Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

Montana 

September 2012 

Approved by 

Stephen D. Guertin, Regional Director Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
 

Lakewood, Colorado
 

Prepared by 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

4567 Wildfowl Lane 

Stevensville, Montana 59870 

406 / 777 5552 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region 

Division of Refuge Planning 

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228 

303 / 236 8145 

CITATION for this document: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 204 p. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

Montana 

Submitted by Concurred with by 

Tom Reed Date 

Refuge Manager 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

Stevensville, Montana 

W. Dean Rundle Date 

Refuge Supervisor, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Matt Hogan Date 

Assistant Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Contents
 

Summary ....................................................................................... XI
 

Abbreviations .................................................................................... XVII
 

CHAPTER 1—Introduction...................................................................... 1
 

1.1 	 The Comprehensive Conservation Plan .......................................................

Final Decision ................................................................................

 3
 

 3
 

Plan Development .............................................................................

Plan Amendment and Revision....................................................................

 3
 

 3
 

1.2 	 Purpose and Need for the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

1.3 	 North American Model of Wildlife Conservation ............................................... 4
 

1.4 	 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Refuge System .........................................

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................

 5
 

 5
 

Service Activities in Montana .................................................................... 5
 

National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................

People and the Refuge System....................................................................

 6
 

 6
 

1.5 	 National and Regional Mandates ............................................................ 7
 

1.6 	 Contributions to National and Regional Plans .................................................

Fulfilling the Promise ...........................................................................

Partners in Flight..............................................................................

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan......................................................

 7
 

 7
 

 7
 

 8
 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan .....................................................

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan .........................................................

State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy.............................................

 9
 

 9
 

 10
 

1.7 	 Strategic Habitat Conservation ..............................................................

Climate Change ..............................................................................

 10
 

 11
 

1.8 	 Planning Process ..........................................................................

Coordination with the Public .....................................................................

 12
 

 12
 

State Coordination ............................................................................ 15
 

Tribal Coordination ............................................................................ 15
 

CHAPTER 2—The Refuge....................................................................... 17
 

2.1 	 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History ............................................

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................

Summary of Land Acquisition History ..............................................................

 17
 

 17
 

 19
 

2.2 	 Purposes ................................................................................. 19
 

2.3 	 Vision .................................................................................... 21
 

2.4 	 Goals ..................................................................................... 21
 

Bitterroot River Floodplain and Associated Wildlife.....................................................

Wetland Impoundment Habitat and Associated Wildlife .................................................

Grassland and Shrubland Habitat and Associated Wildlife................................................

 21
 

 21
 

 21
 

Invasive and Nonnative Species...................................................................

Research ...................................................................................

 21
 

 21
 

Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 21
 

Visitor Services .............................................................................. 21
 
VI Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Partnerships ................................................................................ 22
 

Operations and Facilities ....................................................................... 22
 

2.5 	 Special Values ........................................................................... 22
 

2.6 	 Planning Issues .......................................................................... 23
 

Bitterroot River Migration ...................................................................... 23
 

Wetland Impoundments (or Ponds) ................................................................ 23
 

Upland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................................................ 25
 

Water..................................................................................... 25
 

Invasive and Noxious Species ................................................................... 25
 

Research, Inventory, and Monitoring .............................................................. 26
 

Visitor Services.............................................................................. 26
 

Staffing ................................................................................... 26
 

CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources ............................................................... 27
 

3.1 	 Physical Environment...................................................................... 27
 

Climate and Hydrology ........................................................................ 27
 

Climate Change ............................................................................. 29
 

Physiography and Geology ...................................................................... 32
 

Soils...................................................................................... 33
 

Topography and Elevation ...................................................................... 35
 

Water Rights ............................................................................... 35
 

Hydrogeomorphic Changes ..................................................................... 35
 

Air Quality ................................................................................. 39
 

3.2 	 Biological Resources...................................................................... 39
 

Land Cover and Vegetation Communities ........................................................... 40
 

Habitat Modifications since Establishment .......................................................... 44
 

Changes to the Vegetation Communities ........................................................... 48
 

