge to fishing should not impact Arctic 

grayling because they have not been found during 

surveys outside of Odell and Red Rock creeks. 
172 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

DETERMINATION 

Recreational fishing is a compatible use at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY 

■	 Fishing is not allowed on Swan Lake and Lower 

and Upper Red Rock lakes. 

■	 Fishing on the creeks is open according to 


Montana state seasons.
 

■	 Until restored, bank fishing on MacDonald, 

Widgeon, and Culver ponds would be open 

under state regulations unless necessary 

to protect nesting swans or Arctic grayling 

restoration efforts. 

■	 Anglers must use nontoxic artificial lures or 

fl ies. 

■	 Lead sinkers are prohibited. 

■	 Fishing with bait is not permitted. 

■	 The harvest of nonnative game fish species is 

promoted. 

■	 Commercial guiding is not permitted. 

■	 Existing use is monitored to ensure that 

disturbance to wildlife continues to be minimal. 

■	 Existing signage is improved or replaced. 

JUSTIFICATION 

Based upon biological impacts described above and 

in the EA, it is determined that recreational fi shing 

within Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

will not materially interfere with or detract from 

the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is to provide opportunities for 

public fishing when compatible, and it is identifi ed 

as a priority public use in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Current 

recreational fishing at the refuge will support this 

goal with only minimal conflicts with the wildlife 

conservation mission of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2023 

DESCRIPTION OF USE: WILDLIFE 

OBSERVATION AND PHOTOGRAPHY 

Wildlife observation and photography are major 

visitor services at the refuge. The beauty and 

uniqueness of the area combined with the abundance 

of various bird and mammal species draw over 

12,000 visitors each year. The refuge will continue 

to support and enhance opportunities related to 

wildlife observation and photography. Supporting 

uses to assist visitors in wildlife observation and 

photography are vehicle access, foot access (including 

hiking trails), campgrounds, nonmotorized boat and 

bicycle access. These supporting uses (access) will be 

controlled and regulated through the publication of 

refuge brochures and through information posted at 

the kiosks. 

Wildlife observation and photography are two of the 

six wildlife-dependent recreational uses specifi ed in 

the Improvement Act. 

Wildlife observation and photography will be 

allowed across most of the refuge, with the exception 

of closed areas at Shambow Pond and the area 

surrounding the residences, shop, and equipment 

yard. 

Foot travel, including hiking, snowshoeing, and 

cross-country skiing, is permitted throughout the 

refuge except for the above mentioned closed areas. 

Passenger vehicles, motorcycles and bicycles will 

be restricted to county and public refuge roads. 

Seasonal road closures, due to weather, limit access 

during the winter and spring months. Snowmobiles 

are not permitted on refuge roads and are restricted 

to county roads. ATV’s are not allowed on refuge 

roads or campgrounds and must be licensed for 

highway use to be able to operate on county roads. 

Nonmotorized boat access is seasonally allowed 

on Red Rock Creek, Upper and Lower Red Rock 

lakes and the river marsh connecting the two lakes. 

Boating access is difficult if a drought persists due to 

the shallowness of the lakes. Sailing is not permitted. 

Horses, mules, llamas, and other animals used for 

riding or packing are permitted only for access into 

mountainous areas south of South Valley Road (Red 

Rock Pass Road). 

The CCP proposes to continue the above uses and 

add the following to improve wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography: 

■	 Update and improve refuge signs and 


brochures.
 

■	 Develop an auto-tour route. 

■	 Replace existing kiosks, update interpretive 

panels, and add an interpretive kiosk. 

■	 Investigate the development of accessible 

habitat specifi c wildlife-viewing/photography 

areas, infrastructure or trails. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

Developing new facilities outlined in the CCP is 

closely tied to funding requests in the form of refuge 

operation needs system (RONS) and maintenance 

management system (MMS) projects. Existing 

programs such as current refuge directional signs 

and brochures can be updated with available 

resources. 
Appendix E— Draft Compatibility Determinations 173 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF USE 

Wildlife observation and photography can affect the 

wildlife resource positively or negatively. A positive 

effect of public involvement in these priority visitor 

services will be a better appreciation and more 

complete understanding of the refuge’s wildlife and 

habitats. That can translate into more widespread, 

stronger support for the refuge, Refuge System, and 

the Service. 

Walking and hiking is expected to minimally disturb 

wildlife and wildlife habitat at the current and 

proposed levels. Increased disturbance to wildlife 

would occur in areas regularly frequented by 

visitors, such as the campgrounds and trails. During 

snow-free months, the majority of visitors restrict 

their pedestrian use to the trails and parking areas, 

which concentrates these uses along the road system, 

minimizing disturbance to wildlife and habitats. The 

majority of the bird species migrate out of the area 

in the winter months. Elk, pronghorn, and mule deer 

also tend to leave the valley. Winter pedestrian travel 

will have little to no impact on other species because 

of the inaccessibility of the refuge. White-tailed deer 

and moose around the headquarters are disturbed 

more frequently in the winter from pedestrian 

travel but can easily move away from those visitors 

snowshoeing or skiing. 

Vehicular access, while restricted to the roads, allows 

visitors to cover more ground, potentially increasing 

the number of times an animal is disturbed, but it 

may be of shorter duration compared to pedestrian 

disturbance. Some areas are closed during the 

winter to all public activity, thereby protecting 

wintering waterfowl and trumpeter swans. Wildlife 

disturbance, especially impacts to moose, from 

snowmobiles traveling through the refuge has not 

been studied. Snowmobiles are restricted to the 

county roads. Snowmobile use on the South Valley 

Road to Elk Creek Road is low at this time. The use 

may dramatically increase if a resort business opens 

up in Lakeview in the near future. Snowmobile use 

through the refuge on Elk Lake Road is relatively 

high (average 30 snowmobiles/day). These visitors 

come from West Yellowstone and go up to Elk Lake 

Resort for lunch. This use needs to be monitored for 

impacts on wildlife. 

Nonmotorized boating is restricted to Red Rock 

Creek and Upper Red Rock lake from July 15 to 

freeze up. Lower Red Rock lake and the River 

Marsh connecting the two lakes is open September 

1 to freeze up. Kayaks and canoes are the typical 

nonmotorized boats used. Wildlife disturbance from 

human-powered boating displaces birds from the 

immediate area of the visitors. The slow speeds of 

the boats and large size of the lakes allow the birds 

to easily move to another area without further 

disturbance. This use needs to be monitored for 

impacts on wildlife. 

No cultural resources would be impacted. No impact 

on endangered species should occur. 

Short-term impacts: There may be temporary 

disturbance to wildlife near the activity. Direct shortterm impacts may include minor damage from traffi c 

to refuge roads and trails when wet and muddy. 

Temporary disturbance may occur due to facility 

improvements. However, suitable habitats exist 

nearby and effects on wildlife would be minor and 

nonpermanent. 

Long-term Impacts: None. 

Cumulative Impacts: The Service does not 

expect substantial cumulative impacts from these 

two priority uses in the near term, but it will be 

important for refuge staff to monitor those uses and, 

if necessary, respond to conserve high-quality wildlife 

resources. 

Refuge staff, in collaboration with volunteers, will 

monitor and evaluate the effects of these priority 

visitor services to discern and respond to any 

unacceptable impacts on wildlife or habitats. To 

mitigate those impacts, the refuge will close areas 

where birds such as bald eagles, colonial waterbirds, 

or swans are nesting. The Service expects no 

additional effects from providing these two priority 

uses. 

DETERMINATION 

Wildlife observation and photography are compatible 

uses at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY 

■	 Wildlife observation and photography will be 

allowed across most of the refuge, with the 

exception of closed areas at Shambow Pond and 

the area surrounding the residences, shop, and 

equipment yard. 

■	 Foot travel, including hiking, snowshoeing, and 

cross-country skiing, is permitted throughout 

the refuge, except for the above-mentioned 

closed areas. 

■	 Passenger vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles 

will be restricted to county and public refuge 

roads. Seasonal road closures due to weather 

limit access during the winter and spring 

months. Snowmobiles are not permitted on 

refuge roads and are restricted to county roads. 

All terrain vehicles are not allowed on refuge 

roads or campgrounds and must be licensed for 

highway use to be able to operate on county 

roads. 

■	 Nonmotorized boat access is seasonally allowed 

on Red Rock Creek, Upper and Lower Red 

Rock lakes, and the River Marsh connecting the 

two lakes. Boating access is difficult if a drought 
174 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

persists due to the shallowness of the lakes. 

Sailing is not permitted. 

■	 Horses, mules, llamas, and other animals used 

for riding or packing are permitted only for 

access into mountainous areas south of South 

Valley Road (Red Rock Pass Road). 

■	 An increase in education and law enforcement 

patrols would minimize illegal or undesirable 

activity. 

■	 Newly constructed viewing areas would be 

designed to minimize disturbance impacts on 

wildlife and all refuge resources while providing 

a good opportunity to view wildlife in their 

natural environments. 

JUSTIFICATION 

According to the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, wildlife observation and 

photography are priority public use activities that 

should be encouraged and expanded where possible. 

It is through compatible visitor services such as 

this that the public becomes aware of and provides 

support for refuges. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2023 

DESCRIPTION OF USE: ENVIRONMENTAL 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION 

a

r

Environmental education and interpretation are 

both defined as wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses under the Improvement Act. Currently these 

programs have been opportunistic as time and staff 

allows. School group participation in environmental 

education is severely limited due to road conditions 

and distance from communities. A few organized 

groups request tours and talks during the summer 

months. Interpretation is limited to brochures, 

information panels at the headquarters visitor 

contact station, two standalone panels, and three 

kiosks. In addition, the refuge does not have an autotour route or interpretation along designated trails. 

The CCP proposes to continue with the above uses, 

and add the following to improve environmental 

education and interpretation: 

■	 Hire a seasonal visitor services technician to 

develop and carry out interpretive programs. 

■	 Update and improve refuge signs and 


brochures, identifying refuge trails.
 

■	 Develop and interpret an auto tour route. 

■	 Replace existing kiosks, update interpretive 

panels, and add an interpretive kiosk. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

Funding for these activities is supported solely by 

annual operation and maintenance money. Resources 

are stretched in order to continue providing 

environmental education and interpretation at the 

refuge. Implementing new facilities outlined in 

the CCP is closely tied to funding requests in the 

form of refuge operation needs system (RONS) and 

maintenance management system (MMS) projects. 

Existing programs such as current refuge directional 

signs and brochures can be updated with available 

resources. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF USE 

The use of the refuge to provide interpretation and 

environmental education on the refuge may impose 

a low-level impact on those sites used for these 

activities. Impacts may include trampling vegetation 

and temporary disturbance to wildlife species in the 

immediate vicinity. 

DETERMINATION 

Environmental education and interpretation use are 

compatible uses at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY 

Visitors participating in environmental education 

nd Interpretation programs will follow all refuge 

egulations. On-site activities should be held where 

minimal impact would occur. 

JUSTIFICATION 

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is to provide opportunities for the 

public to develop an understanding and appreciation 

for wildlife when it is found compatible with other 

goals. The above uses are identified as priority visitor 

services in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 and will help meet the 

above secondary goal with only minimal confl icts. 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

used to encourage an understanding in citizens of all 

ages to act responsibly in protecting wildlife and its 

habitat. These are tools used in building land ethics, 

developing support for the refuge, and decreasing 

wildlife violations. 

Environmental education at the refuge is incidental 

to other programs since there is no full-time staff to 

conduct these activities. However, the program is 

important and provides visitors with an awareness 

of refuge-specific issues such as wetland ecology, 

migratory bird management, and issues relating to 

the entire Refuge System. 

