5 Environmental Consequences
 

Subirrigated wetlands. 

Mike Parker/USFWS 

This chapter provides an analysis of the potential 

effects on environmental resources associated with 

the implementation of the management alternatives 

for the refuge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

assessed the environmental consequences of 

implementing each of the alternatives on the 

biological, physical, social, economical, cultural, and 

historical resources of the refuge. 

5.1 ANALYSIS METHODS 

The determination of effects is evaluated at several 

levels, including whether the effects are adverse or 

beneficial and whether the effects are direct, indirect, 

or cumulative with other independent actions. The 

duration of effects also is used in the evaluation of 

environmental consequences. 

Direct effects are those where the impact on the 

resource is immediate and is a direct result of a 

specific action or activity. Examples of a direct effect 

include the effect of trail construction on vegetation 

along the trail or the effect of hunting on wildlife. 

Indirect, or secondary, effects are those that are 

induced by implementation actions but occur later 

in time or farther removed from the place of action 

through a series of interconnected effects. Examples 

of indirect effects include the downstream water 

quality effects from an upstream surface disturbance, 

or the impact that recreational use along a trail may 

have on nearby plant communities. 

A cumulative effect is defined as “the impact on the 

environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future action 

regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) 

or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 

1508.7). 

Impacts are often described in terms of their context, 

intensity, and duration. The duration of effects 

are described as either short-term or long-term. 

Short-term effects would persist for a period of 3 to 

5 years, and would consist primarily of temporary 

disturbance to habitat restoration or facility 

construction and subsequent revegetation efforts. 

Long-term effects would last more than 5 years 

after project initiation and may outlast the 15-year 

lifespan of the CCP. Many long-term effects consist of 

long-term benefits to wildlife habitat resulting from 

habitat management actions. 

5.2 EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

A few potential effects would be similar under each 

of the alternatives: 

■	 The implementation of any of the alternatives 

would follow the refuge’s best management 

practices. 
92 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

■	 The alternatives would avoid and minimize 

impacts to federally threatened and endangered 

species, to the extent possible and practicable. 

■	 The refuge, contractors, researchers, and 

other consultants would continue to acquire 

all applicable permits, such as those for future 

construction activities. 

The sections below describe other effects expected to 

be similar for each alternative. 

REGULATORY EFFECTS 

As indicated in chapter 1 of this draft CCP, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service must follow a number of 

federal laws, administrative orders, and policies 

in the development and implementation of its 

management actions and programs. Among these 

mandates are the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and 

compliance with Executive Orders 11990 (Protection 

of Wetlands) and 11988 (Floodplain Management). 

The implementation of any of the alternatives 

described in this draft CCP and EA would not lead to 

a violation of these or other mandates. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Within the spirit and intent of Executive Order 

12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income 

Populations,” no actions being considered in this 

draft CCP and EA would disproportionately place 

any adverse environmental, economic, social, or 

health effects on minority or low-income populations 

compared to the general public. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to 

ensuring that all members of the public have equal 

access to America’s fish and wildlife resources, as 

well as equal access to information that would enable 

them to participate meaningfully in activities and 

policy shaping. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

As a whole, cultural resources would be enhanced 

through protecting existing resources and extending 

protections to newly-discovered cultural resources. 

There have been limited cultural resource surveys 

performed on the refuge; to fully satisfy provisions 

of NEPA and applicable acts and policies related to 

historical and archaeological resources, additional 

surveys would be required before any new 

construction or excavation. 

Potentially negative effects from construction of 

trails or facilities would require review by the 

regional archaeologist (region 6) and consultation 

with the Montana State Historic Preservation Offi ce. 

GLOBAL WARMING 

The actions proposed in this draft CCP and EA 

would conserve or restore land and habitat, thus 

retaining existing carbon sequestration at the refuge. 

This action would contribute positively to efforts to 

mitigate human-induced global climate change. 

The use of prescribed fire, which releases carbon 

dioxide, would result in no net loss of carbon because 

new vegetation would quickly replace the burnedup biomass. Overall, there should be little to no net 

change for carbon sequestered at the refuge from 

any of the management alternatives. As it relates 

to global climate change, documenting the longterm changes in vegetation, species, and hydrology 

is an important part of research and monitoring. 

Adjustments in management may be necessary over 

time to adapt to a changing climate. 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

All alternatives would positively affect soil formation 

processes on the refuge lands. Some disturbances 

to surface soils and topography would occur at 

those locations selected for (1) administrative, 

maintenance, and visitor facilities; (2) introduced and 

invasive species removal and eradication; and 

(3) restoration of native habitat. 

WATER QUALITY, WETLANDS, 

AND FLOODPLAINS 

All alternatives would positively affect water quality. 

Positive effects are anticipated from protecting 

groundwater recharge, preventing runoff, retaining 

sediment, and minimizing nonpoint source pollution. 

The management alternatives are not anticipated to 

have any adverse effects on the area’s wetlands and 

fl oodplains. 

5.3 DESCRIPTION OF 

CONSEQUENCES BY RESOURCE 

Management actions are prescribed through various 

alternatives as a means for achieving the refuge’s 

vision and goals, while responding to issues raised 

by Service managers, the public, and governmental 

partners. Because management would differ for each 

alternative, the environmental and social effects 

resulting from implementation would likely differ as 

well. The environmental consequences discussed in 

this chapter are the potential effects on a resource as 

a result of carrying out the actions of an alternative. 

