1 Introduction
 

Sunset over Upper Red Rock Lake. 

USFWS 

This document presents an environmental 

assessment (EA) that evaluates alternatives for, 

and expected consequences of, managing Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Alternative 

B is the proposed action of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) and is presented in chapter 6 as 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

for the refuge. This chapter provides an introduction 

to the CCP process and describes the involvement 

of the Service, the state of Montana, the public, and 

others, as well as conservation issues and plans that 

affect the refuge. The remaining chapters provide 

more specific information on the refuge and planning 

issues (chapter 2), its resources (chapter 4), and the 

alternatives (chapter 3) and related consequences 

(chapter 5) considered for this plan. Chapter 6 

provides objectives and strategies for the proposed 

action. 

The Service has developed this draft CCP to provide

a foundation for the management and use of Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge 

is one of the most remote in the continental United 

States. It is located in the Centennial Valley in 

southwestern Montana in Beaverhead County, 47 

miles west of West Yellowstone and 38 miles east of 

the town of Lima. (Figure 1. Location of Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana). When 

finalized, the CCP will serve as a working guide for 

management programs and actions over the next 15 

years. 

This draft CCP was developed in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described in 

this draft CCP and EA meet the requirements of the 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations that 

implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA). This project also complies with NEPA 

public involvement requirements. 

The final CCP will specify the necessary actions to 

achieve the vision and purposes of the Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Wildlife is the fi rst 

priority in refuge management, and visitor services 

(wildlife-dependent recreation) are allowed and 

encouraged as long as they are compatible with the 

refuge’s purposes. 

The draft CCP and EA have been prepared by a 

planning team composed of representatives from 

various U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs. The 

planning team also incorporated public input—public 

involvement and the planning process are described 

in section 1.6, “The Planning Process.” 

After reviewing a wide range of public comments 

and management needs, the planning team developed 

alternatives for managing the refuge. The team 

recommended one alternative to be the Service’s 

proposed action, which addresses all substantive 

issues and best achieves the purposes of the refuge. 
2 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

Figure 1. Location of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 3 

The proposed action is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s recommended course of action for managing 

the refuge. The proposed action is summarized 

in chapter 3, “Alternatives,” with its predicted 

effects described in chapter 5, “Environmental 

Consequences.” The details of the proposed action 

compose the draft CCP (chapter 6). 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role 

that the refuge will play in support of the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge 

System) and to provide long-term guidance for 

managing refuge programs and activities. The CCP 

is needed to 

■	 communicate with the public and other partners 

in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge 

System; 

■	 provide a clear statement of direction for 


managing the refuge;
 

■	 provide neighbors, visitors, and government 

officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the refuge; 

■	 ensure that the Service’s management actions 

are consistent with the mandates of the 

Improvement Act; 

■	 ensure that management of the refuge is 

consistent with federal, state, and county plans; 

■	 provide a basis for development of budget 

requests for the refuge’s operation, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 

Sustaining the nation’s fish and wildlife resources 

is a task that can be accomplished only through the 

combined efforts of governments, businesses, and 

private citizens. 

1.2 THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal 

federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and 

plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the 

Service’s major programs. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

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

working with others, is to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people. 

Over a century ago, America’s fish and wildlife 

resources were declining at an alarming rate. 

Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and 

angling groups joined together to restore and sustain 

America’s national wildlife heritage. This was the 

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

Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores 

nationally signifi cant fisheries, conserves and 

restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers 

endangered species, and helps other governments 

with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service 

administers a federal aid program that distributes 

hundreds of millions of dollars to states for fi sh and 

wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, 

and related programs across America. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

ACTIVITIES IN MONTANA (2006) 

Service activities in Montana contribute to the state’s 

economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The 

following list highlights the Service’s presence and 

activities: 

■	 employed 142 people in Montana 

■	 407 volunteers donated more than 21,131 hours 

to Service projects on refuge lands 

■	 managed two national fish hatcheries, one fi sh 

and wildlife management assistance offi ce, 

one fish health center, four ecological services 

offices, and one fish technology center 

■	 managed 23 national wildlife refuges 

encompassing 1,195,828 acres (1.27% of the 

state) 