Based on anticipated biological impacts and in the 

environmental assessment, it is determined that 

environmental education and interpretation on the 

refuge will not interfere with refuge habitat goals 

and objectives or the purposes for which it was 
Appendix E— Draft Compatibility Determinations 175 

established. Limits to access and monitoring can help 

mitigate any adverse impacts. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2023 

DESCRIPTION OF USE: CAMPING 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge manages 

two primitive campgrounds for visitors participating 

in wildlife-dependant recreation. Camping is 

not permitted elsewhere on the refuge. The 

campgrounds provide opportunities to participate 

in wildlife-dependant recreation without traveling 

great distances. Because of the distance to town 

and limited public land access, the campgrounds are 

used regularly by visitors who are bird watching, 

photographing wildlife, fishing, hunting, and 

hiking or bicycling the Continental Divide trails. 

Groups touring the valley and refuge also use the 

campgrounds for day use. 

Camping is permitted year-round, but it primarily 

occurs from May through October with some use 

in November. Access to the campgrounds in the 

winter is limited to travel across snow-covered 

roads, and the vault toilets are not maintained. 

Visitors observing and photographing wildlife are 

the primary users during the summer, with hunters 

dominating in the fall. Camping is allowed for up 

to 14 consecutive days. Fires are only allowed in 

fire rings, and visitors can collect dead and downed 

material. Garbage must be packed out. Visitors to the 

campgrounds rarely litter. Food and carcass storage 

is required to protect grizzly and black bears and 

visitors. The refuge will provide bear-proof storage 

containers for hikers, bicyclists, and motorcyclists 

and for hunters to store carcasses. 

Upper Lake campground receives the most use by 

visitors due to its beautiful scenery and location 

adjacent to the county road. It provides two vault 

toilets (not accessible), piped spring water, picnic 

tables (one accessible), and fire rings. The entrance 

road and all campsites need repairs. There are 

no hookups, parking, or turnarounds specifi cally 

for recreational vehicles (RVs). This limits RVs 

from using this campground, which provides 

more campsites for hikers, bicyclists, and vehicle 

campers. This minimizes conflicts between vehicles 

using generators and low-impact campers. There 

are 11 designated sites. There is a boat ramp (not 

accessible) for nonmotorized boats. An informational 

kiosk is provided to inform the visitor about the 

refuge and its wildlife. Upper Red Rock lake is open 

to nonmotorized boats from July 15 to freeze up to 

protect breeding birds. 

River Marsh campground provides two vault 

toilets (not accessible) and fire rings. There are no 

designated campsites here and it can accommodate 

RVs. This campground is primarily used during 

hunting seasons, especially waterfowl hunting 

because it provides immediate access to open hunt 

areas. Summer use does occur by wildlife observers 

who want to get away from the county road. There 

is a boat ramp (accessible) for nonmotorized boats. 

Lower Red Rock lake is open to nonmotorized boats 

from September 1 to freeze up to protect breeding 

birds. 

Universally accessible toilets would replace old 

toilets at both campgrounds, along with an accessible 

campsite at the River Marsh campground. Other 

improvements, such as food storage containers, 

picnic tables, fire rings, and road repair, will increase 

the safety for visitors and the opportunities to use 

the refuge over multiple days. A recreational fee 

may be charged to help offset the maintenance of the 

campgrounds. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

Existing funding and staffing are adequate to 

maintain the refuge campgrounds to provide access 

to wildlife-dependent activities on and off of the 

refuge. During the peak summer months, volunteers 

maintain the vault toilets, pick up litter, and clean 

campsites. They also make many contacts with 

visitors, educating them about the refuge and its 

wildlife. The campgrounds are both about 4 miles 

away from headquarters, which allows for easy 

access to patrol and monitor the visitors. Visitor 

Facility Enhancement funding will help correct 

drainage issues on the entrance and campsite access 

roads. Operating the campgrounds as a fee unit 

would require, at a minimum, one full day a week of 

staff time for collecting and counting of money and 

increased law enforcement presence. The refuge 

contracts the pumping of the vault toilets. The Upper 

Lake toilets need to be pumped twice a year due 

to the high use and inadequate size of the vaults. 

The refuge could reduce pumping needs to once a 

year or less by replacing the old vault toilets with 

adequately sized, clean-smelling vault toilets. The 

new toilets would meet Americans with Disabilities 

Act requirements. This improvement is dependent 

upon funding from the Visitor Facility Enhancement 

Program. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE 

Some short-term impacts, such as littering, 

vegetation trampling, and wildlife disturbance, can 

be expected, but these are not anticipated to be 

significant at current or increased levels of camping. 

This is because the vast majority of visitors travel 

the long distances over rough roads to enjoy the 

scenery, outdoors, solitude, and wildlife of the refuge. 

Isolation buffers the refuge from visitors looking for 

a party location. Very few problems have occurred 

with visitors using the campgrounds. 

The Upper Lake campground is surrounded by thick 

vegetation, and visitors tend to watch wildlife within 
176 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

the open areas of the campground and along the 

county road. Refuge staff regularly receive reports 

by visitors who see moose, badger, fox, and deer 

walking through the campground. The River Marsh 

campground is located in open grassland habitat 

next to Lower Red Rock lake. Wildlife disturbance 

primarily impacts waterfowl that move away from 

the shoreline when there are people present in the 

campground. The potential for accidental wildfi res 

exists, but with education, the hazard would be 

reduced or eliminated if burn bans are implemented. 

The use of these primitive campsites by through 

hikers, bicyclists, and motorcyclists on the 

Continental and Great Divide trails will not 

adversely impact refuge purposes and objectives. 

This use is at a low level and is not expected to 

substantially increase over the next 15 years. 

By providing environmental education or 

interpretive programs, or both, at the campgrounds 

to a “captive” audience, the refuge staff can 

encourage an understanding in citizens of all 

ages to act responsibly in protecting wildlife and 

habitat. These are tools used in building land ethic, 

developing support of the refuge, and decreasing 

wildlife violations. 

DETERMINATION 

Camping is a compatible use at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY 

■	 The refuge will continue to enforce general 

visitor services regulations which protect 

habitat and wildlife, and limit disturbance to 

other refuge visitors. 

■	 The refuge manager may prohibit fi res during 

periods of high fi re danger. 

■	 The refuge will continue to provide information 

to campers. 

■	 Expansion of the campgrounds will not occur. 

■	 A detailed step-down visitor services plan 

will be completed and will include planned 

improvements to the existing impacted area 

within the campgrounds such as placement of 

new accessible vault toilets out of the view of 

Upper Red Rock lake, an accessible observation 

deck, and planned campsite placement. 

■	 Commercial operations will not be allowed to 

use the campgrounds. 

JUSTIFICATION 

Camping is not a priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational use as identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. It is, 

however, an activity in support of other priority 

uses, such as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, 

and photography. It is a policy of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service that, “We may allow other activities 

on refuges, such as camping, to facilitate compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreation.” (605 FW 1, 1.2B). 

Camping on the refuge will have limited negative 

impacts on natural resources when conducted under 

the above stipulations. Management of this use will 

require minimal administrative time and potentially 

manageable amounts of time in the form of toilet 

maintenance and public contacts. Camping, therefore, 

at its current level of use will not negatively interfere 

with the purposes of the refuge or the mission of the 

Refuge system. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2023 

DESCRIPTION OF USE: COMMERCIAL 

FILMING, AUDIO RECORDING, AND STILL 

PHOTOGRAPHY 

Commercial filming is defined as the digital or fi lm 

recording of a visual image or sound recording by 

a person, business, or other entity for a market 

audience, such as for a documentary, television or 

feature film, advertisement, or similar project. It 

does not include news coverage or visitor use. Still 

photography is defined as the capturing of a still 

image on film or in a digital format. 

The Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and 

designated Wilderness is an incredibly scenic and 

beautiful landscape with tremendous opportunities 

for commercial filming and commercial still 

photography. The refuge provides an ideal setting for 

filmmakers and photographers. Each year the refuge 

staff receives approximately one to fi ve requests 

to conduct commercial filming or commercial still 

photography on the refuge. Each request is evaluated 

on an individual basis, using a number of Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and National Wildlife Refuge System policies (for 

example, 43 CFR Part 5, 50 CFR Part 7, 8 RM 16). 

Commercial filming will be managed on the refuge 

through the special user permit process (except as 

described below for certain activities conducted by 

commercial still photographers—see Stipulations 

Necessary to Ensure Compatibility) to minimize the 

possibility of damage to cultural or natural resources 

or interference with other visitors to the area. In 

addition, much of the refuge is designated wilderness 

area. A minimum-requirements decision guide will 

be completed for all commercial fi lming activities 

proposed in the wilderness area. This process 

involves determining if an essential task should 

be conducted in the Wilderness Area, and then 

determining the combination of methods, equipment, 

or administrative practices necessary to successfully 

and safely administer the refuge and accomplish 

wilderness management objectives. 
Appendix E— Draft Compatibility Determinations 177 

The use includes access by groups or individuals 

in vehicles on roads open to the general public, by 

nonmotorized boats on refuge waters open to the 

general public, and on refuge lands open to the 

general public. In rare cases, access to areas closed 

to the general public may be permitted through the 

special use permit process. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

In general, the refuge would normally incur no 

expense except administrative costs for review of 

applications, issuance of a special use permit, and 

staff time to conduct compliance checks. These 

costs may be able to be recovered as outlined in a 

Proposed Rule modifying commercial filming and still 

photography policy for the several agencies within 

the Department of the Interior. This Proposed Rule 

is currently in the public review process (Federal 

Register, Volume 72, Number 160, dated August 20, 

2007). 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE 

Wildlife photographers and filmmakers tend to 

create the largest disturbance impacts of all wildlife 

observers (Dobb 1998, Klein 1993, Morton 1995). 

While wildlife observers frequently stop to view 

species, wildlife photographers are more likely to 

approach wildlife (Klein 1993). Even a slow approach 

by wildlife photographers tends to have behavioral 

consequences to wildlife species (Klein 1993). Other 

impacts include the potential for photographers 

to remain close to wildlife for extended periods of 

time, in an attempt to habituate the wildlife subject 

to their presence (Dobb 1998) and the tendency for 

photographers with low-power lenses to get much 

closer to their subjects (Morton 1995). This usually 

results in increased disturbance to wildlife and 

habitat, including the trampling of plants. Handling 

of animals and disturbing vegetation (such as cutting 

plants, removing flowers) is prohibited on the refuge. 

These impacts are expected to be minimized or 

avoided through the denial of issuance of special use 

permits for commercial filming and still photography 

(see exceptions to still photography permitting 

outlined below) on a case-by-case basis. 

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

This compatibility determination was prepared 

concurrently with the CCP for the refuge. Public 

review and comment was achieved concurrently with 

the public review and comment period for the draft 

CCP and EA. 

DETERMINATION 

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography are compatible uses at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY 

All commercial filming requires a special use permit. 

■	 Special use permits will identify conditions 

that protect the refuge’s values, purposes, 

resources; public health and safety, and prevent 

unreasonable disruption of the public’s use 

and enjoyment of the refuge. Such conditions 

may be, but are not limited to, specifying 

road conditions when access will not be 

allowed, establishing time limitations, and 

identifying routes of access into the refuge. 

These conditions will be identified to prevent 

excessive disturbance to wildlife, damage to 

habitat or refuge infrastructure, or confl icts 

with other visitor services or management 

activities. 

■	 The special use permit will stipulate that 

imagery produced on refuge lands will be made 

available to the refuge to use in outreach, 

interpretation, internal documents, or other 

suitable uses. In addition, any commercial 

products must include appropriate credits 

to the refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

■	 The commercial filming or still photography 

use must demonstrate a means to extend public 

appreciation and understanding of wildlife 

or natural habitats, or enhance education, 

appreciation and understanding of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, or facilitate outreach 

and education goals of the refuge. Failure to 

demonstrate any of these criteria will result in a 

special use permit being denied. 

■	 Still photography requires a special use permit 

(with specific conditions as outlined above) if 

one or more of the following would occur: 

—	 it takes place at locations where or when 

member of the public are not allowed. 