Chapter 3 (alternatives) presents the management 

scenario for each alternative, which could create the 

consequences described here. This chapter discusses 

the effects common to alternatives and provides a 

summary of the environmental consequences. 
The following section provides an analysis of the 

effects estimated to result from implementing 

alternative A (no action), and alternatives B (the 

proposed action), C (wetland restoration), and D 

(ecological restoration). A summary of this narrative 

is also contained in “Chapter 3: Alternatives.” The 

estimated potential effects of each alternative are 

described by the major resource topics (issues) 

described throughout this document. 

HABITAT AND WILDLIFE 

Alternative A: No Action 

Lakes, Ponds, and Marshes 

Maintaining the current wetland management 

would continue to provide a diverse submerged 

aquatic vegetation community for waterbirds, fi shes, 

amphibians, and invertebrates, as well as extensive 

areas of sedge and other emergent vegetation for 

nesting birds and other wildlife. 

Natural Lakes 

These lakes would continue to function naturally, 

with little management intervention. Natural 

climatic variation is the primary driver of annual 

habitat changes as there are no water control 

structures on these lakes. 

Modifi ed Wetlands 

Passive management of modified wetlands would 

continue under this alternative. Each of the 

wetlands has a water control structure that permits 

manipulation of water levels; however, current 

management maintains relatively static “full pool” 

water levels, resulting in periodic lowering of water 

levels (drawdowns) occurring serendipitously during 

drought periods. Picnic and Elk Springs creeks would 

not be restored under this alternative. Alternative A 

would maintain winter habitat for trumpeter swans 

but preclude restoration of Arctic grayling spawning 

habitat. 

Chapter 5 — Environmental Consequences 93 

Created Wetlands 

North Tuck’s Slough would continue to be fi lled each 

spring by diverting water from Red Rock Creek until 

Arctic grayling fry are observed within the creek. 

Filling the slough creates 103 acres of waterbird 

breeding habitat. 

Lower Red Rock Lake / River Marsh 

The Lower Red Rock Lake water control structure 

has been kept open since 2004 to allow, within the 

constraints imposed by the structure, a naturally 

fluctuating hydrological cycle. This will continue 

under alternative A, providing more than 5,700 acres 

of highly productive and diverse wetland habitat 

for waterbirds. The structure would be maintained 

to permit manipulation of water levels. The refuge 

staff would continue to conduct limited ecological 

experiments designed to improve the understanding 

and management of the system. 

Shrub-dominated Wetlands 

These habitats would continue to be protected from 

livestock grazing by maintaining and, in some areas, 

the construction of fences. More than 1,600 acres of 

shrub-dominated habitat would be maintained for 

breeding migratory land birds, wintering ungulates, 

and other native wildlife. Monitoring of browse 

levels by native ungulates would continue, providing 

information for the collaborative management of 

ungulate populations by MFWP and the refuge. 

Restoration of streams would occur as resources 

permitted, increasing the area of shrub-dominated 

wetland habitats on the refuge. 

Wet Meadows 

Wet meadows would continue to be managed with 

grazing and prescribed fire, with an emphasis on 

providing nesting and foraging habitat for breeding 

birds. This would maintain more than 7,000 acres of 

ungrazed to moderately grazed nesting habitat for 

ground-nesting migratory birds. 

Shrub-steppe, Grasslands, and Centennial Sandhills 

These habitats would continue to be managed 

with grazing and prescribed fire, with an emphasis 

on providing nesting and foraging habitat for 

breeding birds. Nearly 13,000 acres of shrub-steppe, 

grasslands, and Centennial Sandhills habitat would 

be provided for breeding birds, other native wildlife, 

and rare plants. Coordination with the BLM, The 

Nature Conservancy, and DNRC would continue to 

explore the need and opportunities to increase early 

seral habitat in the Centennial Sandhills. 

Great gray owl. 

Mike Parker/USFWS 

Aspen Woodlands and Forests 

The refuge would continue to work with The Nature 

Conservancy on projects investigating historical 

and current extent of, and browse levels on, aspen 
94 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

in the Centennial Valley. Collaborative efforts with 

other major landholders in the valley would work 

toward increasing the reduced regeneration of aspen, 

improving existing stands of aspen and encouraging 

aspen expansion throughout the valley. The existing 

aspen enclosure would be maintained to demonstrate 

browse affects on reduced regeneration of aspen. 

Coniferous Woodlands and Forests 

The refuge would continue to coordinate with the 

BLM to use prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads 

around Lakeview, decreasing the severity of future 

wildland fi re. 

Alternative B: Proposed Action 

Lakes, Ponds, and Marshes 

Under alternative B, more active management of 

wetland habitats would provide a diverse submerged 

aquatic vegetation community for waterbirds, fi shes, 

amphibians, and invertebrates, as well as extensive 

areas of sedge and other emergent vegetation for 

nesting birds and other wildlife. Increased oversight 

of habitat response to management actions would (1) 

increase understanding of montane wetland systems, 

(2) improve the refuge’s ability to maintain these 

systems within the range of natural variation, and 

(3) provide a greater diversity of wetland conditions 

within and among years. Restoration activities 

under this alternative would result in a conversion 

of approximately 40 acres of lacustrine (Culver and 

MacDonald ponds) and about 92 acres of palustrine 

(West Pintail Ditch Wetlands) wetland habitats back 

to stream and other riparian habitats. 