Changes to Fish and Wildlife Populations ........................................................... 48
 

Upland Habitat .............................................................................. 50
 

Riparian Habitat ............................................................................. 51
 

Wetland Impoundment Habitat .................................................................. 52
 

Remaining Refuge Acres ....................................................................... 53
 

Invasive Species ............................................................................. 53
 

Wildlife Diseases and Contaminants .............................................................. 54
 

3.3 	 State and Federally Listed Species .......................................................... 56
 

Species of Concern ........................................................................... 56
 

3.4 	 Cultural Resources and History ............................................................. 58
 

Prehistoric Occupation......................................................................... 58
 

History of the Salish .......................................................................... 59
 

Euro-American Settlement and Land Use Changes .................................................... 60
 

3.5 	 Special Management Areas ................................................................ 64
 

Wilderness Review ........................................................................... 64
 

Important Bird Area........................................................................... 64
 

3.6 	 Visitor Services ........................................................................... 64
 

Hunting and Fishing........................................................................... 65
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography ............................................................. 67
 

Environmental Education ....................................................................... 68
 

Interpretation ............................................................................... 70
 

3.7 	 Management Tools ........................................................................ 71
 

Water Level Manipulation ...................................................................... 71
 

Prescribed Burning ........................................................................... 71
 

Prescriptive Grazing or Mowing .................................................................. 71
 

Cooperative Farming .......................................................................... 71
 
3.8 	 Socioeconomic Environment ............................................................... 71
 

Population and Demographics ................................................................... 72
 

Employment ................................................................................ 72
 

Public Use of the Refuge ....................................................................... 72
 

Baseline Economic Activity ..................................................................... 73
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Employment.......................................................... 73
 

Visitor Spending ............................................................................. 73
 

3.9 	 Partnerships.............................................................................. 73
 

3.10 Operations ............................................................................... 74
 

Staff...................................................................................... 74
 

Facilities................................................................................... 74
 

CHAPTER 4—Management Direction .......................................................... 75
 

4.1 	 Management Focus ....................................................................... 75
 

Target Species Selection Process ................................................................. 76
 

4.2 	 Goal for the Bitterroot River Floodplain and Associated Wildlife ............................... 78
 

Target Species for the Bitterroot River Floodplain ..................................................... 78
 

Floodplain Objective 1 ......................................................................... 78
 

Floodplain Objective 2 ......................................................................... 80
 

North Burnt Fork Creek Objective (Including Francois Slough) ............................................. 81
 

Three Mile Creek Objective ..................................................................... 82
 

Riverfront Forest Habitat Objective ............................................................... 83
 

Gallery Forest Habitat Objective ................................................................. 84
 

4.3 	 Goal for Wetland Impoundment Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................... 85
 

Target Wetland Habitat Species.................................................................. 85
 

Wetland Impoundment Habitat Objective 1.......................................................... 85
 

Wetland Impoundment Habitat Objective 2.......................................................... 87
 

Gravel Pits Objective ......................................................................... 88
 

4.4 	 Goal for Grassland and Shrubland Habitat and Associated Wildlife ............................. 88
 

Target Grassland and Shrubland Species ........................................................... 89
 

Grassland and Shrubland Habitat Objective ......................................................... 89
 

4.5 	 Goal for Invasive and Nonnative Species .................................................... 91
 

New Invasive Species Objective.................................................................. 91
 

Established Invasive Species Objective............................................................. 91
 

4.6 	 Goal for Research ......................................................................... 93
 

Research Objective ........................................................................... 93
 

4.7 	 Goal for Cultural Resources ................................................................ 94
 

Cultural Resources Objective 1 (Protection).......................................................... 94
 

Cultural Resources Objective 2 (Interpretation) ....................................................... 94
 

4.8 	 Goal for Visitor Services ................................................................... 95
 

Hunting Objective ............................................................................ 96
 

Fishing Objective 1 ........................................................................... 96
 

Fishing Objective 2 ........................................................................... 97
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective ...................................................... 97
 

Environmental Education Objective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
 

Interpretation Objective........................................................................ 101
 