—	 it uses model(s), set(s), prop(s) that are not 

part of the location’s natural or cultural 

resources or administrative facilities. 

—	 the refuge would incur additional 

administrative costs to monitor the activity. 

—	 the refuge would need to provide 

management and oversight to: avoid 

impairment of the resources and values of 

the site; limit resource damage; or minimize 

health and safety risks to the visiting public. 

—	 the photographer(s) intentionally 

manipulate(s) vegetation to create a “shot” 

(for example cutting vegetation to create a 

blind). 

■	 To minimize impact on refuge lands and 

resources, the refuge staff will ensure that all 

commercial filmmakers and commercial still 

photographers (regardless of whether a special 

use permit is issued) comply with policies, rules, 
178 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

and regulations, and refuge staff will monitor 

and assess the activities of all fi lmmakers, 

photographers and audio recorders. 

JUSTIFICATION 

Allowing commercial filming, still photography 

or audio recording is an economic use that must 

contribute to the achievement of the refuge purposes, 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, or 

the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Providing opportunities for commercial fi lming, still 

photography, or audio recording that meets the above 

requirements should result in an increased public 

awareness of the refuge’s ecological importance as 

well as advancing the public’s knowledge and support 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The stipulations 

outlined above and conditions imposed in the special 

use permits issued to commercial fi lmmakers, still 

photographers and audio recorders would ensure 

that these wildlife-dependent activities occur without 

adverse effects on refuge resources or refuge 

visitors. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2023 

DESCRIPTION OF USE: COMMERCIALLY 

GUIDED OR OUTFITTED STOCK ANIMAL 

SERVICES FOR GAME RETRIEVAL AND 

ACCESS ACROSS THE REFUGE INTO THE 

CENTENNIAL MOUNTAINS 

Use of stock animals by the public to retrieve game 

and access the Centennial Mountains is currently 

authorized on the refuge (see Recreational Hunting 

– Compatibility Determination which was evaluated 

separately). There is no authorized use of hunting 

guides on the refuge. 

Commercially guided and/or outfitted stock animal 

services can be divided into two categories. The 

first is the use of stock animals (with or without the 

services of the stock owner) to retrieve big game 

taken on the refuge or adjacent lands. This service 

is typically provided to moose hunters on the refuge 

as it is usually logistically difficult to remove moose 

carcasses on foot due to the terrain and size of the 

animal. In addition, this service has been typically 

provided to hunters that take an elk off-refuge in 

the upper elevations of the Centennial Mountains. 

Many times, the only feasible access to this animal 

is to cross refuge property with the outfi tted stock 

animals. Approximately, 10 to 20 pack trips are made 

annual to retrieve animals. 

The second category of use is to provide access to 

hunters, campers and environmental education 

students that are being guided and/or taught by the 

sole outfitting/guiding service (known as Centennial 

Outfitters) authorized to operate in the Centennial 

Mountains (under State of Montana and Bureau 

of Land Management permits). Access to the 

Centennial Mountains across public land is extremely 

limited – especially on the east end of the mountain 

range where the refuge exists. Access into the 

Centennial Mountains by this outfitter is restricted 

to two access points across the refuge (Odell Creek 

trail and Shambow Trail). Approximately 65 to 75 

trips are made each year over a period of 55 to 65 

days. The majority of the trips occur in September, 

October and November. Trips vary in the number of 

stock animals that are used from 1 (just a rider on 

a horse) up to 23 animals (various number of riders 

and pack animals). The largest number of animals 

occurs during the summer months (typically July) 

when Centennial Outfitters are offering day trips for 

wildlife observation and environmental education/ 

interpretation programs. 

Centennial Outfitters is the sole commercial 

operation licensed to operate in the Centennial 

Mountains. Access onto and across the refuge has 

been conducted utilizing a Special Use Permit in past 

years. As of 2005, Centennial Outfitters reports all 

trips made across the refuge as well as the number of 

riders and animals used as a condition of their special 

use permit. 

The use of commercially provided stock animals 

contributes to fulfillment of refuge purposes and 

to the National Wildlife Refuge System mission by 

facilitating priority visitor services (hunting, wildlife 

observation, interpretation and environmental 

education) and management of healthy wildlife 

populations through controlled hunting. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

Adequate refuge personnel and base operational 

funds are available to manage this commercial 

activity at existing levels. Administrative staff time 

primarily involves issuing one special use permit a 

year. This burden could be reduced by extending the 

period of use of this one permit. Fieldwork associated 

with administering this program primarily involves 

monitoring the permittee’s compliance with permit 

terms and assessing trail conditions. Total staff time 

for administering this permit is approximately 5 days 

per year. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE 

Wildlife disturbance from horseback riding and 

stock animals is not well-documented. However, 

some studies suggest that many wildlife species are 

habituated to livestock and that horseback wildlife 

observers can approach wildlife at closer distances 

than by other forms of travel (Bennett and Zuelke 

1999, Williams and Conway-Durver 1998). 

Horseback riding and the use of stock animals has 

both a direct and indirect effect on habitat. Trampling 

causes mortality of plant and animal species. Indirect 
Appendix E— Draft Compatibility Determinations 179 

effects result when soil is compacted and plants 

cannot reestablish (Summer 1980). Grazing can 

reduce vegetation. Nonnative plant species can be 

spread by stock animals through feces and seeds 

dropped that were caught in a stock animal’s hair. In 

addition, stock animal manure, although not harmful 

to human health, can cause conflicts with other trail 

users since it can be odorous, unaesthetic, and a 

nuisance. 

While there can be user group conflicts and some 

limited safety issues resulting from hikers and 

commercial use of stock animals using the same trail, 

these are expected to be minimal given the current 

level of use. 

In general the impacts to wildlife, plant species, 

and other visitors to the refuge are expected to 

be minimal given the current level of use by one 

outfitter using stock animals to access the Centennial 

Mountains or retrieve game animals from the refuge. 

DETERMINATION 

Commercially guided or outfitted stock animal 

services for game retrieval and access across the 

refuge into the Centennial Mountains is a compatible 

use at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY 

■	 All commercial use of stock animals requires 

a special use permit. Special use permits will 

identify conditions that protect the refuge’s 

values, purposes, resources, and public health 

and safety, as well as prevent unreasonable 

disruption of the public’s use and enjoyment 

of the refuge. Such conditions may be, but 

are not limited to specifying trail conditions 

when access will not be allowed, establishing 

limitations on the group size and number of 

trips allowed annually, recommendations for 

preventing the spread of nonnative vegetation, 

and identifying routes of access into the refuge. 

These conditions will be identified to prevent 

excessive disturbance to wildlife, damage to 

habitat or refuge infrastructure, or confl icts 

with other visitor services or management 

activities. 

■	 The commercial use of stock animals must 

demonstrate a means to extend public 

appreciation and understanding of wildlife 

or natural habitats, or both; OR enhance 

education, appreciation and understanding 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System; OR 

facilitate outreach, education, and visitor 

services goals of the refuge. Failure to 

demonstrate any of these criteria will result in 

denial of a special use permit. 

■	 Commercial stock animals may not be corralled, 

tethered, or hitched along trails on the refuge. 

JUSTIFICATION 

Recreational hunting, environmental interpretation, 

and environmental education have been found 

to be compatible with the purposes of the refuge 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. 

Commercially guided and outfitted stock animal 

services is a form of traditional activity that 

Congress intended to preserve with the enactment of 

the Wilderness Act, which is an important act guiding 

the management of the refuge.These services on the 

refuge support priority visitor services, including 

hunting, environmental education, environmental 

interpretation, and wildlife observation and 

photography. Access into the Centennial Mountains 

would be much more restricted if these services were 

not allowed. The requirements placed on recreation 

guides ensure that these commercial operations are 

safe and high-quality operations. These requirements 

are by the Bureau of Land Management through its 

selection process, by the refuge through the terms 

of a special use permit, and by the state of Montana 

through regulations placed on guides and outfi tters. 

These services are a valuable benefit to a segment of 

the American public that is not physically able to, not 

comfortable with, or for other reasons chooses not 

to participate in unguided trips into the Centennial 

Mountains. Access across the refuge by commercially 

guided or outfitted stock animals is essential to 

getting these types of Americans into this wilderness 

area. In addition, due to the difficulty of pedestrian 

travel in the area where moose hunting is allowed 

on the refuge, many moose hunters would not be 

able to retrieve their animals if this service were not 

provided. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2023 

DESCRIPTION OF USE: RESEARCH 

The Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

receives approximately 1–3 requests per year to 

conduct scientific research on the refuge. Priority 

would be given to studies that contribute to 

the enhancement, protection, preservation, and 

management of the refuge’s native plant, fi sh, and 

wildlife populations and their habitats. Research 

applicants must submit a proposal that outlines (1) 

objectives of the study; (2) justification for the study; 

(3) detailed study methodology and schedule; and 

(4) potential impacts on refuge wildlife and habitat, 

including disturbance (short and long-term), injury, 

or mortality. This includes a description of measures 

the researcher will take to reduce disturbances 

or impacts; (5) personnel required and their 

qualifications/experience; (6) status of necessary 

permits (scientific collecting permits, endangered 

species permits); (7) costs to refuge and refuge staff 

time requested, if any; and (8) anticipated progress 
180 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

reports and end products (such as reports or 

publications). Refuge staff or others, as appropriate, 

would review research proposals and issues special 

use permits if approved. 

Evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, 

the following: 

■	 Research that will contribute to specifi c refuge 

management issues will be given higher 

priority over other requests. 

■	 Research that will conflict with other ongoing 

research, monitoring, or management programs 

will not be approved. 

■	 Research projects that can be conducted offrefuge are less likely to be approved. 

■	 Research that causes undue disturbance or 

is intrusive will likely not be approved. The 

degree and type of disturbance would be 

carefully weighed when evaluating a research 

request. 

■	 Research evaluation will determine if any effort 

has been made to minimize disturbance through 

study design, including adjusting location, 

timing scope, number of permittees, study 

methods, and number of study sites. 

■	 If staffing or logistics make it impossible for 

the refuge to monitor researcher activity 

in a sensitive area, this may be reason to 

deny the request, depending on the specifi c 

circumstances. 

■	 The length of the project will be considered and 

agreed upon before approval. Projects will be 

reviewed annually. 

The refuge currently has an active land acquisition 

program. If newly acquired property includes areas 

of research interest, the same special use permit 

process and evaluation criteria described above will 

be followed. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

Adequate funding and staffing currently exist to 

manage for a limited amount of research at the Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. As always, 

discretionary use of staff time would be weighed 

through a cost-benefit analysis. It is anticipated that 

approximately $6,000 per year would be required to 

administer and manage research activities described 

above. Administration would include, but not be 

limited to, evaluation of applications, management of 

permits, and oversight of research projects. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF USE 

Some degree of disturbance is expected with all 

research activities since most researchers will 

be entering areas that are seasonally-closed or 

conducting research in remote areas of the refuge 

that have limited visitation by the general public, 

and some research requires collection of samples or 

handling of wildlife. However, minimal impact on 

refuge wildlife and habitats is expected with research 

studies because special use permits will include 

conditions to ensure that impact to wildlife and 

habitats are kept to a minimum. 

DETERMINATION 

Research use is a compatible use at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY: 

■	 Extremely sensitive wildlife habitat areas 

and wildlife species will be provided suffi cient 

protection from disturbance by limiting 

proposed research activities in these areas. 

All refuge rules and regulations must be 

followed unless otherwise exempted by refuge 

management. 

■	 Refuge staff will use the criteria for evaluating 

a research proposal, as outlined above under 

“Description of Use,” when determining 

whether to approve a proposed study on the 

refuge. If proposed research methods are 

evaluated and determined to have potential 

impacts on refuge resources (habitat or 

wildlife), it must be demonstrated that the 

research is necessary for refuge resource 

conservation management. Measures to 

minimize potential impacts would need to be 

developed and included as part of the study 

design. In addition, these measures will be 

listed as conditions on the special use permit. 