Natural Lakes 

Upper Red Rock and Swan lakes would continue 

to function naturally, with little management 

intervention. Natural climatic variation would 

continue to be the primary driver of annual habitat 

changes because there are no water control 

structures on these lakes. Water-quality monitoring 

would be conducted to ensure management of 

adjacent habitats would not adversely affect the 

lakes. Grazing and fire are 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 Upper Red Rock or Swan lakes 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 signifi cant 

losses of submerged aquatic vegetation communities 

(Egertson et al. 2004). 

Modifi ed Wetlands 

The upper reaches of Elk Springs and Picnic creeks 

would be restored to provide spawning habitat for 

Arctic grayling. This would eliminate about 20 acres 

of trumpeter swan winter habitat further assisting 

in efforts to reestablish more southerly wintering 

areas for swans (USFWS 1992). Restoration of these 

creeks would also restore 92 acres of wet meadow 

habitat along West Pintail Ditch. Widgeon Pond 

water levels would continue to be maintained at full 

pool in order to provide nonbreeding season habitat 

for Arctic grayling that spawn in Picnic Creek. The 

active management of remaining modifi ed wetlands 

to achieve a more dynamic water level would 

increase the productivity of these wetlands for the 

benefit of migratory birds and other wetland wildlife. 

Created Wetlands 

Water would be diverted from Red Rock Creek to 

fill North Tuck’s Slough only in years when snowwater equivalent is above the 30-year average by 

the last day of snow-pack accumulation, as measured 

by the Lakeview Ridge (SNOpack TELemetry) site 

(USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service),. 

This would minimize negative hydrological effects 

of diverting water from Red Rock Creek, while 

providing 103 acres of waterbird breeding habitat as 

conditions allow. 

Lower Red Rock Lake/River Marsh 

Similar to alternative A, except ecological 

experiments would be greatly expanded not only 

to advance the understanding of the system and its 

management, but also to determine if the structure 

should be maintained or replaced. 

Shrub-dominated Wetlands 

In addition to activities conducted under alternative 

A, efforts to reduce effects of livestock grazing 

on upstream (off-refuge) riparian corridors would 

be conducted, resulting in the protection and 

improvement of Arctic grayling spawning habitat. 

Water diversion from Red Rock Creek for North 

Tuck’s Slough would be limited (see “Created 

Wetlands”). This would reduce potential for loss of 

fry during spring, as well as an increased probability 

of overbank streamflows in Red Rock Creek to 

encourage willow germination. Irrigation ditches 

would be restored if they were found to affect the 

hydrology of adjacent areas. Existing irrigation 

infrastructure may be used for native grassland 

restoration. This infrastructure would remain until 

other restoration activities were completed. 

Wet Meadows 

Additional emphasis would be placed on improving 

habitat diversity through management. This would 

include an adaptive management plan to investigate 

the effects of grazing, fire, and climate on vegetation, 

small mammal, and bird communities. Improving 

habitat diversity in wet meadows would increase 

the number of migratory bird species using this 
Chapter 5 — Environmental Consequences 95 

habitat. Currently, refuge wet meadows support 

relatively low bird diversity, with Savanna sparrows 

and western meadowlarks being predominant. 

Habitat could be improved for target species, such as 

long-billed curlews, through the use of grazing and 

prescribed fire. Studying state bison reintroduction 

intiatives would permit the refuge to thoroughly 

investigate the benefits and impacts of repatriating 

bison on the refuge and in the valley. 

Shrub-steppe, Grasslands, and Centennial Sandhills 

Management emphasis would be placed on improving 

habitat diversity. This would include an adaptive 

management plan to investigate the effects of 

grazing, fire, and climate on vegetation, small 

mammal, and bird communities. This would provide 

improved habitat conditions for target species across 

nearly 13,000 acres of shrub-steppe, grasslands, and 

Centennial Sandhills. Additionally, actions would be 

undertaken to restore areas currently dominated 

by nonnative grasses. This would likely necessitate 

plowing and herbicide application to remove 

nonnative grasses; however, the long-term benefi t of 

native grasslands would include greater structural 

and species diversity, as well as creating areas more 

resistant to nonnative plant invasion. 

Studying state bison reintroduction intiatives would 

permit the refuge to thoroughly investigate the 

benefits and impacts of repatriating bison on the 

refuge in the valley. 

Aspen Woodlands and Forests 

In addition to alternative A, the refuge would work 

with the BLM, The Nature Conservancy, and MFWP 

to manage aspen at a landscape scale. This would 

include efforts to increase the reduced regeneration 

of aspen by increasing disturbance and reducing 

browse levels, with the ultimate goal of creating and 

maintaining various-age aspen stands for the benefi t 

of cavity-nesting birds and other migratory and 

resident wildlife. 

Coniferous Woodlands and Forests 

Same as alternative A, except a fire use plan, 

developed in conjunction with BLM, would allow for 

minimal suppression of wildland fires, thus creating 

a more natural fire system while saving resources on 

fires that do not threaten properties. 

Alternative C: Wetland Restoration 

Lakes, Ponds, and Marshes 

Under alternative C, restoration of wetland habitats 

would eliminate all modified and most created 

wetlands on the refuge, while increasing stream 

corridor riparian habitat. The hydrology of refuge 

lakes, marshes, and streams would be restored to 

the extent possible, reducing the need for direct 

management of water resources. 

Natural Lakes 

Same as alternative B. 

Modifi ed Wetlands 

Same as alternative B, except that all modifi ed 

wetlands would be restored. This would result in 

the restoration of nearly 3 miles of stream corridor 

riparian habitat, but 355 acres of lacustrine and 

palustrine emergent wetland habitat would be lost, 

including four trumpeter swan nesting territories. 