■	 managed 5 wetland management districts 

—	 managed 47,884 acres of fee waterfowl 

production areas 

—	 managed 135,320 acres under various leases 

or easements 

■	 hosted more than 629,950 annual visitors to 

Service-managed lands 

—	 112,835 hunting visits 

—	 71,665 fi shing visits 

—	 419,062 wildlife observation visits 

—	 9,905 students (8,944 in on-site programs) 

participated in environmental education 

programs 

■	 provided $6.9 million to Montana Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks (MFWP) for sport fi sh restoration 

and $6.3 million for wildlife restoration and 

hunter education 

■	 since 1988, the Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program has helped private 

landowners restore more than 27,402 wetland 

acres on 2,141 sites; 320,124 upland acres on 298 

sites; and 1,138 miles of river habitat 

■	 paid Montana counties $315,271 under the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (money used for 

schools and roads) 
4 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s 

first wildlife refuge for the protection of brown 

pelicans and other native nesting birds. This was the 

first time the federal government set aside land for 

wildlife. This small but significant designation was 

the beginning of the Refuge System. 

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing over 

96 million acres within 547 refuges and over 3,000 

small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting. 

Today, there is at least one refuge in every state, 

including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

The Improvement Act of 1997 established a clear 

mission for the Refuge System. 

The mission of the National Wildlife 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. 

The Improvement Act states that each national 

wildlife refuge (that is, each unit of the Refuge 

System, which includes wetland management 

districts) shall be managed to 

■	 fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

■	 fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge and 

district; 

■	 consider the needs of fish and wildlife fi rst; 

■	 fulfill the requirement of developing a CCP 

for each unit of the Refuge System and fully 

involve the public in preparation of these plans; 

■	 maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System; 

■	 recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities, including hunting, fi shing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation, are 

legitimate and priority visitor services; 

■	 retain the authority of refuge managers to 


determine compatible visitor services.
 

In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the 

wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge 

System maintains the following principles: 

■	 Wildlife comes fi rst. 

■	 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness 


are vital concepts in refuge and district 


management.
 

■	 Habitats must be healthy. 

■	 Growth of refuges and districts must be 


strategic.
 

■	 The Refuge System serves as a model for 

habitat management with broad participation 

from others. 

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service immediately began 

to carry out the direction of the new legislation, 

including preparation of CCPs for all national 

wildlife refuges and wetland management districts 

(WMDs). Consistent with the Improvement Act, 

the Service prepares all CCPs in conjunction with 

public involvement. Each refuge and each district 

is required to complete its CCP within the 15-year 

schedule (by 2012). 

PEOPLE AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part 

of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places 

have always given people special opportunities to 

have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world. 

Whether through bird watching, fi shing, hunting, 

photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife 

recreation contributes millions of dollars to local 

economies. Approximately 37 million people visited 

the Refuge System in 2004, mostly to observe 

wildlife in their natural habitats. Visitors are most 

often accommodated through nature trails, auto 

tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and 

fishing opportunities. Significant economic benefi ts 

are being generated to the local communities that 

surround refuges and wetland management districts. 

Economists report that Refuge System visitors 

contribute more than $1.4 billion annually to local 

economies. 

1.3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL 

MANDATES 

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

mission and goals of the Refuge System, along with 

the designated purpose of the refuges and districts 

(as described in establishing legislation, executive 

orders, or other establishing documents). The key 

concepts and guidance of the Refuge System are 

contained in the Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966 (Administration Act), Title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), “The Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual,” and the Improvement Act. 

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System, a new process for determining compatible 

visitor services on refuges and districts, and a 

requirement that each refuge and district be 

managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 5 

states that wildlife conservation is the priority of 

Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of the 

Interior will ensure that the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands 

are maintained. Each refuge and district must be 

managed to fulfill the Refuge System’s mission and 

the specific purposes for which it was established. 

The Improvement Act requires the Service to 

monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and 

plants in each refuge and district. 

A detailed description of these and other laws and 

executive orders that may affect the CCP or the 

Service’s implementation of the CCP is found in 

Appendix A. Service policies on planning and day-today management of refuges and districts are in the 

“Refuge System Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual.” 

1.4 REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANS 

The Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

contributes to the conservation efforts described 

here. 