■	 Refuge staff will monitor research activities 

for compliance with conditions of the special 

use permit. At any time, refuge staff may 

accompany the researchers to determine 

potential impacts. Staff may determine that 

previously approved research and special use 

permits be terminated due to observed impacts. 

The refuge manager will also have the ability 

to cancel a special use permit if the researcher 

is out of compliance or to ensure wildlife and 

habitat protection. 

JUSTIFICATION 

The program as described is determined to be 

compatible. Potential impacts of research activities 

on refuge resources will be minimized because 

sufficient restrictions would be included as part 

of the study design and research activities will be 

monitored by the refuge staff. Research projects 

will contribute to the enhancement, protection, 

preservation, and management of the refuge’s 

wildlife populations and their habitats. 
Appendix E— Draft Compatibility Determinations 181 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2023 

DESCRIPTION OF USE: GRAZING 

The refuge currently uses livestock grazing as a tool 

to manage a variety of upland, riparian, and seasonal 

wetland habitats. Livestock grazing has been a 

preferred management tool because the effect on 

habitat is controllable and measurable. Livestock 

grazing has been used in a variety of ways, including 

high intensity – short duration, rest rotation, and 

complete rest. Grazing is not permitted on the refuge 

until after July 10 to minimize disturbance to nesting 

birds. Between 1994 and 2006 grazing rates ranged 

from 0.31–0.85 animal unit months (AUM) per acre, 

with an average of 3,790 AUM used annually. Actual 

rates per field varied substantially depending on 

the site, with some grazing unit rates being as low 

as 0.02 AUM per acre and others as high as 2.17 

AUM per acre. The refuge currently has 23 subunits 

where grazing is being used as a management tool. 

Maintenance of the fences is a constant effort due to 

weather, water, animal, and human impacts. 

The CCP proposes to continue using prescribed 

grazing in order to manage habitats. The CCP 

will establish goals and objectives for specifi c 

habitat types (such as riparian, wet meadow, and 

shrub-steppe) where prescribed grazing may be 

used. In addition, target wildlife species (such as 

northern pintail and Brewer’s sparrow) and their 

habitat requirements have been identified. This has 

resulted in development of objectives that will guide 

management to meet target wildlife species habitat 

needs. The refuge will improve upon the vegetation 

and wildlife monitoring and research program in 

order to assess habitat and wildlife population 

responses to the prescribed grazing management 

program. Different grazing rates and management 

strategies will be investigated in order to determine 

the best methods for the refuge to meet the identifi ed 

habitat goals and objectives of the CCP. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES 

Current refuge staff and funding resources are 

limited for the purposes of monitoring habitats 

and implementing research needs to understand 

the impacts of grazing on the refuge habitats. 

A minimum of one full-time seasonal biological 

technician would greatly enhance the refuge’s 

ability to assess the outcomes of grazing. However, 

over the past 4 years, refuge staff have been able 

to use students from universities and colleges to 

lay the ground work for an improved monitoring 

program. In addition, the refuge recently completed 

a detailed vegetation inventory using the U.S. 

National Vegetation Classification Standards. Data 

were collected during the summers of 2005–2007. 

Field surveys were digitized, and a database for 

geographic information systems was generated. 

This data will greatly benefit the refuge in designing 

research and monitoring protocol for assessing the 

prescribed grazing management program. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF USE 

The prescribed grazing management program is 

intended to be used to meet habitat and speciesspecific goals and objectives identified in the CCP. 

This management is intended to maintain and 

enhance habitat conditions for the benefit of a wide 

variety of fish and wildlife that used the refuge. 

Minimal negative impacts are expected through the 

use of this tool. Some trampling of areas may occur 

around watering areas or mineral licks. If fences are 

not maintained, it may be difficult to meet habitat 

objectives. It is anticipated that grazing will be in 

a mosaic pattern with some areas more intenselyy 

grazed than others in certain years. Grazing, as well 

as fire, is known to increase the nutrient cycling of 

nitrogen and phosphorous (Burke et al. 2005, Hauer 

and Spencer 1998, McEachern et al. 2000). Therefore, 

management of upland habitats adjacent to natural 

lakes (such as Upper and Swan lakes) and marshes 

could result in elevated levels of these nutrients 

in the lakes. Elevated levels of phosphorous and 

nitrogen can lead to increases in algae and turbidity 

in shallow lakes, which may ultimately lead to 

significant losses of submerged aquatic vegetation 

communities (see for example, Egertson et al. 2004). 

In addition, the presence of livestock would be 

disturbing to some wildlife species and some public 

users. The benefits of this habitat management tool 

are felt to outweigh these negative impacts. 

DETERMINATION 

Grazing use is a compatible use at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 

COMPATIBILITY: 

■	 Maintain existing riparian fences and use 


temporary fencing, as needed, to protect 


riparian habitats from cattle.
 

■	 Implement a vegetation monitoring program to 

assess if focal species habitat requirements are 

being met. 

■	 Carry out a study to determine the infl uence 

of cattle grazing on the abundance and 

distribution of small mammals, as identifi ed in 

the CCP. 

■	 Begin vegetation monitoring of shrub-steppe 

and grassland habitats to assure adequate 

coverage of sagebrush, native bunchgrasses, 

and forbs—as identified in the CCP. 

■	 Begin nutrient (such as phosphorus, nitrogen) 

monitoring in Lower Red Rock, Upper Red 

Rock, and Swan lakes to ensure that nutrient 

levels are not increased to a point that would 
182 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

result in algae and turbidity increases and 

decreases in submerged aquatic vegetation 

communities. 

JUSTIFICATION 

To maintain and enhance habitat for migratory 

birds and other wildlife, some habitat management 

needs to occur. Prescribed livestock grazing is one 

option that can be used to achieve desired habitat 

conditions. Prescribed grazing is a useful tool because 

it can be controlled, and results of the grazing can 

be monitored (for example, vegetation monitoring) 

so that adjustments to the program can be made in 

order to meet habitat goals and objectives. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2023 
Appendix F 

Fire Management Program 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

administrative responsibility which includes fi re 

management for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, which covers approximately 47,756 acres in 

southwestern Montana. 

THE ROLE OF FIRE 

Vegetation in the Rocky Mountains evolved under 

periodic disturbance and defoliation from fi re, 

drought, floods, large herbivores, insect outbreaks, 

and disease. These periodic disturbances are what 

kept the ecosystem diverse and healthy, while 

maintaining significant biodiversity for thousands of 

years. 

Historically, naturally occurring wildland fi re played 

an important disturbance role in many ecosystems 

by stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, 

providing a diversity of habitats for plants and 

wildlife, and decreasing the impacts of insects and 

diseases. 

When fire is excluded on a broad scale, the 

accumulation of living and dead fuels can contribute 

to degraded plant communities and wildlife habitats. 

These fuel accumulations often change fi re system 

characteristics, and have created potential for 

uncharacteristically severe wildland fi res. 

Return of fire in most ecosystems is essential for 

healthy vegetation for wildlife habitat in grasslands, 

wetlands, and forests. When integrated back into an 

ecosystem, fire can help restore and maintain healthy 

systems and reduce the risk of wildland fi res. To 

make fire’s natural role in the environment easier, 

fi re first must be integrated into land and resource 

management plans and activities on a broad scale. 

Fire, when properly utilized, can: 

■	 reduce hazardous fuels buildup in both 

wildland–urban interface (WUI) and non-WUI 

areas; 

■	 improve wildlife habitats by reducing the 

density of vegetation or changing plant species 

composition; 

■	 sustain or increase biological diversity; 

■	 improve woodlands and shrub lands by reducing 

plant density; 

■	 reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and 

disease outbreaks; 

■	 improve the effectiveness of an integrated pest 

management program (such as for controlling 

smooth brome). 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

POLICY AND GUIDANCE 

An update of the 1995 “Federal Fire Policy” was 

completed and approved in 2001 by the Secretaries 

of the Interior and Agriculture. The 2001 “Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy” directs 

federal agencies to achieve a balance between fi re 

suppression to protect life, property, and resources, 

and fire use to regulate fuels and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. In addition, it directs agencies to 

use the appropriate management response for all 

wildland fire regardless of the ignition source. This 

policy provides eight guiding principles that are 

fundamental to the success of the fi re management 

program: 

■	 Firefighter and public safety is the fi rst priority 

in every fire management activity. 

■	 The role of wildland fires as an ecological 


process and natural change agent will be 


incorporated into the planning process.
 

■	 Fire management plans, programs, and 

activities support land and resource 

management plans and their implementation. 

■	 Sound risk management is a foundation for all 

fire management activities. 

■	 Fire management programs and activities 

are economically viable, based on values to 

be protected, costs, and land and resource 

management objectives. 

■	 FMPs and activities are based on the best 


available science.
 

■	 FMP’s and activities incorporate public health 

and environmental quality consideration. 

■	 Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and 

international coordination and cooperation are 

essential. 

■	 Standardization of policies and procedures 

among federal agencies is an ongoing objective. 

The fire management considerations, guidance, 

and direction should be addressed in the land 
184 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

use resource plans such as the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP). FMPs are step-down 

processes from the land use plans and habitat plans, 

with more detail on fire suppression, fire use, and fi re 

management activities. 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge will 

suppress human-caused fires and wildfi res that 

threaten life and property. The use of appropriate 

management response will be incorporated into 

the refuge’s FMP to allow agency administrators 

the ability to choose from a full spectrum of fi re 

suppression actions. Appropriate suppression 

actions, whether aggressive, high intensity, or 

low intensity actions, will be based on preplanned 

analysis and executed to minimize suppression costs, 

and resource losses consistent with land management 

objectives. 

Wildland fire and prescribed fire, as well as manual 

and mechanical fuel treatments will be used in 

an ecosystem context to protect both federal and 

private property, and for habitat management 

purposes. Fuel reduction activities will be applied 

in collaboration with federal, state, private, and 

nongovernmental organization partners. In addition, 

fuel treatments will be prioritized based on the 

guidance for prioritization established in the goals 

and strategies outlined in the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Services National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland 

Fire Management Program Strategic Plan 2003– 

2010” and “Region 6 Refuges Regional Priorities 

FY07 to FY11.” For WUI treatments, areas with 

community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) and 

“Communities at Risk” will be the primary focus. The 

settlement of Lakeview, Montana, located adjacent to 

the refuge, was identified as a “Community at Risk” 

in the Federal Register: August 17, 2001 (Volume 66, 

Number 160). Lakeview is being incorporated into a 

CWPP. 

All aspects of the fire management program will be 

conducted in a manner consistent with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations. Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge will maintain an FMP to 

accomplish the fire management goals described 

below. Wildland fire, prescribed fire, and manual 

and mechanical fuel treatments will be applied in 

a scientific manner under selected weather and 

environmental conditions. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT GOALS 

The goals and strategies of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland 

Fire Management Program Strategic Plan are 

consistent with the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

and Service policies, National Fire Plan direction, the 

President’s Healthy Forest Initiative, the 10-Year 

Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan, 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group Guidelines, 

initiatives of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, 

and Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation 

Operations. 

The “Region 6 Refuges Regional Priorities FY07 

through FY11” are consistent with the refuge’s 

vision statement for region 6: “to maintain and 

improve the biological integrity of the region, ensure 

the ecological condition of the region’s public and 

private lands are better understood, and endorse 

sustainable use of habitats that support native 

wildlife and people’s livelihoods.” 

REFUGE FIRE MANAGEMENT GOALS 

The goal of the refuge’s fire management program is 

to work with our interagency partners to: 

1. 	 Suppress human-caused fires and wildfi res that 

threaten life and property. 