Signage Objective ............................................................................ 102
 

4.9 	 Goal for Partnerships ...................................................................... 103
 

Partnership Objective ......................................................................... 103
 

4.10 Goal for Operations and Facilities........................................................... 103
 

Staff Objective .............................................................................. 103
 

Facilities, Equipment, and Supplies Objective ..................................................... 104
 

Contents VII 
VIII Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

4.11 Stepdown Management Plans ............................................................. 105
 

4.12 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
 

4.13 Plan Amendment and Revision ............................................................. 106
 

Glossary ...................................................................................... 107
 

Appendixes 

Appendix A—Public Involvement .................................................................. 113
 

Appendix B—Environmental Compliance ............................................................ 139
 

Appendix C—Compatibility Determinations .......................................................... 143
 

Appendix D—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation.............................................. 155
 

Appendix E—Key Legislation and Policy ............................................................. 163
 

Appendix F—List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination........................................... 167
 

Appendix G—Species Lists ....................................................................... 169
 

Appendix H—Fire Management Program ............................................................ 195
 

Bibliography.................................................................................. 199
 

FIGURES 

1 Location map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ..................................... XII
 

2 Area map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ........................................ 2
 

3 Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis ............. 12
 

4 Approved acquisition boundary of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana........................ 18
 

5 Composite vegetation community models Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, for 1964 and 2005 


(Heitmeyer et al. 2010) ...................................................................... 24
 

6 Ravalli County, Montana, average annual precipitation (inches) (USDA 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

7 Primary channels and sloughs present at Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, in the 1940s ....... 30
 

8 Flooding of the Bitterroot River on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, in 1974 ................ 31
 

9 Bitterroot River streamflow near Darby, Montana (USGS 2011) ........................................ 31
 

10 Network of minor channels occurring in the valley floor on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 


(Heitmeyer et al. 2010) ...................................................................... 34
 

11 Map of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, showing 1-foot contour intervals
 

(Heitmeyer et al. 2010) ...................................................................... 36
 

12 Car bodies along the Bitterroot River on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, that were intended 


for erosion control before refuge establishment .................................................. 38
 

13 Bank and levee erosion along the Bitterroot River on the west side of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife
 

Refuge, Montana (Heitmeyer et al. 2010)........................................................ 38
 

14 Maps showing the changes in the main channel of the Bitterroot River in Montana ....................... 41
 

15 Hydrogeomorphic-derived map of potential vegetation communities on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, 


Montana, before European settlement in the mid-1800s............................................ 43
 

16 Existing habitat and vegetation communities on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ............ 45
 

17 Ponds and upland fields in Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.............................. 46
 

18 Field planted as dense nesting cover on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................... 47
 

19 Osprey production on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, 1964–2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

20 Mercury concentration in fish from Montana national wildlife refuges .................................. 50
 

21 Proposed land use and drainage and irrigation infrastructure on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, 


Montana, in the 1960s (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) ................................................... 62
 

22 Locations of structures near Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, 


Montana (Heitmeyer et al. 2010) .............................................................. 63
 

23 Public use map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .................................... 66
 
Contents IX 

24 Roads in Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, including Service roads 

proposed for removal. ....................................................................... 69
 

25 Kenai Nature Trail, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. ................................... 77
 

26 Adapative management process................................................................. 106
 

TABLES 

1 Summary of the CCP planning process for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................. 13
 

2 Habitat type and associated acreages found on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana............. 19
 

3 Land acquisition history for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1964–2009) .................. 20
 

4 Water rights summary for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .............................. 37
 

5 Hydrogeomorphic matrix of historical distribution of vegetation communities and habitat types on 


Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .................................................. 40
 

6 Documented invasive and nonnative plant species on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, 


as of 2010 and the degree of infestation, priority for treatment, and State noxious status ................. 54
 

7 Montana listed species of concern and Federal birds of conservation concern recorded in the Bitterroot 


Valley and on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ...................................... 57
 

8 Target species for the Bitterroot floodplain and their habitat needs..................................... 79
 

9 Wetland impoundment target species and their habitat needs ........................................ 86
 

10 Target species for the grassland and shrubland areas and their habitat needs ........................... 89
 

11 Current and proposed staff for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .......................... 105
 

12 Stepdown management plans for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ........................ 106
 

Summary
 

View of the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge from the Bitterroot Mountains. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a 

comprehensive conservation plan for the Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge in Montana. The Regional 

Director of the Service’s Mountain–Prairie Region 

selected alternative B from the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment, 

and this alternative is now the final comprehensive 

conservation plan. Substantive public comments (appendix A) were addressed, resulting in modifications 

to this final document. Implementation of this plan will 

be monitored throughout its 15-year effective period. 