FULFILLING THE PROMISE 

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1999), is the culmination of a yearlong 

process by teams of Service employees to evaluate 

the Refuge System nationwide. This report was the 

focus of the first national Refuge System conference 

(in 1998)—attended by refuge managers, other 

Service employees, and representatives from leading 

conservation organizations. 

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements dealing with wildlife 

and habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals 

with all three of these major topics. The planning 

team looked to the recommendations in the document 

for guidance during CCP planning. 

PARTNERS IN FLIGHT 

The “Partners in Flight” program began in 1990 with 

the recognition of declining population levels of many 

migratory bird species. The challenge is, according 

to the program, maintaining functional natural 

ecosystems in the face of human population growth. 

To meet this challenge, Partners in Flight worked to 

identify priority land bird species and habitat types. 

Partners in Flight activity has resulted in 52 bird 

conservation plans covering the continental United 

States. 

The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide 

for the long-term health of bird life of this continent. 

The first priority is to prevent the rarest species 

from going extinct. The second priority is to prevent 

uncommon species from descending into threatened 

status. The third priority is to “keep common birds 

common.” 

There are 58 physiographic areas, defined by similar 

physical geographic features, wholly or partially 

contained within the contiguous United States and 

several others wholly or partially in Alaska. The Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge lies within 

the physiographic area known as the Central Rocky 

Mountains (see figure 2). It is a huge physiographic 

area, extending from northwest Wyoming over all of 

western Montana, the northern two-thirds of Idaho, 

large areas of eastern Oregon and Washington, 

much of southeast British Columbia, and a sliver of 

west Alberta. It is an area of high mountains, with 

elevations exceeding 10,000 feet. Glaciation has 

left broad flat valleys between mountain ranges. 

Elevation determines the dominant vegetation. The 

highest areas are alpine tundra. The subalpine zone 

is dominated by Engelmann spruce and subalpine fi r, 

with ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in the montane 

zone below that. Stand-replacing fire can change 

forests in either of those zones to lodgepole pine 

or aspen. Grass and sagebrush occur under open 

pine forests that grade downslope into grasslands, 

wetlands, woodlands, or shrub-steppe. 

Approximately 28 species of birds have a larger 

population in the Central Rocky Mountains than in 

any other physiographic area. This is the largest such 

number of any physiographic area in the lower 48 

states, and it seems to represent the huge size of the 

area and the vast amount of quality bird habitat that 

still exists. The habitat characteristics, however, are 

not unique to just this area but represent the heart of 

the mountainous West and the center of distribution 

for many birds, particularly those of coniferous 

forests, which range more widely. 

Fire in higher elevation coniferous forests of the 

central Rocky Mountains tends to be of high intensity 

and low frequency. After such stand-replacing fi res, 

either aspen or lodgepole pine occupy a site until a 

century or more of succession results in redominance 

of the site-specific hemlock, spruce, or fi r species. 

Many birds track this process—both black-backed 

and three-toed woodpeckers specialize in foraging 

on charred post-fire trees. Dusky grouse and 

Williamson’s sapsucker are among those species most 

abundant in aspen. 

A huge percentage of the central Rockies in the 

United States are in public ownership, mostly 

managed by the Forest Service. Maintenance 

or restoration of healthy forest ecosystems on 

public and private industrial lands will be the most 

important factor in keeping the central Rocky 

Mountains a healthy ecosystem for so many forest 

birds. 
6 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

The priority bird species and habitats of the central 

Rocky Mountains found on the refuge include the 

following: 

Shrub-steppe 

greater sage-grouse 

Wetland 

American white pelican
 

trumpeter swan
 

Barrow’s goldeneye
 

Franklin’s gull
 

Riparian 

calliope hummingbird 

Coniferous forest 

Dusky grouse
 

black-backed woodpecker
 

Aspen 

Williamson’s sapsucker
 

red-naped sapsucker
 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Written in 1986, the “North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan” envisioned a 15-year effort to 

achieve landscape conditions that could sustain 

waterfowl populations. Specific plan objectives are to 

increase and restore duck populations to the average 

levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a 

fall flight of 100 million birds. 

By 1985 waterfowl populations had plummeted 

to record lows. Habitat that waterfowl depend on 

was disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. 

Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and 

wetlands to North Americans and the need for 

international cooperation to help in the recovery of 

a shared resource, the United States and Canadian 

governments developed a strategy to restore 

waterfowl populations through habitat protection, 

restoration, and enhancement. Mexico became a 

signatory to the plan in 1994. 