2. 	 Reduce wildland fire risk to the community of 

Lakeview and other structures on public and 

private land through hazardous fuels reduction 

treatments. 

3. 	 Use wildland and prescribed fire, manual, and 

mechanical treatment methods to achieve 

habitat goals and objectives identified in this 

CCP using scientific techniques and adaptive 

resource management to monitor results. 

4. 	 Update the current (2002) “Fire Management 

Plan,” incorporating fire management within an 

interagency fire management plan. 

STRATEGIES 

Strategies and tactics that consider public and 

fi refighter safety as well as resource values at risk 

will be used. Wildland fire use and suppression, 

prescribed fire methods, manual and mechanical 

methods, timing, and monitoring are described in 

more detail within step-down FMPs. 

All management actions would use wildland fi re, 

prescribed fire, and manual or mechanical treatment 

methods to reduce hazardous fuels, restore and 

maintain desired habitat conditions, and control 

nonnative vegetation within the diverse ecosystem 

habitats. The fuels treatment program will be 

outlined in the FMP for the refuges. Site-specifi c 

prescribed fire plans will be developed following 

the “Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and 

Implementation Procedures Reference Guide” (2006) 

template. 

Prescribed fire temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing components through 

combustion. The refuge will meet the Clean Air Act 

emission standards by adhering to the “Montana 

State Implementation Plan” requirements during all 

prescribed fi re activities. 
FIRE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION, 

CONTACTS, AND COOPERATION 

Qualifi ed fire management technical oversight 

for the refuge will be established by region 6, 

using the fire management district approach. 

Under this approach, fire management staff will 

be determined by established modeling systems 

based on the fire management workload of a 

group of refuges, and possibly that of interagency 

partners. The fire management workload consists 

of historical wildland fire activity, as well as 

historical and planned fuels treatments. 

Appendix F — Fire Management Program 185 

Depending on budgets, fire management staffi ng 

and support equipment may be located at the 

administrative station or at other refuges within 

the district and shared between all units. Fire 

management activities will be conducted in 

a coordinated and collaborative manner with 

federal and nonfederal partners. 

Upon approval of this CCP, a new FMP for Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge will be 

developed in collaboration with interagency 

partners. 

Bibliography
 

[Anon.] 2007. Check-list of North American birds. 

[Place of publication unknown]: American 

Ornithologists’ Union. 7th ed., 48th supplement, 

[Pages unknown]. 

[Anon.] [No date]. Miscellaneous publication no. 54. 

Missoula, MT: Montana Forest and Conservation 

Experiment Station, School of Forestry, 

University of Montana. [Pages unknown]. 

Aitken, K.E.H.; Wiebe, K.L.; Martin, K. 2002. Nestsite reuse patterns for a cavity-netsing bird 

community in interior British Columbia. The Auk 

119:391–402. 

Albanese J.A.; Hill C.L.; Davis L.B. 1995. Upper 

Pleistocene geology of the Merrell site 

(24BE1659) , Centennial Valley, Southwest 

Montana. Current research in the Pleistocene 

12:117-119. 

Allen, D.R.; Marlow, C.B. 1994. Shoot population 

dynamics of beaked sedge following cattle grazing. 

Journal of Range Management 47:64–69. 

Allen-Diaz, B.H. 1991. Water table and plant 

species relationships in Sierra Nevada meadows. 

American Midland Naturalist 126:30–43. 

Altman, B.; Sallabanks, R. 2000. Olive-sided 

fl ycatcher (Contopus cooperi). In: Poole, A.; Gill, 

F., editors. The birds of North America 502. 

Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Ammon, E.M. 1995. Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza 

lincolnii). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., editors. The birds 

of North America 191. Philadelphia: The Academy 

of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The 

American Ornithologists’ Union. [Pages unknown]. 

Anderson, S.H. 1995. Recreational disturbance and 

wildlife populations. In: Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, 

K.J., editors. Wildlife and Recreationists: 

coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, DC: Island Press, 157–168. 

Anderson, M.; Bourgeron, P.; Bryer, M.T.; Crawford, 

R.; Engelking, L.; Faber-Langendoen, D.; 

Gallyoun, M.; Goodin, K.; Grossman, D.H.; 

Landaal, S.; Metzler,K.; Patterson, K.D.; Pyne, 

M.; Reid, M.; Sneddon, L.; Weakley, A.S. 

1998. International classification of ecological 

communities: Terrestrial vegetation of the United 

States. Volume 2. The National Vegetation 

Classification System: List of types. The Nature 

Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Arcese, P.; Sogge, M.K.; Marr, A.B.; Patten, M.A. 

2002. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In: 

Poole, A.; Gill, F., editors. The birds of North 

America 704. Philadelphia: The Birds of North 

America, Inc. [Pages unknown]. 

Austin, J.E.; Miller, M.R. 1995. Northern pintail 

(Anas acuta). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., editors. The 

birds of North America 163. Philadelphia: The 

Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: 

The American Ornithologists’ Union. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Austin, J.E.; Henry, A.R.; Ball, I.J. 2007. Sandhill 

crane abundance and nesting ecology at Grays 

Lake, Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 

71:1067-1079. 

Baker, W.L. 2006. Fire and restoration of sagebrush 

ecosystems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:177–185. 

Baldassarre, G.A.; Bolen, E.G. 2006. Waterfowl 

ecology and management. 2nd ed. Melbourne, FL: 

Krieger Publishing Company. [Pages unknown]. 

Ball, I.J.; Austin, J.E.; Henry, A.R. 2003. Population 

and nesting ecology of sandhill cranes at Grays 

Lake, Idaho, 1997–2000. Missoula, MT: Montana 

Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. 

Geological Survey; Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, final report to 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Banko, W.E. 1960. The trumpeter swan: its history, 

habits, and population in the United States. North 

American Fauna 63, Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. [Pages unknown]. 

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and 

hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 51:517–522. 

Bartos, D.L.; Campbell, R.B. 1998. Decline of quaking 

aspen in the Interior West—examples from Utah. 

Rangelands 20:17–24. 
188 Draft CCP and EA,Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Bauer, H.G.; Stark, H.; Frenzel, P. 1992. Disturbance 

factors and their effects on water birds wintering 

in the western parts of Lake Constance. Der 

Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81–91. 

Bayley, S.E.; Prather, C.M. 2003. Do wetland 

lakes exhibit alternative stable states? 

Submersed aquatic vegetation and chlorophyll 

in western boreal shallow lakes. Limnology and 

Oceanography 48:2335–2345. 

BBC Consulting. 2007. Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge socioeconomic impact analysis. On 

file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT. 1-11. 

Beaverhead County History Book Association. 1990. 

The history of Beaverhead County (1800–1920). 

Volume 1. Dillon, Montana. 696. 

Beed, W.E. 1957. Red Rock Lakes Aquatic Survey 

1955 and 1956. On file at Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT. 

Be ́langer, L.; Be ́dard, J. 1990. Energetic cost of 

man-induced disturbance to staging greater snow 

geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36–41. 

Bennett, K.A.; Zuelke, E. 1999. The effects of 

recreation on birds: a literature review. Smyrna, 

DE: Delaware Natural Heritage Program. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Berger, J.; Stacey, P.B.; Bellis, L.; Johnson, M.P. 2001. 

A mammalian predator-prey imbalance: grizzly 

bear and wolf extinction affect avian neotropical 

migrants. Ecological Applications 11:947–960. 

Beschta, R.L. 2003. Cottonwoods, elk, and wolves in 

the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park. 

Ecological Applications 13:1295–1309. 

Bishop, R.A.; Andrews, R.D.; Bridges, R.J. 1979. 

Marsh management and its relationship to 

vegetation, waterfowl, and muskrats: Proceedings, 

[Date of proceedings unknown]; [Place of 

proceedings unknown]. In: Proceedings of the 

Iowa Academy of Science 86:50–56. 

Brinson, M.M.; Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S. 1981. Primary 

productivity, decomposition and consumer activity 

in freshwater wetlands. Annual Review of 

Ecological Systems 12:123–161. 

Brown, K.; Hansen, A.J.; Keane, R.E.; Graumlich, 

L.J. 2006. Complex interactions shaping aspen 

dynamics in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Landscape Ecology 21:933–951. 

Bunting, S.C.; Robberecht, R.; Defosse, G.E. 1998. 

Length and timing of grazing on postburn 

productivity of two bunchgrasses in an Idaho 

experimental range. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire 8:15–20. 

Bunting, S.C.; Kilgore, B.M.; Bushey, C.L. 1987. 

Guidelines for prescribed burning sagebrush-grass 

rangelands in the northern Great Basin. Ogden, 

Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report INT-231. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M.; 1994. Franklin’s gull (Larus 

pipixcan). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., editors. The birds 

of North America 116. Philadelphia: The Academy 

of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The 

American Ornithologists’ Union. [Pages unknown]. 

Burke, J.M.; Prepas, E.E.; Pinder, S. 2005. Runoff 

and phosphorus export patterns in large forested 

watersheds on the western Canadian Boreal Plain 

before and for 4 years after wildfire. Journal of 

Environmental Engineering and Science 4:319– 

325. 

Cary, K.L. 2005. Willow resilience on Yellowstone’s 

northern elk winter range: a function of 

environmental gradients. [master’s thesis]. 

Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Casey, D. 2000. Partners in flight draft bird 

conservation plan Montana. version 1.0. American 

Bird Conservancy. Montana Partners in Flight. 

Kalispell, MT. [Pages unknown]. 

Castelli, R.M.; Chambers, J.C.; Tausch, R.J. 2000. 

Soil-plant relations along a soil-water gradient in 

Great Basin riparian meadows. Wetlands 20:251– 

266. 

Chadwick, H.W.; Dalke, P.D. 1965. Plant succession 

on sand dunes in Fremont County, Idaho. Ecology 

46:765–780. 

Chilton, G.; Baker, M.C.; Barrentine, C.D.; 

Cunningham, M.A. 1995. White-crowned sparrow 

(Zonotrichia leucophrys). In: Poole, A.; Gill, 

F., editors. The birds of North America 183. 

Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; 

Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ 

Union. [Pages unknown]. 

Christiansen, R.L. 2001. The Quaternary and 

Pliocene Yellowstone Plateau volcanic fi eld of 

Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. U.S. Geological 

Professional Paper 729-G, 145 p. 

Clary, W.P. 1995. Vegetation and soil responses to 

grazing simulation on riparian meadows. Journal 

of Range Management 48:18–25. 

Cole, D.N.; Knight, R.L. 1990. Impacts of recreation 

on biodiversity in wilderness. Logan, UT: Utah 

State University. [Pages unknown]. 

Connelly, J.W.; Schroeder, M.A.; Sands, A.R.; Braun, 

C.E. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 
Bibliography 189 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967–985. 

Cooper, D.J.; Dickens, J.; Thompson Hobbs, N.; 

Christensen, L.; Landrum, L. 2006. Hydrologic, 

geomorphic, and climatic processes controlling 

willow establishment in a montane ecosystem. 

Hydrological Processes 20:1845–864. 

Cooper, S.V. 1999. Plant associations of the Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge: abbreviated 

community descriptions to accompany vegetation 

map. [Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service]. On file at Montana Natural 

Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 39 p. 

Cooper, S.V.; Jean, C.; Heidel, B.L. 1999. Plant 

associations and related botanical inventory of 

the Beaverhead Mountains Section, Montana. 

[Unpublished report to the Bureau of Land 

Management]. On file at Montana Natural 

Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 235 p. 

Cole, D.N.; Knight, R.L. 1990. Impacts of recreation 

on biodiversity in wilderness. Logan, UT: Utah 

State University. [Pages unknown]. 

Cronan, J.M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the 

scaups in Connecticut waters. The Auk 74(4):459– 

468. 

Cullen, S.A.; Jehl Jr., J.R.; Nuechterlein, G.L. 1999. 

Eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis). In: Poole, A.; 

Gill, F., editors. The birds of North America 433. 

Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M.; Ansley, 

R.J.; Jeffup, K.E. 2006. Soil carbon and nitrogen 

storage in response to fire in a temperate mixedgrass savanna. Journal of Environmental Quality 

35:1620–1628. 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; Euliss, 

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices 

on grassland birds: short-eared owl. Revised 

December 12, 2003. Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs. 

gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/seow/seow.htm> 

[Access date unknown]. 

DeLong, A. 2002. Managing visitor use & disturbance 

of waterbirds: a literature review of impacts 

and mitigation measures. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Pages unknown]. 

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the 

lens. [Place of publication unknown]. Audubon 

Volume 1: (January–February) 44-51, 98-99. 

Dobkin, D.S.; Rich, A.C.; Pretare, J.A.; Pyle, W.H. 

1995. Nest-site relationships among cavity-nesting 

birds of riparian and snowpocket aspen woodlands 

in the northwestern Great Basin. Condor 97:694– 

707. 

Dorn, R.D. 1970. Moose and cattle food habits 

in southwest Montana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:559–564. 

Douglas, D.C.; Ratti, J.T.; Black, R.A.; Alldredge, 

J.R. 1992. Avian habitat associations in riparian 

zones of Idaho’s Centennial Mountains. Wilson 

Bulletin 104:485–500. 

Dugger, B.D.; Dugger, K.M. 2002. Long-billed 

curlew (Numenius americanus). In: Poole, A.; 

Gill, F., editors. The birds of North America 628. 

Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Dwire, K.A.; Kauffman, J.B. 2003. Fire and riparian 

ecosystems in landscapes of the western USA. 

Forest Ecology and Management 178:61–74. 

Dwire, K.A.; Kauffman, J.B.; Baham, J.E. 2006. Plant 

species distribution in relation to water-table 

depth and soil redox potential in montane riparian 

meadows. Wetlands 26:131–146. 

Egertson, C.J.; Kopaska, J.A.; Downing, J.A. 2004. 

A century of change in macrophyte abundance 

and composition in response to agricultural 

eutrophication. Hydrobiologia 624:145–156. 

Esser, L.L. 1992. Achnatherum richardsonii. In: Fire 

Effects Information System, [Internet]. Revised 

June 29, 2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fire Sciences Laboratory. <http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

database/feis/> [Access date unknown]. 

Ferguson, S.H.; Bisset, A.R.; Messier, F. 2000. The 

influences of density on growth and reproduction 

in moose Alces alces. Wildlife Biology 6:31–39. 

Ferrel M.H.; Hauck, C.W.; Myer, R.C. 1981. 

Montana Rail Annual No. 15. [Place of publication 

unknown]: The Colorado Railroad Museum. US 

0-918654-15-7; <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_ 

and_Northern_Railway> [Access date unknown]. 

Finch, D.M. 1989. Habitat use and habitat overlap of 

riparian birds in three elevational zones. Ecology 

70:866–880. 

Finch, D.M.; Reynolds, R.T. 1987. Bird response 

to understory variation and conifer succession 

in aspen forests. In: Emmerick, J. et al., 

editors. Proceedings of issues and technology in 

management of impacted wildlife: Proceedings, 

[Title of proceedings unknown]; [Date of 

proceedings unknown]; [Place of conference 

unknown]. Colorado Springs, CO: Thorne 

Ecological Institute. 87–96. 
190 Draft CCP and EA,Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT Bibliography 190 

Fondell, T.F.; Ball, I.J. 2004. Density and success of 

bird nests relative to grazing on western Montana 

grasslands. Biological Conservation 117:203–213. 

Foresman, K.R. 2001. The wild mammals of 

Montana. Lawrence, KS: The American Society of 

Mammalogists. Special Publication No. 12. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Fox, A.D.; Madsen, J. 1997. Behavioral and 

distributional effects of hunting disturbance on 

waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge 

design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1–13. 

Fredrickson, L.H.; Heitmeyer, M.E. 1991. Life 

history strategies and habitat needs of the 

northern pintail. In: Waterfowl Management 

Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Engle, D.M. 2001. Restoring 

heterogeneity on rangelands: ecosystem 

management based on evolutionary grazing 

patterns. BioScience 51:625–32. 

Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Harrell, W.C.; Engle, D.M.; 

Hamilton, R.G.; Davis, C.A.; Leslie Jr., D.M. 

2006. Should heterogeneity be the basis for 

conservation? Grassland bird response to fi re and 

grazing. Ecological Applications 16:1706–1716. 

Fuguitt, G.V. 1985. The nonmetropolitan population 

turnaround. Annual Review of Sociology 11:259– 

280. 

Gallant, A.L.; Hansen, A.J.; Councilman, J.S.; Monte, 

D.K.; Betz, D.W. 2003. Vegetation dynamics under 

fire exclusion and logging in a Rocky Mountain 

Watershed, 1856–1996. Ecological Applications 

13:385–403. 

Gangloff, M.M. 1996. Winter habitat and distribution 

of Arctic grayling in Upper Red Rock Lake, Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

[master’s thesis]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State 

University. [Pages unknown]. 

Gardali, T.; Ballard, G. 2000. Warbling vireo (Vireo 

gilvus). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., editors. The birds 

of North America 551. Philadelphia: The Birds of 

North America, Inc. [Pages unknown]. 

Giesen, K.M.; Connelly, J.W. 1993. Guidelines for 

management of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 

habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:325–333. 

Guzy, M.J.; Ritchison, G. 1999. Common yellowthroat 

(Geothlypis trichas). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., editors. 

The birds of North America 448. Philadelphia: The 

Birds of North America, Inc. [Pages unknown]. 

Hansen, A.J.; Rotella, J.J.; Kraska, M.P.V.; Brown, 

D. 2000. Spatial patterns of primary productivity 

in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Landscape 

Ecology 15:505–522. 

Hansen, P.L.; Pfister, R.D.; Boggs, K.; Cook, B.J.; 

Joy, J.; Hinckley, D.K. 1995. Classifi cation and 

management of Montana’s riparian and wetland 

sites. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School 

of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation 

Station. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Harris, S.W.; Marshall, W.H. 1963. Ecology of waterlevel manipulations on a northern marsh. Ecology 

44:331–343. 

Hart, J.H.; Hart, D.L. 2001. Heartrot fungi’s role 

in creating picid nesting sites in living aspen. 

In: Shepperd, W.D.; Binkley, D.; Bartos, D.L.; 

Stohlgren, T.J.; Eskew, L.G., compilers. Sustaining 

aspen in western landscapes: symposium 

proceedings. USDA Forest Service Proceedings 

RMRS-P-18. 207–213. 

Harting A.; Glick D. 1994. Sustaining Greater 

Yellowstone, a blueprint for the future. Bozeman, 

MT: Greater Yellowstone Coalition. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Hauer, F.R.; Spencer, C.N. 1998. Phosphorous and 

nitrogen dynamics in streams associated with 

wildfire: a study of immediate and longterm 

effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire 

8:183–198. 

Havera, S.P.; Boens, L.R.; Georgi, M.M.; Shealy, R.T. 

1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk 

Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

20:290–298. 

Heitmeyer, M.E.; Raveling, D.G. 1988. Winter 

resource use by three species of dabbling ducks 

in California. The Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries Biology, University of California, 

Davis, California. On file at Delta Waterfowl and 

Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, 

Manitoba, Canada. 200 p. 

Hendricks, P.; Roedel, M. 2001. A faunal survey 

of the Centennial Valley Sandhills, Beaverhead 

County, Montana. Report to the U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage 

Program. 44 p. 

Herkert, J.R.; Simpson, S.A.; Westemeier, R.L.; 

Esker, T.L.; Walk, J.W. 1999. Response of northern 

harriers and short-eared owls to grassland 

management in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 63:517–523. 

Heyerdahl, E.K.; Miller, R.F.; Parsons, R.A. 2006. 

History of fire and Douglas-fi r establishment 

in a savanna and sagebrush–grassland mosaic, 
Bibliography 191 

southwestern Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management 230:107–118. 

Hinds, T.E. 1985. Diseases. In DeByle, N.V.; Winokur, 

R.P., editors. Aspen: Ecology and management 

in the western United States. Fort Collins, CO: 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report RM-119. 87–106. 

Holling, C.S., editor. 1978. Adaptive environmental 

assessment and management. London: John Wiley 

and Sons. [Pages unknown]. 

Holmes, J.A.; Johnson, M.J. 2005. Brewer’s sparrow 

(Spizella breweri): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Internet]. Durango, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region; <http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ 

projects/scp/assessments/brewerssparrow.pdf > 

accessed 15 March 2007. 

Howard, Janet L. 1996. Bromus inermis. In: Fire 

Effects Information System, [Internet]. Revised 6 

July 2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory. <http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

database/feis/> [Access date unknown]. 

Jahn, L.R.; Hunt, R.A. 1964. Duck and coot ecology 

and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Conservation Department Technical Bulletin No. 

33. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher 

unknown]. 212 p. 

Jeppesen, E.; Søndergaard, M.; Christoffersen, 

K. 1998. The structuring role of submerged 

macrophytes in lakes. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Johnson V.K. 1999. Rural residential development 

trends in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem since 

listing of the grizzly bear. Bozeman, MT: Sierra 

Club. [Pages unknown]. 

Johnson, D.; Igl, L.D. 2001. Area requirements of 

grassland birds: a regional perspective. The Auk 

118:24–34. 

Jones, J.R.; DeByle, N.V. 1985. Morphology. In: 

DeByle, N.V.; Winokur, R.P., editors. Aspen: 

ecology and management in the western United 

States. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

General Technical Report RM-GTR-119. 11–18. 

Kadlec, J.A. 1962. Effects of a drawdown on a 

waterfowl impoundment. Ecology 43:267–281. 

Kadlec, J.A.; Smith, L.M. 1989. The great basin 

marshes. In: Smith, L.M.; Pederson, R.L.; 

Kaminski, R.M., editors. Habitat management 

for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North 

America. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University 

Press. [Pages unknown]. 

Kaeding, L.R.; Boltz, G.D. 1999. A study of Arctic 

grayling and their stream habitat in support of 

reserved water right applications, Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. On fi le 

at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bozeman, MT. 

24 p. 

———.2004. Use of remote-site incubators to 

produce Arctic grayling fry of wild parentage. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

24:1031–1037. 

Kaminski, R.M.; Prince, H.H. 1981. Dabbling duck 

and aquatic macroinvertebrate responses to 

manipulated wetland habitat. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 45:1–15. 

Kantrud, H.A. 1990. Sago pondweed (Potamogeton 

pectinatus L.): a literature review. Resource 

Publication 176. [Place of publication unknown]: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown]. 

Kantrud, H.A.; Higgins, K.F. 1992. Nest and nest 

site characteristics of some ground-nesting, nonpasserine birds of northern grasslands. Prairie 

Naturalist 24:67–84. 

Kaya, C.M. 1992. Review of the decline and status 

of fluvial Arctic grayling, Thymallus arcticus, 

in Montana. In: Proceedings, 1992 Proceedings 

of the Montana Academy of Sciences; [Date of 

proceedings unknown]; [Place of proceedings 

unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 43–70. 

Keigley, R.B.; Frisina, M.R. 2001. Browse conditions 

at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. In: 

Knapp, S.J.; Frisina, M.R., editors. Statewide 

browse evaluation. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks, Wildlife Division, Habitat 

Bureau. Project Report No. 1. [Pages unknown]. 

Keigley, R.B.; Frisina, M.R.; Fager, C. 2002. 

Assessing browse trend at the landscape level; 

part 2: monitoring. Rangelands 24:34–38. 

Kendall, W.L. 2001. Using models to facilitate 

complex decisions. In: Shenk, T.M.; Franklin, 

A.B., editors. Modeling in natural resource 

management: development, interpretation, and 

application. Washington, DC: Island Press. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses 

to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31–39. 