Created Wetlands 

Most created wetlands would be restored, precluding 

diversion of water from Red Rock Creek. This would 

maintain instream flows, thus eliminating negative 

effects of this practice on riparian habitat. However, 

103 acres of wetland habitat would be lost. 

Lower Red Rock Lake/River Marsh 

The water control structure at the outflow of Lower 

Red Rock Lake would be removed as it deteriorates. 

The slow removal of the water control structure 

would permit ecological experiments to be conducted 

to determine its effects and anticipate the changes 

that would occur once it is removed. Its eventual 

removal may restore the hydrological system. The 

ability to manipulate water levels for management 

would be lost as well as opportunities to capture 

water that may be needed as water resources become 

depeleted by climate change. 

Shrub-dominated Wetlands 

Similar to alternative B, except that all water 

management structures on the refuge would be 

eliminated, as would all interior fencing. This would, 

to the extent possible, restore the hydrology of Red 

Rock Creek and several small streams on the refuge. 

Wet Meadows 

Under this alternative, fire would be used as the 

primary disturbance, complemented by native 

grazers. Livestock grazing would be eliminated. 

Interior fences would be removed, which would 

benefit wildlife, especially migratory ungulates 

like pronghorn, because fences act as a barrier and 

can entangle wildlife, sometimes leading to death. 

Additionally, with the removal of cattle from the 

refuge, native ungulates, such as elk, may use these 

habitats more, especially the recently burned areas. 

However, termination of the grazing program would 

also limit the flexibility to manage target species, 

including invasive plants. 
96 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Shrub-steppe, Grasslands, and Centennial Sandhills 

Same as under “Wet Meadows” above, including that 

termination of the grazing program would limit the 

flexibility to manage target species, including rare 

plants found in the Centennial Sandhills. 

Aspen Woodlands and Forests 

Same as alternative B. 

Coniferous Woodlands and Forests 

Same as alternative B. 

Alternative D: Ecological Restoration 

Lakes, Ponds, and Marshes 

Same as alternative B, including if bison become 

designated as free-ranging wildlife in Montana the 

refuge will work with the state and neighboring 

landowners to reintroduce them. Livestock grazing 

would be eliminated and interior fences would be 

removed. If free-ranging bison are introduced, they 

would most likely migrate out of the valley in the 

winter, due to typically deep snow conditions. It 

is uncertain where they would travel to, or what 

the impacts to those wintering grounds would be. 

However, if bison did winter in the valley this could 

result in increased grazing of sedge habitats which 

could reduce residual cover for nesting waterfowl. As 

generalist grazers, diets of free-ranging bison closely 

approximate proportions of available grasses and 

sedges (Meagher 1973, Reynolds et al. 1978). Beaked 

sedge, the predominant sedge of emergent habitats 

on the refuge (6,999 acres), is an especially important 

winter forage plant for bison (Reynolds et al. 1978). 

Winter grazing of sedge habitats would reduce the 

amount of residual cover available for early nesting 

waterfowl species. However, the response of beaked 

sedge to grazing has varied, making it diffi cult to 

predict the response to increased grazing (Allen and 

Marlow 1994, Clary 1995). 

Natural Lakes 

Same as alternative B, including if bison become 

designated as free-ranging wildlife in Montana the 

refuge will work with the state and neighboring 

landowners to reintroduce them. Livestock grazing 

would be eliminated and interior fences would be 

removed. 

Modifi ed Wetlands 

Same as alternative C. 

Created Wetlands 

Same as alternative C, except there would be a 

complete loss of created wetland habitats, caused 

by removal of all diversion structures. Additional 

areas would be created that could be susceptible 

to invasion by invasive plant species. Surface 

water runoff patterns would be restored. A more 

natural appearance would be created, refl ecting 

the wilderness character of this refuge and altered 

upland habitats would be reestablished. 

Lower Red Rock Lake/River Marsh 

Same as alternative C, except the immediate removal 

of the WCS would not permit ecological experiments 

to develop a better understanding of effects of this 

structure and the hydrologic system of the refuge. 

Shrub-dominated Wetlands 

Same as alternative C. 

Wet Meadows 

Livestock grazing would be phased out under this 

alternative. Additionally, the refuge would work with 

adjacent landowners and the state to reintroduce 

bison (if re-classified as wildlife). If bison assumed 

historical grazing patterns, this could return an 

important, historic ecological process to the refuge 

and, consequently, the Centennial Valley. There 

could be cumulative habitat impacts as a result of 

introducing bison into an already active cattle and 

native ungulate grazing community within the valley. 

Bison could become concentrated on the refuge 

causing overgrazing of grassland habitats needed by 

nesting migratory birds. Bison have the potential to 

transmit brucellosis to cattle. This would have to be 

addressed before reintroduction. Management would 

focus on increasing heterogeneity within meadows 

through a combination of fire and grazing by native 

wildlife, primarily bison (Fuelendorf and Engle 2001). 

Interior fences would be removed, facilitating wildlife 

movement within the refuge. Annual or biennial 

prescribed fire would be used to focus grazing by 

wildlife in refuge meadows. The fire return interval 

for focal areas would be 10–15 years, providing a 

mosaic of different disturbance levels across refuge 

meadow habitats. The increased heterogeneity would 

likely result in a greater diversity of breeding birds 

(Fuelendorf et al. 2006). Reduction of nonnative 

invasive grasses would continue. 