The plan is innovative because of its international 

scope and its implementation at the regional level. 

Its success depends on the strength of partnerships 

called “joint ventures,” involving federal, state, 

provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; 

conservation organizations; and individual citizens. 

Joint ventures are regional self-directed partnerships 

that carry out science-based conservation through 

a wide array of community participation. Joint 

ventures develop implementation plans that focus 

on areas of concern identified in the plan. Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge lies within the 

Intermountain West Joint Venture. 

Figure 2. Physiographic area map of the United States.

 (Source: Partners in Flight) 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 7 

Glossy ibis. 

Laura King/USFWS 

INTERMOUNTAIN WEST REGIONAL 

SHOREBIRD PLAN 

The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan 

was released in 2000. The plan notes that perhaps 1 

million shorebirds breed in the Intermountain West 

region and that millions more migrate through the 

area each year. The plan recognizes that fi nding 

ample high-quality fresh water will be the greatest 

challenge faced by shorebirds in the Intermountain 

West region. The shorebird plan articulates seven 

goals, plus associated objectives and strategies 

related to habitat management, monitoring and 

assessment, research, outreach, and planning. The 

planning goal includes objectives to coordinate 

shorebird planning and projects with other 

migratory bird initiatives and specifically with the 

Intermountain West Joint Venture. The shorebird 

plan identifies 11 species of shorebirds that regularly 

breed in the region, as well as 23 additional species 

that are annual migrants. Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge is recognized in the plan as one of the 

79 managed shorebird sites. 

STATE COMPREHENSIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE 

CONSERVATION STRATEGY 

Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy includes all vertebrate 

species known to exist in Montana, including 

both game and nongame species, as well as some 

invertebrate species, such as freshwater mussels and 

crayfish. From the early years of fish and wildlife 

management, the focus has been placed on game 

animals and their related habitats because most of 

the agency’s funding has been provided by hunters 

and anglers. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks does not intend 

to reduce its focus on important game species and 

maintains that conserving particular types of habitats 

will benefit a variety of game and nongame species. 

With this new funding mechanism and conservation 

strategy in place, the MFWP believes that managing 

fish and wildlife more comprehensively is a natural 

progression in the effective conservation of 

Montana’s remarkable fish and wildlife resources 

(MFWP 2005). Although game species are included 

in MFWP’s conservation strategy, the priority 

is species and their related habitats “in greatest 

conservation need.” This means focus areas, 

community types, and species that are signifi cantly 

degraded or declining, federally listed, or where 

important distribution and occurrence information 

used to assess the status of individuals and groups 

of species are lacking. Because management of game 

species has been largely successful over the last 100 

years, most species have populations that are stable 

or increasing, and fewer are identified as “in greatest 

conservation need” (49 nongame, 11 game). MFWP’s 

conservation strategy uses five ecotypes to describe 

the broad areas of Montana’s landscape that have 

similar characteristics. Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge is located in the intermountain/ 

foothill grassland ecotype, a mosaic of private and 

public land that extends from the glaciated Flathead 

River Valley to the north, south to the Centennial 

Valley, and east to the Little Belt Foothills. This 

western Montana ecotype harbors more wildlife 

communities than any other in Montana. 

Within each of the ecotypes, Tier 1 (greatest need of 

conservation) geographic focus areas were identifi ed 

for all terrestrial and aquatic areas of the state. 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is located 

within the Southwest Montana Intermontane Basin 

and Valley focus area. The Tier 1 priority species 

for this area include the western toad, common loon, 

trumpeter swan, bald eagle, greater sage-grouse, 

long-billed curlew, flammulated owl, Townsend’s big­
8 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

eared bat, pygmy rabbit, great basin pocket mouse, 

gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Canada lynx. 