Knick, S.T.; Rotenberry, J.T. 1995. Landscape 

characteristics of shrubsteppe habitats and 

breeding passerine birds. Conservation Biology 

9:1059–1071. 
192 Draft CCP and EA,Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Knight, R.L.; Cole, D.N. 1995. Wildlife responses to 

recreationists. In: Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, K.J., 

editors. Wildlife and recreationists. Covelo, CA: 

Island Press. [Pages unknown]. 

Knopf, F.L. 1985. Significance of riparian vegetation 

to breeding birds across an altitudinal cline. In: 

Johnson, R.R.; Ziebell, C.D.; Patten, D.R.; Ffolliot, 

P.F.; Hamre, R.H., technical coordinators. Riparian 

ecosystems and their management: reconciling 

conflicting uses. [Place of publication unknown]: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

General Technical Report RM-120. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Korb, N.T. 2005. Historical fire regimes and 

structures of Douglas-fir forests in the Centennial 

Valley of southwest Montana. [master’s thesis]. 

Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Korb N.T.; Bauer, B.D.; Keigley, R.B. 2008. 

Centennial Valley aspen assessment: Evaluating 

stand structure and effects of herbivory. On fi le at 

Centennial Valley Fire Learning Network, [Place 

unknown]. 

Korschgen, C.E.; George, L.S.; Green, W.L. 1985. 

Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

13:290–296. 

Krull, J.N. 1970. Aquatic plant-macroinvertebrate 

associations and waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:707–718. 

Kruse, T.E. 1959. Grayling of Grebe Lake, 

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Fishery Bulletin 149. [Pages unknown]. 

Lancia, R.A.; Braun, C.E.; Collopy, M.W.; Dueser, 

R.D.; Kie, J.G.; Martinka, C.J.; Nichols, J.D.; 

Nudds, T.D.; Porath, W.R.; Tilghman, N.G. 

1996. ARM! For the future: adaptive resource 

management in the wildlife profession. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 24:436–442. 

Lanphere, M.A.; Champion, D.E.; Christiansen, 

R.L.; Izett, G.A.; Obradovich, J.D. 2002. Revised 

ages of tuffs of Yellowstone Plateau volcanic 

field: Assignment of the Huckleberry Ridge Tuff 

to a new geomagnetic polarity event. Geological 

Society of American Bulletin 14:559-568. 

Leondard, J.W. 1939. Feeding habits of the Montana 

grayling (Thymallus montanus Milner) in 

Ford Lake, Michigan: Proceedings, [Name of 

proceedings unknown]; [Date of proceedings 

unknown]; [Place of proceedings unknown]. In: 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

68:188–195. 

Lesica, P.; Cooper, S.V. 1999. Succession and 

disturbance in sandhills vegetation: constructing 

models for managing biological diversity. 

Conservation Biology 13:293–302. 

Lesica, P.; Cooper, S.V.; Kudray, G. 2005. Big 

sagebrush shrub-steppe postfire succession in 

southwest Montana. On file at Montana Natural 

Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 

Lowther, P.E. 2000. Pacifi c-slope fl ycatcher 

(Empidonax diffi cilis) and Cordilleran fl ycatcher 

(Empidonax occidentalis). In: Poole, A.; Gill, 

F., editors. The birds of North America 556. 

Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Lowther, P.E.; Celada, C.; Klein, N.K.; Rimmer, C.C.; 

Spector, D.A. 1999. Yellow warbler (Dendroica 

petechia). In: Poole, A., editor. The birds of North 

America online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory 

of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/ 

account/Yellow_Warbler/> [Access date unknown]. 

Madsen J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on fi eld 

utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53–63. 

Madsen J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory 

waterfowl. Ibis 137:567–574. 

Martin, K.; Aitken, K.E.H.; Wiebe, K.L. 2004. 

Nest sites and nest webs for cavity-nesting 

communities in interior British Columbia, Canada: 

nest characteristics and niche partitioning. Condor 

106:5–19. 

McEachern, P.; Prepas, E.E.; Gibson, J.J.; Dinsmore, 

W.P. 2000. Forest fire induced impacts on 

phosphorous, nitrogen, and chlorophyll A in boreal 

subarctic lakes of northern Alberta. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:73– 

81. 

Meagher, M.M. 1973. The bison of Yellowstone 

National Park. National Park Service Scientifi c 

Monograph Series No. 1. [Place of publication 

unknown]: National Park Service. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Merrill, T.; Mattson, D.J. 2003. The extent and 

location of habitat biophysically suitable for grizzly 

bears in the Yellowstone region. Ursus 14:171–187. 

Mitchell, C.D. 1994. Trumpeter swan (Cygnus 

buccinator). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., editors. The 

birds of North America 105. Philadelphia: The 

Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: 

The American Ornithologists’ Union. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. 1986. Wetlands. New 

York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. [Pages unknown]. 
Bibliography 193 

Mogan, J. 1996. Status and biology of the spawning 

population of Red Rock Lakes’ Arctic grayling. 

[master’s thesis]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State 

University. [Pages unknown]. 

[MFWP] Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2004. 

Montana statewide elk management plan. Helena, 

MT: Wildlife Division. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 2005. The Montana comprehensive fi sh 

and wildlife conservation strategy. Helena, 

MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. [Pages 

unknown]. 

———. [No date]. The population of Arctic 

grayling in Upper Red Rock Lake. On file at Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT. 

[MTNHP] 2002. 2002 list of ecological communities 

for Montana. On file at Montana State Library, 

Helena, MT. 

[MTNHP and MFWP] Montana Natural Heritage 

Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

2006. Montana animal species of concern. Helena, 

MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program and 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Morris, M.S.; Kelsey, R.G.; Griggs, D. 1976. The 

geographic and ecological distribution of big 

sagebrush and other wood Artemisias in Montana: 

Proceedings, [Date of proceedings unknown]; 

[Place of proceedings unknown]. In: Proceedings 

of the Montana Academy of Sciences 36:56–79. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human 

disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. In: 

Whitman, W.R.; Strange, T.; Widjeskog, L.; 

Whittemore, R.; Kehoe, P.; Roberts, L., editors. 

Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement 

and management in the Atlantic Flyway. 3rd ed. 

Environmental Management Comm., Atlantic 

Flyway Council Technical Section, and Delaware 

Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover, DE. F59–F86. 

Morton, J.M.; Fowler, A.C.; Kirkpattick, R.L. 1989a. 

Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 

53(2):401–410. 

Morton, J.M.; Kirkpattick, R.L.; Vaughan, M.R.; 

Stauffer, D.F. 1989b. Habitat use and movements 

of American black ducks in winter. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 53:390–400. 

Mueggler, W.F.; Stewart, W.L. 1980. Grassland and 

shrubland habitat types of western Montana. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. General Technical Report 

INT-66. 154 p. 

Muenscher, W.C. 1936. The germination of seeds of 

Potamogeton. Annals of Botany 50:805–821. 

Muller, M.J.; Storer, R.W. 1999. Pied-billed grebe 

(Podilymbus podiceps). In: Poole, A.; Gill, 

F., editors. The birds of North America 410. 

Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Mullins, W.H.; Bizeau, E.G. 1978. Summer Foods 

of Sandhill Cranes in Idaho. Auk, Vol. 95, No. 1. 

75–178. 

Murkin, H.R.; Murkin, E.J.; Ball, J.P. 1997. Avian 

habitat selection and prairie wetland dynamics: 

a 10-year experiment. Ecological Applications 

7:1144–1159. 

Nelson, P.H. 1954. Life history and management 

of the American grayling (Thymallus signifer 

tricolor) in Montana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 18:324–342. 

Newlon, K. R. 2007. Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge vegetation mapping project. On 

file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT. 

O’Reilly, M. 2006. Relationships among moose 

abundance, willow community structure, and 

migratory landbirds at Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge. [bachelor of science thesis]. 

Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant 

geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5–14. 

Pampush, G.J.; Anthony, R.G. 1993. Nest success, 

habitat utilization and nest-site selection of longbilled curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. 

Condor 95:957–967. 

Paulins S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding 

gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48:371–380. 

Paullin, D.G. 1973. The ecology of submerged aquatic 

macrophytes of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Montana. [master’s thesis]. Missoula, MT: 

University of Montana. [Pages unknown]. 

Payne, N.F. 1992. Techniques for wildlife habitat 

management of wetlands. New York: McGrawHill. [Pages unknown]. 

Pettit, N.E.; Naiman, R.J. 2007. Fire in the riparian 

zone: characteristics and ecological consequences. 

Ecosystems 10(5):673. 

Project of the Bureau of Biological Survey. 1935. 

Detailed plans, Red Rock Lakes Migratory Bird 

Refuge. Washington D.C.: Bureau of Biological 

Survey. [Pages unknown]. 
194 Draft CCP and EA,Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Rauscher, R.L. 1997. Status and distribution of the 

pygmy rabbit in Montana: final report. Bozeman, 

MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks. [Pages unknown]. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body 

composition of Canada geese with special 

reference to control of reproduction. The Auk 

96:234–252. 

Redenbach, Z.; Taylor, E.B. 1999. Zoogeographical 

implications of variation in mitochondrial DNA of 

Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus). Molecular 

Ecology 8:23–35. 

Restani, M. 1991. Resource partitioning among three 

buteo species in the Centennial Valley, Montana. 

Condor 93:1007–1010. 

Reynolds, H.W.; Hansen, R.M.; Peden, D.G. 1978. 

Diets of the Slave River lowland bison herd, 

Northwest Territories, Canada. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 42:581–590. 

Reynolds, T.D.; Rich, T.D.; Stephens, D.A. 1999. Sage 

thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus). In: Poole, A.; 

Gill, F., editors. The birds of North America 463. 

Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Romme, W.H.; Turner, M.G.; Wallace, L.L.; Walker, 

J.S. 1995. Aspen, elk, and fire in northern 


Yellowstone Park. Ecology 76:2097–2106.
 

Rotenberry, J.T.; Patten, M.A.; Preston, K.L. 1999. 

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri). In: Poole, A.; 

Gill, F., editors. The birds of North America 390. 

Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Rowland, M.M. 2004. Effects of management 

practices on grassland birds: greater sage-grouse. 

Revised August 12, 2004. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Online. <http://www. 

npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grsg/ 

grsg.htm> [Access date unknown]. 

Rudzitis G. 1996. Wilderness and the changing 

American west. New York: Wiley. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Rusch, D.H.; DeStefano, S.; Reynolds, M.C.; Lauten, 

D. 2000. Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus). In: 

Poole, A.; Gill, F., editors. The birds of North 

America 515. Philadelphia: The Birds of North 

America, Inc. [Pages unknown]. 

Russell, O.; Haines, A.L. 1965. Osborne Russell’s 

journal of a trapper. Lincoln, NE: University of 

Nebraska Press. 191 p. 

Sankey, T.T.; Montagne, C.; Graumlich, L.; Lawrence, 

R.; Nielsen, J. 2006. Twentieth century forest— 

grassland ecotone shift in Montana under differing 

livestock grazing pressure. Forest Ecology and 

Management 234:282–292. 

Schoennagel, T.; Veblen, T.T.; Romme, W.H. 2004. 

The Interaction of fire, fuels, and climate across 

Rocky Mountain Forests. Bioscience 54:661–676. 

Schroeder, M.A.; Young, J.R.; Braun, C.E. 1999. Sage 

grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). In: Poole, A.; 

Gill, F., editors. The birds of North America 425. 

Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Sears, J.W.; Fritz, W.J. 1998. Cenozioc tilt domains 

in southwestern Montana: Interference among 

three generations of extensional fault systems. In: 

Faulds, J.E.; Stewart, J.H., editors. Accomodation 

zones and transfer zones: The regional 

segmentation of the Basin and Range province. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Geological Society 

of America. Special paper 323. 241–247. 