Shrub-steppe, Grasslands, and Centennial Sandhills 

Livestock grazing would be phased out under 

this alternative. Additionally, the refuge would 

work with adjacent landowners and the state to 

reintroduce bison. If bison assumed historical grazing 

patterns, this could return an important, historic 

ecological process to the refuge and, consequently, 

the Centennial Valley. There could be cumulative 

habitat impacts as a result of introducing bison 

into an already active cattle and native ungulate 

grazing community within the valley. Bison 

could become concentrated on the refuge causing 

overgrazing of grassland habitats needed by 

nesting migratory birds. Bison have the potential 
Chapter 5 — Environmental Consequences 97 

to transmit brucellosis to cattle. This would have to 

be addressed before reintroduction. Management 

would focus on increasing heterogeneity within 

grasslands through a combination of fire and grazing 

by native wildlife, primarily bison (Fuelendorf and 

Engle 2001). Interior fences would be removed, 

facilitating wildlife movement in the refuge. Annual 

or biennial prescribed fire would be used to focus 

grazing by wildlife within refuge grasslands. The fi re 

return interval for focal areas would be 10–15 years, 

providing a mosaic of different disturbance levels 

across refuge grassland habitats. The increased 

heterogeneity would likely result in a greater 

diversity of breeding birds (Fuelendorf et al. 2006). 

Shrub-steppe habitats would similarly be managed 

by a combination of fire and grazing, but with a 

greater emphasis on maintaining canopy cover levels 

of sage sufficient for sage-obligate species such as 

Brewer’s sparrow, greater sage-grouse, and pygmy 

rabbits. Reduction of nonnative invasive grasses 

would continue. 

Aspen Woodlands and Forests 

Same as alternative B. 

Coniferous Woodlands and Forests 

Same as alternative B. 

VISITOR SERVICES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative A: No Action 

Management strategies under alternative A would 

not change, so visitor services would continue at 

the present level. The refuge would continue to 

provide quality recreational opportunities to visitors. 

As funding allows, the refuge would continue to 

replace outdated interpretive panels, directional 

and boundary signs, and update brochures to better 

orient and inform visitors. The refuge would continue 

to support partnerships with the BLM and MFWP 

that provide the refuge with limited law enforcement 

coverage; however, due to the large areas the offi cers 

are responsible for, violations would continue to 

occur. 

Hunting 

The refuge would continue to provide quality hunting 

opportunities to visitors. 

Fishing 

The fishing program on the refuge would continue to 

be valued as one of the compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities. Currently, fishing is allowed 

in limited areas to protect breeding birds. Birds or 

mammals feeding or resting may be disturbed by 

anglers when fishing, but the current visitor use is 

often low enough that disturbance by anglers has 

minimal impact on most wildlife species. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography would 

continue to play an important part in visitors’ 

recreational experience at the refuge. No new 

infrastructure would be added to provide a higher 

quality, interactive experience, resulting in missed 

opportunities to educate refuge visitors. 

Environmental Education, Interpretation, 

and Outreach 

Tours and talks would continue to be provided by 

refuge staff on an opportunistic basis. As funding 

allows, the refuge would continue to replace outdated 

interpretive panels, directional and boundary 

signs, and update brochures to better orient and 

inform visitors. The refuge would continue to miss 

opportunities to inform visitors about refuge issues 

and resources without dedicated staff developing 

environmental education, interpretation, and 

outreach programs. 

Campgrounds 

Two campgrounds would continue to provide visitors 

with an opportunity to experience quality wildlifedependent recreational activities for more than half 

a day without having to drive excessive distances 

across rough roads. Minor improvements would 

occur as funding allows. Some short-term impacts, 

such as littering, vegetation trampling, and wildlife 

disturbance, can be expected, but these would 

be minimal and manageable impacts to current 

refuge programs or wildlife use of the area. The 

campgrounds would continue to be important to 

provide visitors a place to reconnect with wildlife and 

the natural environment. 

Cultural Resources 

Under this alternative, the refuge would continue 

to maintain historic properties that are in use and 

update the interpretive panel at the Shambow Way 

Station. These actions would preserve the buildings 

built by the Works Progress Administration for the 

public to enjoy and to educate visitors about the 

history of the Way Station. 

Alternative B: Proposed Action 

Alternative B would increase opportunities for 

visitors to participate in wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Visitor numbers are expected to increase. 

Hiring a temporary seasonal visitor services 

specialist would allow the refuge to expand the onrefuge interpretive program, enhancing the visitors” 

experience. In addition, having one staff member 

acquire and maintain law enforcement credentials 

would provide added protection for these additional 

visitors while protecting the refuge and its resources. 
98 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Hunting 

Hunting area boundary changes would simplify 

hunting area boundaries and reduce road hunting, 

while providing additional huntable acres. This 

change should result in a reduction of violations and 

a reduction in illegal road hunting while providing 

continued and expanded opportunities for quality, 

fair-chase hunts.There would be a reduction in 

browsing impacts on habitat because ungulates 

would become more dispersed throughout the refuge. 

A refuge hunting brochure would assist hunters in 

identifying areas open to hunting and understanding 

refuge regulations. To maintain other wildlifedependent recreational opportunities, use by the 

public in areas closed to hunting would be allowed, 

thereby providing year-round nonconsumptive 

compatible uses to occur. 

Waterfowl hunter. 

Madsen/USFWS R.