The Refuge 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, established on 

February 4, 1964, is a 2,800-acre refuge located in the 

Bitterroot River Valley of southwest Montana (figure 

1). The refuge encompasses a portion of the Bitterroot 

River and is located between the scenic Bitterroot and 

Sapphire Mountains. The channel of the Bitterroot 

River has been altered from levees, bank stabilization, 

and some channelization; nevertheless, this floodplain 

refuge provides a diverse mosaic of western mountain 

valley habitats including gallery and riverfront forest, wet meadow, wetlands, and grassland benches. 

The refuge provides opportunities for the public 

to enjoy compatible wildlife-dependent public use 

activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. The refuge is a very popular community and tourist destination with more than 143,000 

visitors annually. 

Issues 

Substantive issues were identified following an internal review of refuge information and through public 

scoping, which began in 2009. The following issues are 

detailed in chapter 2: 

■■ riparian habitat loss and fragmentation caused by 

the migration of the Bitterroot River 

■■ overgrown emergent vegetation and eroded levees 

and water management structures that have compromised the ability to properly manage wetland 

impoundments 

■■ reduction in the quality and diversity of upland 

habitats due to invasive plants and lack of native 

species 

■■ algal blooms that have diminished clarity and quality of refuge waters 

■■ inefficient water supply due to silted and overgrown supply ditches 

■■ invasive species that have become widespread and 

difficult to control 

■■ lack of baseline research, inventory, and monitoring data to guide management 

■■ small visitor contact area, outdated displays, and 

inadequate public access by trails 

■■ inadequate staff to manage and enhance refuge 

habitats and visitor services 
XII Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Figure 1. Location map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 
Summary XIII 

The Future of the Refuge
 

The vision for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

is based on the establishing purposes of the refuge, 

resource conditions and potential, and the issues identified during the planning process. The goals were developed to meet the vision for the refuge. 

VISION FOR THE REFUGE 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 


is a representation of the diverse native 


wildlife habitat once found abundantly 


between the Bitterroot and Sapphire 


Mountains and along the ever-changing 


Bitterroot River. This floodplain refuge, 


fed by mountain snow, is a diverse 


mosaic of forest, grassland, and riparian 


habitat that provides protected lands and 


waters for migratory and 


resident wildlife.
 

The refuge, in partnership with its 


neighbors, friends, and the community, 


is a conservation leader in the valley, 


ensuring that the biological integrity 


of this refuge and other valley habitats 


remains intact or, where appropriate, 


is restored. 


These protected lands and waters 


are a place of discovery for visitors to 


experience fish and wildlife firsthand and 


where children can experience nature 


with all their senses. Visitors to the 


refuge can appreciate the beauty of the 


setting and experience a sense of wonder 


and pride to be preserving this part of 


the Bitterroot Valley and the National 


Wildlife Refuge System. 


GOAL FOR THE BITTERROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 

AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Manage and, where appropriate, restore the natural 

topography, water movements, and physical integrity 

of surface water flow patterns across the Bitterroot 

River floodplain to provide healthy riparian habitats 

for target native species and to educate visitors about 

the benefits of sustaining a more natural floodplain. 

GOAL FOR WETLAND IMPOUNDMENT HABITAT 

AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Where appropriate, manage wetland impoundments 

to create a diversity of habitats for target waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and other associated native wetland-dependent species. 