Sedgwick, J.A. 1993. Dusky fl ycatcher (Empidonax 

oberholseri). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., editors. The 

birds of North America 78. Philadelphia: The Birds 

of North America, Inc.; Washington, DC: The 

American Ornithologists’ Union. [Pages unknown]. 

Sempeski, P.; Gaudin, P. 1995. Habitat selection by 

grayling—I. Spawning habitats. Journal of Fish 

Biology, 47:256–265. 

Servheen, C.; Sandstrom, P. 1993. Ecosystem 

management and linkage zones for grizzly bears 

and other large carnivores in the northern Rocky 

Mountains in Montana and Idaho. Endangered 

Species Technical Bulletin 18:3. 

Sharp, W.M. 1951. Environmental requirements 

of a freshwater marsh and the ecology of some 

aquatic plants. In: Proceedings, 1951 Northeast 

Game Conference; 23 February 1951; [Place of 

proceedings unknown]. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Proceedings of the Northeast Game 

Conference. 6 p. 

Sika, J.L. 2006. Breeding ecology, survival rates, 

and causes of mortality of hunted and nonhunted 

greater sage-grouse in central Montana. [master’s 

thesis]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Sive, B.; Shively, D.; Pape, B.. 2003. Spatial variation 

of volatile organic compounds associated with 

snowmobile emissions in Yellowstone National 

Park. On file at University of New Hampshire 

Climate Change Research Center, Durham, NH. 

[Submitted to the National Park Service. 2003]. 

Sonderegger, J.L.; Schofield, J.D.; Berg, R.B.; 

Mannick, N.L. 1982. The Upper Centennial Valley, 

Beaverhead and Madison Counties, Montana. 

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Memoir no. 

50. 53 p. 
Bibliography 195 

Sperry, C.C. 1922. Report on the Red Rock Lake 

District east of Monida (Beaverhead County) 

Montana, with recommendations for its 

improvement as a wild duck feeding ground. On 

file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT. 

Squires, J.R.; Anderson, S.H. 1995. Trumpeter swan 

(Cygnus buccinator) food habits in the greater 

Yellowstone ecosystem. American Midland 

Naturalist 133:274–282. 

Stacy, M.D.; Perryman, B.L.; Stahl, P.D.; Smith, M.A. 

2005. Brome control and microbial inoculation 

effects in reclaimed cool-season grasslands. 

Rangeland Ecology and Management 58:161–166. 

Stewart, R.E.; Kantrud, H.A. 1973. Ecological 

distribution of breeding waterfowl populations in 

North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 

37:39–50. 

Storer, R.W.; Nuechterlein, G.L. 1992. Western and 

Clark’s Grebe. In: Poole, A.; Stettenheim, P.; 

Gill, F., editors. The birds of North America 26. 

Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc.; 

Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ 

Union. [Pages unknown]. 

Summer R.M. 1980. Impacts of horse traffic on trails 

in Rocky Mountain National Park. Journal of Soil 

and Water Conservation 35(2):85–87. 

Svejcar, T.; Riegel, G.M. 1998. Spatial pattern of gas 

exchange for montane moist meadow species. 

Journal of Vegetation Science 9:85–94. 

Tacha, T.C.; Nesbit, S.A.; Vohs, P.A. 1992. 

Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). In: Poole, 

A.; Stettenheim, P.; Gill, F., editors. The birds 

of North America 31. Philadelphia: The Birds 

of North America, Inc.; Washington, DC: The 

American Ornithologists’ Union. [Pages unknown]. 

Taylor, J.F. 1991. Report on cultural resources 

inventory of four proposed project locations within 

the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. On 

file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT. 1-11. 

Thines, N.J.; Shipley, L.A.; Sayler, R.D. 2004. 

Effects of cattle grazing on ecology and habitat 

of Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus 

idahoensis). Biological Conservation 119:525–534. 

Thomas, R.C.; Sears, J.W.; Fritz, W.J.; Landon, S.C. 

2000. Cenozioc extensional history of southwest 

Montana. Geological Society of America. 32:A–40. 

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: the prelude to 

goose reproduction and a review of its implication. 

In: Boyd, H., editor. Fourth Western Hemisphere 

waterfowl and waterbird symposium: Proceedings 

of the symposium; 1983 [Date of proceeding 

unknown]; Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Wildlife 

Service. 73–81. 

Tirmenstein, D. 1999. Artemisia tridentata spp. 

tridentata. In: Fire Effects Information System, 

[Internet]. Revised July 8, 2007. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

<http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/> [Access date 

unknown]. 

Tjarnland, U.; Ericson, G.; Lindesjoo, E.; Petterson, 

I.; Balk, L. 1993. Investigation of the biological 

effects of 2-cycle outboard engines’ exhaust on 

fish. [Place of publication unknown]: Institute 

of Applied Research, University of Stockholm. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Turchi, G.M.; Kennedy, P.L.; Urban, D.; Hein, D. 

1995. Bird species richness in relation to isolation 

of aspen patches. Wilson Bulletin 107:463–474. 

Unthank, A. 1989. Historical overview of Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge grayling. On fi le at 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, 

MT. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Census Bureau: State 

and County QuickFacts for Montana. Data 

derived from 1999 Population Estimates. <http:// 

quickfacts.census.gov> [Access date unknown]. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1974–1975. 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge annual 

narrative 1974–1975. On file at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT. 

———. 1992. Environmental assessment for 

proposed termination of winter feeding of 

trumpeter swans at Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge. Lakewood, CO: Mountain-Prairie 

Region. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1994. Upland habitat management plan. 

On file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, MT. 

———. 1994–1995. Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge annual narrative 1974–1995. On 

file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT. 

———. 1997. A system for mapping riparian areas 

in the western United States. Arlington, VA: 

National Wetlands Inventory. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1999a. National Wetlands inventory 

website: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Revision date unknown]. <http:// 

www.fws.gov/nwi/> [Access date unknown]. 

———. Service 1999b. Fulfilling the promise, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Arlington, VA: 
196 Draft CCP and EA,Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 101 p. 

———. 2001. Centennial Valley Conservation 

Easement Program Plan. On file at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT. 

——— 2002a. Fisheries program, a vision for the 

future. <http://www.fws.gov/fi sheries/CAF/Vision. 

htm#intro> accessed 23 January 2008. 

———. 2002b. Birds of conservation concern 

2002. Arlington, VA: Division of Migratory Bird 

Management. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 2004. Adaptive resource management 

plan for Lower Red Rock Lake, Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT. 

———. 2008a. Moose winter survey data, 1966– 

2008. On file at Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT. 

———. 2008b. Midwinter waterfowl survey. On 

file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT. 

———. 2008c. Submerged acquatic vegetation 

surveys 2003–2008. On file at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT. 

Vander Haegen, W.M.; Dobler, F.C.; Pierce, J.D. 

2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and 

landscape variables in eastern Washington, U.S.A. 

Conservation Biology 14:1145–1160. 

Vander Haegen, W.M.; Schroeder, M.A.; DeGraaf, 

R.M. 2002. Predation on real and artifi cial nests 

in shrubsteppe landscapes fragmented by 

agriculture. Condor 101:496–506. 

Vincent, R.E. 1962. Biogeographical and ecological 

factors contributing to the decline of Arctic 

grayling, Thymallus arcticus Pallas, in Michigan 

and Montana. [PhD. Dissertation]. Ann Arbor, MI: 

University of Michigan. [Pages unknown]. 

 Voigts, D.K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrate abundance 


in relation to changing marsh vegetation. 


American Midland Naturalist 95:313–322.
 

Walker, B. 2004. Effects of management practices 

on grassland birds: Brewer’s sparrow. Revised 12 

August 2004. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center Online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ 

resource/literatr/grasbird/brsp/brsp.htm> [Access 

date unknown]. 

Walker, R.; Craighead, L. 1999. Analyzing wildlife 

movement corridors in Montana using GIS. In: 

Proceedings, 1997 ESRI International User 

Conference; [Date of conference unknown]; San 

Diego, CA. San Diego, CA: Proceedings of the 

1997 ESRI International User Conference. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Wallestad, R.O.; Pyrah, D.B. 1974. Movement and 

nesting of sage grouse hens in central Montana. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 38:630–633. 

Walters, C.J.; Holling, C.S. 1990. Large-scale 

management experiments and learning by doing. 

Ecology 71:2060–2068. 

Warren, J.M.; O’Reilly, M. 2005. Hunting district 334 

winter moose survey data analysis. On file at Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT. 

Welch, B.L.; Criddle, C. 2003. Countering 

misinformation concerning big sagebrush. 

[Place of publication unknown]: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Research Paper RMRS-RP-40. [Pages unknown]. 

Weller, M.W. 1981. Freshwater marshes: ecology 

and wildlife management. Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota Press. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1999. Wetland birds. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press. [Pages unknown]. 

Weller, M.W.; Spatcher, C.E. 1965. Role of habitat in 

the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. 

Ames, IA: Agricultural and Home Economics 

Experiment Station, Iowa State University. 

Department of Zoology and Entomology Special 

Report 43. [Pages unknown]. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh 

feeding of winter brant geese in Essex. Wildfowl 

33:113–118. 

Wiggins, D.A.; Holt, D.W.; Leasure, S.M. 2006. Shorteared owl (Asio fl ammeus). In: Poole, A., editor. 

The birds of North America online. Ithaca, NY: 

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. <http://bna. 

birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Yellow_Warbler/> 

[Access date unknown]. 

Williams B.; Conway-Durver, L. 1998. Horse trails 

in ecological reserves. In: Proceedings, Clemson 

University Horse Trails Symposium. 1998 [Date 

of symposium unknown]; [Place of symposium 

unknown]. [Unpublished paper]. 

Willson, G.D.; Stubbendieck, J. 1996. Suppression of 

smooth brome by atrazine, mowing, and fi re. The 

Prairie Naturalist 28:13–20. 

———. 1997. Fire effects on four growth stages of 

smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss). Natural 

Areas Journal 17:306–312. 

———. 2000. A provisional model for smooth 


management in degraded tallgrass prairie. 


Ecological Restoration 18:34–38.
 
Bibliography 197 

Windell, J.T.; Willard, B.E.; Cooper, D.J.; Foster, S.Q.; 

Knud-Hansen, C.F.; Rink, L.P.; Kiladis, G.N. 1986. 

An ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain 

montane and subalpine wetlands. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Biology Report 86(11). 298 p. 

Winternitz, B.L. 1980. Birds in aspen. In: Workshop 

proceedings: management of western forests and 

grasslands for nongame birds: Proceedings of the 

workshop; 1980 [Date of workshop unknown]; 

[Place of workshop unknown]. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. INT-GTR-86. 247–257. 

Wirth T.; Maus, P.; Powell, J.; Lachowski, H. 

1996. Monitoring aspen decline using remote 

sensing and GIS: Gravelly Mountain Landscape, 

southwestern Montana. Salt Lake City, UT: 

Remote Sensing Steering Committee, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern 

pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, 

California. [master’s thesis]. Arcata, CA: 

Humboldt State University. 62 p. 

Wood, A.K. 1993. Parallels between old-growth forest 

and wildlife population management. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 21:91–95. 

Wright, H.A.; Klemmedson, J.O. 1965. Effect of fi re 

on bunchgrasses of the sagebrush-grass region of 

southern Idaho. Ecology 46:680–688. 

Zimmer, K.D.; Hanson, M.A.; Butler, M.G. 2000. 

Factors influencing invertebrate communities 

in prairie wetlands: a multivariate approach. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 57:76–85. 

Zlatnik, E. 1999. Hesperostipa comata. In: Fire 

Effects Information System, [Internet]. Revised 6 

July 2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory. <http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

database/feis/> [Access date unknown]. 

Zouhar, K.L. 2000. Festuca idahoensis. In: Fire 

Effects Information System, [Internet]. Revised 

29 June 2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fire Sciences Laboratory. <http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

database/feis/> [Access date unknown].