Fishing 

The focus of management would be on fi sh species 

of management concern, primarily Arctic grayling 

and Westslope cutthroat trout. While Arctic grayling 

populations are being restored, MacDonald, Widgeon, 

and Culver ponds would be open under state 

regulations to bank fishing, but closed if necessary to 

protect nesting swans and Artic grayling. All refuge 

streams would be open to fishing in compliance with 

state and refuge regulations. Educating anglers 

about restoration projects could lead to involvement 

in the process to protect native species. 

The refuge would promote the taking of nonnative 

fish species, according to state regulations, to reduce 

competition with Arctic grayling. Opening new 

streams to fishing may lead to some vegetation 

trampling, invasive species spread, and wildlife 

disturbance. A fishing brochure would be developed. 

There is a potential for increased disturbance to 

nesting swans on Shambow Pond that may lead to 

nest abandonment, but the closed area surrounding 

this nesting area should provide adequate protection. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Additional opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography would provide visitors with a 

higher quality visitor experience while maintaining 

wilderness qualities. The refuge would accomplish 

this through improving signing, updating brochures, 

new information kiosks, clarifying regulations, 

constructing pullouts for wildlife viewing, and 

developing an auto tour route. With improved 

facilities to view wildlife, visitor numbers may 

increase, and visitors may stay longer or go to more 

sites on the refuge. This may lead to increased 

disturbance to wildlife. A positive effect of public 

involvement in these priority visitor services 

would be a better appreciation and more complete 

understanding of refuge wildlife and habitats. That 

can translate into more widespread, stronger support 

for the refuge, Refuge System, and the protection of 

the Centennial Valley. 

Environmental Education, Interpretation, and Outreach 

The actions in this alternative would result in an 

improved understanding by the refuge visitors of 

this area’s natural history, wildlife resources, cultural 

resources, and qualities of the refuge, and the mission 

of the Refuge System. A temporary seasonal visitor 

services specialist would allow the refuge to develop 

a limited interpretive program by replacing outdated 

interpretive panels, directional and boundary signs, 

and update brochures to better orient and inform 

visitors. An interpreted auto tour route would allow 

visitors of all abilities to view and learn about the 

refuge resources. With no environmental education 

programs and little outreach, there could be a loss 

of opportunities to reach surrounding communities, 

local governments and youth and young adults 

that could garner support for refuge programs and 

conservation efforts in the Centennial Valley. 

Campgrounds 

Campgrounds would continue to be open for visitors 

participating in wildlife-dependent recreation. 

They would be improved through the installation of 

universally accessible toilets at both campgrounds, 

along with making one campsite at the River Marsh 

campground accessible. Other improvements, such 

as food storage containers, picnic tables, fi re rings 

and road repair, would increase visitor safety and the 

opportunities to use the refuge over multiple days. A 

recreational fee would be charged to help offset the 

maintenance of the campgrounds. 

Wildlife disturbance would occur in the immediate 

vicinity of the campgrounds, but impacts would 

be minimal. Camping supports other priority 

uses (fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and 

photography). Camping on the refuge would have 

limited negative impacts on natural resources when 

conducted under refuge regulations. 

By providing environmental educational and 

interpretive programs at the campgrounds to a 

“captive” audience, the refuge staff can infl uence 

citizens of all ages to protect wildlife and habitat, 
Chapter 5 — Environmental Consequences 99 

while developing their own environmental ethics, 

developing support for the refuge, and decreasing 

wildlife violations. 

Cultural Resources 

The actions in this alternative would improve refuge 

staff’s knowledge of the locations and types of 

cultural resources on refuge lands. This improved 

knowledge would give the Service the ability to 

preserve and restore various cultural resources. 

Better interpretation of cultural resources would 

provide visitors opportunities to better understand 

the history of this area. 

Alternative C: Wetland Restoration 

Alternative C would greatly increase opportunities 

for visitors to participate in wildlife-dependent recreation. By hiring a full-time visitor services specialist, 

on- and off-site programs could be developed to reach 

a much larger number of people, building a constituency who would have a greater understanding of refuge resources and programs and the Refuge System. 

Hunting 

Same as B, but additional quality hunting 

opportunities would be providing by creating a 

unique primitive hunt (such as archery or black 

powder) area in the central portion of the refuge 

(see figure 9, page 35). New hunting opportunities 

would increase harvest and disperse unnaturally 

concentrated ungulates (as a result of this large 

closed area) thereby reducing browsing impacts on 

habitats. 

Fishing 

This alternative is similar to alternative B, with the 

exception that fishing opportunities would decrease 

on creeks currently open to fishing according to state 

regulations, by opening them later in the summer 

(June 15) to protect spawning Arctic grayling. 

Educating anglers about restoration projects and 

new regulations can lead to their involvement in the 

process to protect these native species. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Same as alternative B, but the eastern ponds area 

would be opened later (June 15), decreasing visitor 

access to the auto tour route. The refuge would 

miss opportunities to inform visitors about refuge 

issues and resources because of the later opening 

date; however this should be offset by increased 

opportunities elsewhere on the refuge. 

Environmental Education, Interpretation, and Outreach 

This alternative would greatly increase opportunities 

for on- and off-site programs by hiring a full-time 

visitor services specialist. These actions could 

reach a much larger number of people, potentially 

building a constituency who would have a greater 

understanding of refuge resources and programs, 

the Refuge System, and the importance of protecting 

these lands and the surrounding resources in the 

Centennial Valley. This could result in expanded 

interest in the refuge’s Conservation Easement 

Program; thereby protecting the valley from impacts 

from residential development. 

Campgrounds 

River Marsh campground would be closed, 

decreasing opportunities for visitors to enjoy 

extended stays on the refuge during periods of high 

use (such as holidays, weekends, and hunt openings). 