GOAL FOR GRASSLAND AND SHRUBLAND 

HABITAT AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Create the conditions that will allow for the restoration, maintenance, and distribution of native grassland 

and shrubland species (such as rabbitbrush, needle 

and thread grass, Junegrass, and hairy golden aster) 

to provide healthy lands for a diverse group of target 

native resident and migratory wildlife species and to 

educate visitors about the historical plant and animal 

diversity of the valley. 

GOAL FOR INVASIVE AND NONNATIVE SPECIES 

Prevent, reduce, and contain the invasion and spread of 

noxious, invasive, and harmful nonnative species within 

the refuge while working with partners to address offrefuge infestations within the surrounding landscape. 

GOAL FOR RESEARCH 

Pursue and maintain compatible research projects 

that will provide information on refuge resources and 

address refuge issues to assist management in making decisions based on the best available information 

and science. 

Great horned owl is one of ten owl species found on Lee 

Metcalf Refuge. 

© Kimi Smith 
XIV Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

Under the new management direction described in 

this plan, environmental education programs will be 

expanded on the refuge. 

GOAL FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the 

unique glacial, Native American, and Euro-American 

history of the Bitterroot Valley while maintaining and 

protecting the integrity of the refuge’s cultural and 

historical resources. 

GOAL FOR VISITOR SERVICES 

Provide visitors of all abilities with opportunities to 

participate in and enjoy quality, compatible wildlifedependent recreation, environmental education, and 

interpretation programs that foster an awareness and 

appreciation of the importance of protecting the natural and cultural resources of the refuge, the Bitterroot Valley, and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

GOAL FOR PARTNERSHIPS 

Maintain and cultivate partnerships that help achieve 

the vision and supporting goals and objectives of the 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and support other initiatives 

designed to protect and restore habitats for Federal 

trust species within the Bitterroot River Valley. 

GOAL FOR OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Prioritize wildlife first and emphasize the protection 

of trust resources in the utilization of staff, volunteers, 

funding, and facilities. 

TARGET SPECIES SELECTION PROCESS 

Early in the planning process, the Service selected 

three groups of target species that will be supported 

by the objectives and strategies described under the 

habitat goals for the Bitterroot River floodplain, wetland impoundment habitat, and grassland and shrubland habitat. The initial suite of birds, amphibians, 

or mammals was selected after Service staff reviewed 

three documents focused on sustaining or recovering 

species in Montana: 

■■ “Montana Intermountain West Joint Venture Plan” 

■■ “Montana State Conservation Plan” 

■■ “Bitterroot River Subbasin Plan” 

The criteria for this species list were based on whether 

a species either occurred on Lee Metcalf Refuge or 

could occur on the refuge if its preferred habitat was 

expanded or restored, as indicated under each goal. The 

life history needs of over 100 species were examined 

for similarities and relevance to the proposed goals. 

Ultimately, 16 species (tables 8, 9, and 10 in chapter 4) 

were selected based on their ability to represent guilds 

or because they were good indicators of the quality of 

a specific habitat type. The habitats that support the 

migration, foraging, nesting, and migration needs of 

these selected species should benefit a much broader 

group of secondary bird species as well as a variety of 

other wildlife, both migratory and resident. 

These target species will be monitored for trends 

in abundance and distribution to evaluate the effectiveness of the objectives and strategies. 

Management of the Refuge 

The comprehensive conservation plan directs the 

management of the Lee Metcalf Refuge to meet the 

purposes of the refuge and address issues. 

The plan is intended to be a broad umbrella of 

general concepts and specific objectives for wildlife, 

habitat, visitor services, and partnerships over the 

next 15 years. As the plan is implemented, the Service will develop stepdown plans (section 4.11) with 

additional details for carrying out the actions needed 

to achieve objectives. 