The”Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy” (MFWP 2005) outlines 

five conservation concerns and strategies for the 

Southwest Montana Intermontane Basin and Valley 

Focus Area. The key concerns are: 

■	 Habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity 

as a result of human population growth/ 

development 

■	 Invasive or exotic plant species 

■	 Altered fi re system 

■	 Range or forest management practices 

■	 Streamside residential development 

FISHERIES PROGRAM, VISION FOR THE FUTURE 

The Fisheries Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has played a vital role in conserving and 

managing fish and other aquatic resources since 

1871. Today, the Fisheries Program is a critical 

partner with states, tribes, other governments, 

other Service programs, private organizations, 

public institutions, and interested citizens in a larger 

effort to conserve these important resources. The 

nation’s fish and other aquatic resources are among 

the richest and most diverse in the world. These 

resources have helped support the nation’s growth by 

providing enormous ecological, social, and economic 

benefits. Despite efforts by the Service and others 

to conserve aquatic resources, a growing number 

are declining at alarming rates. Loss of habitat and 

invasive species are the two most signifi cant threats 

to the diversity of aquatic systems. One-third of 

the nation’s freshwater fish species are threatened 

or endangered, 72% of freshwater mussels are 

imperiled, and the number of threatened and 

endangered species has tripled in the last 20 years. 

Clearly, there is increasing urgency to identify and 

carry out actions that will reverse these alarming 

trends before it is too late (USFWS 2002a). 

In order to better conserve and manage fi sh and 

other aquatic resources in the face of increasing 

threats, the Service worked with partners to refocus 

its Fisheries Program and develop a vision outlined 

in the document, “Fisheries Program, Vision for the 

Future” (USFWS 2002b). The vision of the Service 

and its Fisheries Program is working with partners 

to restore and maintain fish and other aquatic 

resources at self-sustaining levels and to support 

federal mitigation programs for the benefit of the 

American public. To achieve this vision, the Fisheries 

Program will work with its partners to 

■	 protect the health of aquatic habitats; 

■	 restore fish and other aquatic resources; 

■	 provide opportunities to enjoy the benefi ts of 

healthy aquatic resources. 

One of the objectives in this document states: 

Objective 2.2: Restore declining fish and other 

aquatic resource populations before they require 

listing under the Endangered Species Act. The 

Fisheries Program will increase its support and 

assistance in stopping and reversing declines of 

native fish and other aquatic resources, including 

restoring fish passage and rebuilding populations. 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge has one 

of the only native lacustrine/adfluvial (live in the 

lake and breed in the river) populations of Arctic 

grayling in the lower 48 states, along with a native 

population of Westslope cutthroat trout. Both of 

these populations are imperiled due to a signifi cant 

loss of habitat, disease, sedimentation, and impacts 

from other nonnative fish species. In order to achieve 

this objective of restoring declining fi sh populations, 

the refuge will need to take management actions 

to enhance these species and their habitats, while 

ensuring that the purposes of the refuge are being 

met. 

1.5 ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND 

THREATS 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is located 

within the Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and 

Upper Columbia rivers ecosystem. This ecosystem 

lies within the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains 

physiographic provinces and includes a large part 

of Montana, northern Wyoming, and a small section 

of western North Dakota (see figure 3). Some of 

the wildest and most unpopulated country in the 

lower 48 states occurs within this 185,000 square 

mile area, including such significant protected areas 

as Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks, the 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, the Bob 

Marshall Wilderness, and the Upper Missouri River. 

Wildlife in these areas is abundant and diverse. 

Threatened and endangered species are actively 

protected and managed within various areas of this 

ecosystem; those species include grizzly bear, gray 

wolf, black-footed ferret, bull trout, pallid sturgeon, 

piping plover, least tern, and water howellia. Some 

of these species, such as the grizzly bear, are only 

listed in certain areas. Of these species, only the gray 

wolf has been observed visiting the refuge. Sitting 

astride the Continental Divide, the ecosystem gives 

rise to the Columbia and Missouri rivers. Three 

main habitat groups are predominant throughout 

the ecosystem: mountain habitat, river habitat, and 

prairie habitat. Mountain habitat groups contain a 

number of habitat types. Arid lands in the valleys 

have mixed wheatgrass and fescue grasslands 

along with considerable acreages of sagebrush 

stands. Surrounding mountains are of moderate 

elevation and are cloaked with conifer forests. The 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 9
 

Figure 3. Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia rivers ecosystem map. 
highest elevations have Douglas-fir or spruce-fi r 

forests or alpine vegetation. Gray wolves, grizzly 

bears, wolverines, and different species of trout 

occur in these habitat groups. River habitat groups 

are comprised of a mix of native prairie grass and 

sagebrush-steppe, along with the riparian zone of 

larger rivers and their tributaries. Cottonwood- and 

shrub-dominated communities are also common. 