These visitors may be displaced from the refuge due 

to the limited capacity and popularity of Upper Lake 

campground. They may not be able to participate 

in other priority uses (fishing, hunting, wildlife 

observation, and photography), forcing them to leave 

the valley and limiting their opportunity to learn 

about the refuge. 

Upper Lake campground would continue to be 

open for visitors participating in wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Restrooms would be replaced and made 

universally accessible. Other improvements, such 

as food storage containers, picnic tables, fi re rings, 

and road repair, would increase safety for visitors 

and opportunities to use the refuge over multiple 

days. The new recreational fee would help offset the 

maintenance costs of the campgrounds. 

Cultural Resources 

This alternative is similar to B, except that it has 

the potential to improve certain aspects of the 

refuge’s habitat management and visitor services 

because areas of cultural concern would be identifi ed. 

Additionally, this alternative would increase the 

likelihood of protecting cultural resources while 

accomplishing habitat management. This alternative 

would require an increase in funding to complete the 

inventory and cultural resources management plan. 

Alternative D: Ecological Restoration 

Under this alternative wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities would decrease because 

campgrounds would be closed; interpretation and 

information would be focused at the visitor contact 

station in the office; and moose hunting would be 

eliminated. No new facilities would be built to 

improve opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography. These actions would reduce facility 

maintenance costs and promote a wilderness/ 

backcountry experience. Lack of facilities and 

programs may lead to missed opportunities 

to educate visitors and garner support and 

understanding for refuge programs. 
100 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Hunting 

Same as alternative C, except that moose hunting 

would be eliminated. Moose would be less dispersed 

during the hunting season and willow habitat 

would be negatively impacted due to increased 

moose population size. There would be impacts to a 

variety of species that use willow habitats, including 

migratory birds and wintering moose. This impact 

may increase as moose become concentrated on the 

newly-created closed area during the hunting season. 

Fishing 

Same as alternative C. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

This alternative would decrease costs of maintaining 

infrastructure but would also lead to missed 

opportunities to educate refuge visitors. No 

new facilities would be built to improve wildlife 

observation and photography experiences by visitors. 

The refuge would promote walking off the trails and 

roads to observe and photograph wildlife. Dispersed 

use may increase disturbance to wildlife across a 

wider area instead of focusing use at developed sites. 

Environmental Education, Interpretation, and Outreach 

This alternative would be similar to alternative A, 

but it would focus outreach and interpretation at the 

visitor contact station only. This would lead to missed 

opportunities to educate refuge visitors about issues. 

Minimal signage would preserve a more wilderness 

setting but only a minimum number of visitors would 

independently understand and be oriented to the 

refuge and its resources. 

Campgrounds 

This alternative would eliminate campgrounds, 

thus eliminating extended visits at the refuge and 

promoting one-time day use. Visitors would now 

have to drive long distances, over rough roads, to 

other camp sites (≥15 miles) and communities (≥45 

miles), These visitors would be displaced due to 

the limited capacity and popularity of the nearest 

campsites at Elk Lake. They may not be able to 

participate in other priority uses (fi shing, hunting, 

wildlife observation, and photography), forcing them 

to leave the valley and limiting their learning about 

the refuge. This could lead to increased road traffi c 

from visitors driving from town or other distant 

campsites to view wildlife, fish, or hunt on the refuge. 

An increase in road traffic may increase wildlife 

disturbance and impact the wilderness setting. 

The combination of more vehicles and poor road 

conditions could affect the safety of visitors. 

Cultural Resources 

Same as alternative B. 

REFUGE OPERATIONS 

Alternative A: No Action 

Under this alternative the refuge would not add 

any infrastructure or staff to support the biological 

or visitor services programs. This would severely 

limit the ability of the refuge to develop a greater 

understanding of the refuge’s habitats and dependent 

wildlife and conduct effective and necessary 

management actions. The visitor services program 

would continue to receive minimal attention due 

to current staff, time, and facility limitations. This 

lack of interaction with visitors would result in 

a continued loss of opportunities to educate the 

many visitors about the refuge and resources and 

provide almost no opportunities to conduct off-refuge 

programs. 

Alternative B: Proposed Action 

Increased biological staffing, including an increase 

in annual discretionary funding for biological 

technicians, would greatly increase the ability of the 

refuge to gain a greater understanding of the refuge’s 

wildlife and habitats. This would allow the refuge to 

make scientifically-based management decisions and 

monitor results. Facilities would be built to support 

basic refuge programs and to provide universal 

accessibility for visitors of all abilities to enhance 

their appreciation for and understanding of the 

resources of the refuge while maintaining wilderness 

values. There would be added maintenance costs 

for these facilities. Visitors would also be better 

oriented on the refuge through better signage. These 

improvements and the recruiting of a temporary 

seasonal visitor services specialist would lead to 

opportunities to educate visitors and garner support 

and understanding of refuge programs, issues, and 

the conservation of the resources of the refuge and 

the Centennial Valley. Closing refuge roads that 

receive minimal use will save maintenance costs. 

Alternative C: Wetland Restoration 

This alternative is the same as alternative B except 

that up to five residences would be constructed. 

This additional residence would allow the refuge 

to recruit additional staff, but there will be added 

costs for contructing and maintaining this additional 

residence. The addition of a full-time permanent 

visitor services specialist would allow the refuge to 

reach a much larger number of people, building a 

constituency who have a greater understanding of 

refuge resources and programs, the Refuge System, 

and the values of conserving the resources of the 

Centennial Valley. 