HABITAT AND WILDLIFE 

The Service will focus on the expansion and restoration 

of native plant communities on the refuge including 

Variegated meadowhawk is one of many dragonfly 

species found on Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 
Summary XV 

grasslands, shrublands, and gallery and riverfront 

forests. Some areas that are currently part of wetland 

impoundments will be restored to native communities 

including forest and shrubland. A significant focus 

of restoration proposals will be controlling invasive 

species and preventing further spread. Grasses and 

shrubs native to the uplands, including the alluvial 

fans (that is, areas of sedimentary deposits where fastflowing streams have flown into flatter 

plains), will begin to be restored to 

provide habitat for native wildlife 

including grassland-dependent 

migratory birds. Some wetland 

impoundments and Service (nonpublic) roads will be removed 

or reduced in size to allow for 

river migration and to restore 

native gallery and riverfront 

forest for riparian-dependent 

wildlife. The remaining impoundments will be managed 

to mimic natural conditions 

for wetland-dependent migratory birds. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

The Service will expand and 

improve the refuge’s compatible wildlife-dependent 

© Allan F. Meyers 

Tree Swallows 

public use programs, in particular the wildlife observation, environmental education, and interpretation programs. The visitor contact area will be expanded into 

a visitor center with new displays and a combination 

conference room and environmental education classroom. New displays will be professionally planned and 

produced. The refuge will work with Ravalli County 

staff to designate the county road in the refuge as an 

auto tour route, which will include pulloffs and some 

form of interpretation. A seasonal hiking trail will be 

added, and current trails will be improved for wildlife 

observation and photography. Interpretation and environmental education programs will be expanded using 

added staff and volunteers. All public use programs 

will provide visitors with a consistent message about 

the purposes and values of the refuge and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

PARTNERSHIPS AND OPERATIONS 

Increased research and monitoring, staff, funding, 

infrastructure, and partnerships will be required to 

accomplish the goals, objectives, and strategies in this 

final plan. The refuge staff will be expanded by 3.5 individuals to include an assistant refuge manager (one 

full-time equivalent), a full-time and a career-seasonal 

biological science technician (1.5 full-time equivalents), 

and a visitor services specialist (one full-time equivalent) who will serve as a visitor center manager and 

volunteer coordinator. Additional staff and funding 

will be added depending on the regional priorities for 

those funds given to the Service for management of 

lands and water within the Refuge System. 

Abbreviations
 

A.D. Anno Domini or “year of our Lord” 

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

amsl above mean sea level 

B.C. before Christ 

B.P. before present 

CCP comprehensive conservation plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CWD chronic wasting disease 

DBH diameter at breast height 

EA environmental assessment 

FONSI finding of no significant impact 

GIS geographic information system 

GS General Schedule 

HGM hydrogeomorphic 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

IPM integrated pest management 

IWJV Intermountain West Joint Venture 

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

n/a not applicable 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size 

POD point of diversion 

refuge Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System 

RLGIS Refuge Lands Geographic Information Systems database 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

U.S.C. United States Code 

U.S. United States 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

WG Wage Grade Schedule 

WVA wildlife viewing area 

Definitions of these and other terms are in the glossary, located after chapter 4. 

CHAPTER 1—Introduction
 

Lee Metcalf Refuge is a 2,800-acre refuge located in the Bitterroot River Valley of southwest Montana. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this final comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) to provide a foundation for the management 

and use of the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

(refuge) in Montana for at least the next 15 years. 

This chapter provides an introduction to the CCP 

with descriptions of the steps in the CCP planning 

process; the involvement of the Service, the State of 

Montana, the tribes, the public, and others; and other 

plans that may be affected or supported by the future 

management of the refuge. 

The remainder of the document contains the information the Service used and the results of the Service’s analysis that are the foundation of this final plan: 

■■ Chapter 2 describes the refuge and planning issues. 

■■ Chapter 3 describes the physical, biological, and 

social environments of the refuge. 

■■ Chapter 4 describes objectives and strategies for 

all aspects of management of the refuge. 

The remaining document contains a glossary of terms, 

several appendixes, and a bibliography that support 

the information provided in the CCP. 