Many of the same animals that are present in the 

mountain habitat are present in the river habitat 

as well. Prairie habitat groups include woodlands 

and grass- or sage-dominated areas where adequate 

moisture for a forest canopy is not available. Higher 

elevation is home to subalpine communities and 

rock outcrops. Prairie grasslands or shrub-steppe 

dominates at lower elevations, with riparian areas 

along watercourses. Black-tailed prairie dogs, bald 

eagles, ferruginous hawks, and a diverse group of fi sh 

can be found in this habitat. 

Key threats to the ecosystem include invasive plant 

species, conversion of native prairie to agriculture, 

and habitat fragmentation from development and 

population growth. Priorities for the Upper Missouri, 

Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia rivers ecosystem 

include ensuring natural and healthy ecological 

processes for the area, and making sure that 

economic development complements environmental 

protection. 

1.6 PLANNING PROCESS 

This draft CCP and EA for the refuge are intended 

to follow the Improvement Act and NEPA and the 

implementing regulations of both acts. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service issued its Refuge System 

planning policy in 2000. This policy established 

requirements and guidance for refuge and district 

plans—including CCPs and step-down management 

plans—to ensure that planning efforts follow the 

Improvement Act. The planning policy identifi ed 

several steps of the CCP and environmental analysis 

process (see fi gure 4). 

Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning 

process, to date, for the preparation of this draft 

CCP and EA. The Service began the pre-planning 

process in August 2005 with the establishment of 

a planning team. The planning team is comprised 

primarily of Service personnel from the refuge 

and representatives from Montana Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks. Some other contributors included other 

Service divisions, U.S. Geological Service, Montana 

State University, Bureau of Land Management, 

and The Nature Conservancy (see “Appendix B: 

List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination”). 

During pre-planning, the team developed a mailing 

list, internal issues, and a special qualities list. The 

planning team identified and reviewed current refuge 

programs, compiled and analyzed relevant data, and 

determined the purpose of the refuge. 

A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the draft CCP 

and EA was published in the Federal Register on 

June 12, 2006. Public scoping began with publication 

of the notice, and information was distributed 

through news releases, issuance of the fi rst planning 

update, and holding two public scoping meetings in 

August 2006. Public scoping concluded on September 

15, 2006, when the comment period closed. 

Over the course of pre-planning and public scoping, 

the planning team collected available information 

about the resources of the refuge and the 

surrounding areas. This information is summarized in 

“Chapter 4. Affected Environment.” 

8. REVIEW AND REVISE PLAN

 —Public involvement 

when applicable 

1. PREPLANNING:

 Plan the Plan 

7. IMPLEMENT PLAN, 

 MONITOR, AND EVALUATE

 —Public involvement

 when applicable 

6. 	PREPARE AND ADOPT

 FINAL PLAN

 —Respond to public comment

 —Select preferred alternative 

The 

Comprehensive 

Conservation 

Planning Process and 

NEPA Compliance 

5. 	PREPARE DRAFT 

 PLAN AND NEPA 

DOCUMENT

 —Public comment 

and review 

2. 	INITIATE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

AND SCOPING

 —Involve the public 

3. DRAFT VISION

 STATEMENT AND GOALS

AND DETERMINE 

 SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES 

4. DEVELOP AND ANALYZE

 ALTERNATIVES

 —Create a reasonable range

of alternatives including a

no-action alternative 

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

Figure 4. CCP and environmental analysis process steps. 

COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC 

A mailing list of more 

than 250 names, 

including private 

citizens; local, regional, 

and state government 

representatives and 

legislators; other federal 

agencies; and interested 

organizations was 

prepared during preplanning (see “Appendix

C: Public Involvement”). 