Alternative D: Ecological Restoration 

Same as alternative B, except interpretation and 

outreach would be concentrated at the visitor contact 
Chapter 5 — Environmental Consequences 101 

station only, minimizing facilities in the field. No new 

facilities would be built to improve opportunities for 

wildlife observation and photography. Campgrounds 

would be eliminated. No new trails or roads would be 

developed or improved. These actions would reduce 

facility maintenance costs and promote a wilderness/ 

backcountry experience. The lack of facilities in the 

field would lead to missed opportunities to educate 

visitors and garner support and understanding of 

refuge programs. Eliminating the campgrounds 

would result in a loss of multi-day visits due to the 

refuge’s remoteness and minimal lodging facilities 

nearby. The greatest impact would be on hunters 

who typically spend multiple days at the refuge in 

pursuit of this wildlife-dependent activity. Wildlife 

observers and photographers would also not be 

accommodated should they wish to explore the 

refuge and the surrounding valley for extended 

periods. Overall, visitor numbers would decline. 

Closing refuge roads that receive minimal use will 

save maintenance costs. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

Alternative A: No Action 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would 

not see any significant change in the net economic 

contribution of the refuge to the local economy 

through visitor spending and employee earnings. 

Current visitation levels are expected to remain the 

same, contributing $260,000 to the local economy. 

Employment would remain at fi ve full-time 

employees. 

Alternative B: Proposed Action 

Under alternative B, increases in employment 

and visitation to the refuge and Centennial Valley 

would result in an increase in the economic activity 

the refuge generates in the local area. Visitation 

would increase due to enhanced outreach efforts 

and offerings at the refuge. Visitation under this 

alternative is expected to increase to 15,000 visitor 

days, 12,750 of which are from nonlocal visitors. 

Assuming nonlocal visitors spend an average of $25 

per day, visitation to the refuge would generate 

roughly $320,000 in annual local spending. Additional 

employees under this alternative would increase 

employment at the refuge from five to seven full-time 

employees and add at least five seasonal staff. There 

would be added costs associated with constructing 

and maintaining housing for staff. Designating refuge 

trails and an auto tour route may add to maintenance 

costs and would require the replacement of one 

refuge bridge. 

Alternative C: Wetland Restoration 

Under alternative C, increases in employment and 

visitation would cause a more significant increase in 

economic activity generated by the refuge. Visitation 

would increase due to enhanced outreach efforts, 

programming, and other offerings at the refuge. 

Visitation is expected to increase to 16,000 visitor 

days per year under this alternative, of which 13,600 

are from nonlocal visitors. Assuming nonlocal visitors 

spend an average of $25 per day, visitation to the 

refuge would generate about $340,000 in annual 

local spending. The addition of an additional fulltime employee under this alternative would increase 

employment at the refuge from five to six full-time 

equivalents. 

Alternative D: Ecological Restoration 

Alternative D is expected to result in a decrease in 

the economic activity generated by the refuge due to 

a large decrease in visitation. Visitation is expected 

to fall due to the closing of campgrounds and the 

banning of moose hunting. However, if free-ranging 

bison were reintroduced to the refuge, expected 

visitation loss under this alternative may be offset 

by attracting new wildlife viewers. Combining these 

effects, it is estimated that visitation would decline 

to 7,500 visitor days per year under alternative D, 

of which 6,375 of those visitors would be nonlocal. 

Assuming nonlocal visitors spend an average of $25 

per day, visitation to the refuge would generate 

about $160,000 in annual local spending. The 

elimination of grazing would have an uncertain 

effect on the local economy. The effect may be 

negative if the ranchers currently using the refuge 

for grazing do not have adequate private land for 

cattle grazing and have to move their cattle out of 

the study area, thereby incurring transportation 

costs. If there is an adequate local substitute for 

refuge grazing land, then impacts would be minor. 

There would be substantial financial costs associated 

with the removal of all water impoundment or 

management structures. Additional employees under 

this alternative would increase employment at the 

refuge from five to seven full-time employees and 

add several temporary seasonal staff. There would 

be added cost for constructing and maintaining 

additional refuge housing while maintenance costs 

would be reduced for signage, roads, and trails. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts include the incremental effects 

of the actions for an alternative, when these are 

added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. Cumulative impacts can be the result 

of individually minor impacts, which can become 

significant when added over time. 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

that carrys out NEPA requires mitigation measures 

when the environmental analysis process detects 

possible significant impacts on habitat, wildlife, or the 

human environment. 
102 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

None of the activities proposed are expected nor 

intended to produce significant levels of cumulative 

environmental impacts that would require mitigation 

measures. Nevertheless, the final CCP would contain 

the following measures to preclude signifi cant 

environmental impacts from occurring: 

■	 Federally listed species would be protected 

from intentional or unintended impacts by 

having activities banned where these species 

occur. 

■	 All proposed activities would be regulated 

to lessen potential impacts to wildlife, fi sh, 

and plant species, especially during sensitive 

reproductive cycles. 

■	 Monitoring protocols would be established to 

determine goal achievement levels and possible 

unforeseen impacts to resources. This would 

allow for application of adaptive resource 

management to ensure wildlife and habitat 

resources, as well as the human environment, 

are preserved. 

■	 The CCP could be revised and amended after 

5 years of implementation, for application of 

adaptive resources management to correct 

unforeseen impacts that occur during the fi rst 

five years of the plan. 

Garter snakes are the only reptile known to inhabit the refuge. 

Mike Parker/USFWS