The first planning update 

issue was sent in July

2006 to everyone on the 

mailing list. Information

was provided on the 

history of the refuge and 

the CCP process, along 

with an invitation to a 

public scoping meeting. 
Table 1. Planning process summary and timeline for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Event Outcome 

August 16, 2005 

September 20, 2005 

February 21, 2006 

May 17, 2006 

June 12, 2006 

August 1, 2006 

August 15, 2006 

August 16, 2006 

August 15, 2006 

September 9, 2006 

September 11, 2006 

January 5, 2007 

January 10, 2007 

February 12, 2007 

April 2007 

July 11-25, 2008 

Kickoff meeting 

Visitor services review 

Biological review 

Biological review 

Notice of intent 

Planning update 

Public scoping meeting 

Public scoping meeting 

Vision and goals workshop 

Public scoping meeting 

Biological review 

Focus group meeting 

(realty issues) 

Alternatives netmeeting

workshop 

Objectives and strategies 

workshop 

Draft CCP 

Internal review of draft CCP 

CCP overview developed, planning team list 

developed, purposes identified, initial issues 

and qualities list developed, development of 

mailing list initiated. 

Visitor services programs and facilities 

evaluated by education and visitor services 

staff. 

Gathered information from a team of 

researchers and biologists on the natural 

processes that formed and continue to infl uence 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. 

Worked with contracted U.S. Geological 

Survey researcher to evaluate current 

biological programs and needs. 

Published notice of intent in Federal Register

to initiate public scoping. 

First planning update sent to mailing list 

describing planning process and announcing 

upcoming public scoping meetings. 

Offered public opportunity to learn about the

CCP and provide comments. 

Offered public opportunity to learn about the

CCP and provide comments. 

Developed draft vision and goals statements.
 

Offered public opportunity to learn about the

CCP and provide comments. 

Panel of biologists and researchers gathered 

to review and evaluate biological program and 

issues. 

Staff and realty specialists discussed boundary

and conservation easement program issues. 

Developed alternatives table.

Finalized alternatives table, selected proposed

action, and began writing objectives/strategies. 

Began writing draft CCP/EA.
 

Draft CCP is reviewed by Service, state, and

other federal partners. 

Chapter 1 — Introduction 11 
12 Draft CCP and EA, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT 

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 2 

hours of the refuge office. There were 33 attendees, 

primarily local citizens, including surrounding 

ranchers. Following a presentation about the refuge 

and an overview of the CCP and 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. 

STATE COORDINATION 

At the start of the planning process, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s region 6 director sent a 

letter to MFWP, inviting them to participate in the 

planning process. Numerous state biologists have 

since been involved in the planning process and have 

also participated in biological reviews of the refuge’s 

management program. At the start of the process, 

the offices of each of the three state members of 

Congress (then Senator Conrad Burns, Senator Max 

Baucus, and Representative Dennis Rehburg) were 

sent letters notifying them of the planning process 

and inviting them to comment on the plan. Four 

other Montana State senators and representatives 

and Governor Brian Schweitzer were sent similar 

letters. To date, the state has been supportive of the 

planning process. 

TRIBAL COORDINATION 

Early in the planning process, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s region 6 director sent a letter to 

tribes identified as possibly having some interest 

in participating in the planning efforts at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Those contacted 

were the Northern Cheyenne, Crow, Eastern 

Shoshone, and Arapaho tribal councils. The tribal 

councils did not submit responses to the region 6 

letter; nevertheless, the councils were provided 

planning updates and opportunities to comment. 

RESULTS OF SCOPING 

Comments collected from scoping meetings and 

correspondence were used in the development of a 

final list of issues to be addressed in this draft CCP 

and EA. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined 

which alternatives could best address these issues. 

The planning process ensures that issues with the 

greatest effect on the refuge are resolved or given 

priority over the life of the final CCP. Identifi ed 

issues, along with a discussion of effects on resources, 

are summarized in chapter 2. 

In addition, the Service considered suggested 

changes to current refuge management presented by 

the public and other groups. 

SELECTING AN ALTERNATIVE 

The Service’s region 6 director will consider the 

environmental effects of each alternative and select 

an alternative to implement—this alternative will 

then become the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge CCP. The regional director’s decision will 

be disclosed in a finding of no signifi cant impact 

(FONSI) included in the final CCP. Implementation 

of the CCP will begin following the regional 

director’s signature and publication of the fi nal CCP. 

The final CCP will provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions; support achievement of the 

goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish 

refuge purposes; and identify the Service’s best 

estimate of future needs. This draft CCP details 

program planning levels that are sometimes 

substantially above current budget allocations 

and, thus, are primarily for Service strategic 

planning purposes. This CCP does not constitute a 

commitment for staffing increases, operation and 

maintenance increases, or funding for future land 

acquisitions.