Lee Metcalf Refuge is a 2,800-acre refuge located 

in the Bitterroot River Valley of southwest Montana 

(figure 2). The refuge encompasses a portion of the Bitterroot River and is located between the scenic ranges 

of the Bitterroot and Sapphire Mountains. This unique 

location includes a diverse mosaic of western mountain 

valley ecosystem types and provides many public use 

opportunities including recreation, education and discovery, and research. The recreational opportunities 

and natural beauty of this valley have made it one of 

the most rapidly expanding human population areas 

of Montana. This refuge is surrounded by development, including agriculture and housing. The nearby 

Bitterroot National Forest is visited by thousands of 

people each year, and annually the refuge has more 

than 143,000 visitors. The refuge was authorized primarily for management of migratory birds and incidental fish- and wildlife-oriented recreation. 

The Service and other Federal, State, and tribal 

partners have developed this final CCP to provide a 

foundation for the management and use of the Lee 

Metcalf Refuge. The CCP specifies the necessary actions to achieve the vision and purposes of the refuge. 

Wildlife is the first priority in refuge management, and 

public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed 

and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the 

purposes of the refuge. This final CCP will serve as a 

working guide for management programs and activities over the next 15 years. Although this document 

contains management direction for the refuge, greater 

detail will be provided in stepdown management plans 

as part of implementing the final CCP. (Refer to table 

12 in chapter 4.) 
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Figure 2. Area map for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 3 

1.1 The Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

The CCP specifies the goals and objectives necessary 

to achieve the vision and purposes of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. 

FINAL DECIsIoN 

The Regional Director of the Mountain–Prairie Region of the Service selected alternative B from the 

draft CCP and environmental assessment (EA) as the 

preferred alternative for the final CCP for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix B documents 

the Regional Director’s decision in the environmental action statement and the finding of no significant 

impact. The specifics of the final CCP can be found 

in “Chapter 4–Management Direction.” Appendix C 

contains the final compatibility determinations for 

public uses described in this document. The section 7 

biological evaluation (appendix D) documents the effects of CCP actions on threatened and endangered 

species: a determination of no effect or may affect but 

not adversely, depending on the species. 

The CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides 

general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, visitor 

services, and partnership objectives over the next 15 

years. Implementation begins with publication of the 

final CCP. The Service will carry out the plan with help 

from partner agencies, organizations, and the public. 

As the CCP is implemented, stepdown management 

plans will be developed to provide greater detail to 

managers and employees for carrying out specific actions and strategies authorized by the CCP. Table 12 

in chapter 4 lists the stepdown plans needed for the 

refuge. 

The CCP details program planning levels that are 

sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and thus are primarily for Service strategic 

planning purposes. The CCP does not constitute a 

commitment for staff increases, operation and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. 

PLAN DEvELoPMENT 

The CCP was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

(Improvement Act) and Service policy. The actions 

described in the CCP meet the requirements of the 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations that 

implement the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA). Staff from several Montana State 

agencies, other Federal agencies, and tribes provided 

critical support in developing the CCP. The Service’s 

involvement of the public was another important aspect of planning and part of compliance with NEPA. 

In addition to the initial scoping with the public, there 

was a public review of the draft CCP and EA before 

the final CCP was completed. 

The planning process is described in detail in section 

1.8, and the public involvement process is described 

in appendix A, including the Service’s response to 

substantive public comments. 

PLAN AMENDMENT AND REvIsIoN 

The Service will annually review the final CCP to 

determine the need for amendment. An amendment 

would occur if significant information became available, 

such as a change in ecological conditions. The Service 

will evaluate the plan every 5 years and revise it after 

15 years, as necessary. 

Cattails 

© Allan F. Meyers 

1.2 Purpose and Need for the 

Plan 

The purpose of this final CCP is to identify the role 

that the Lee Metcalf Refuge will play in supporting 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Refuge System) and to provide long-term guidance 

for managing 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; 
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

■■ ensure that the Service’s management actions 

are consistent with the mandates of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Improvement Act); 

■■ ensure that management supports other Federal, 

State, and county plans, as appropriate; 

■■ 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. 

American white pelicans use the ponds of Lee Metcalf 

Refuge for foraging and cover. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

1.3 North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation 

Wildlife conservation in North America evolved to 

take on a form unique in the world; in recent years, it 

has come to be known as the North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation (Geist et al. 2001). The wildlife 

conservation movement arose out of the conflict between market hunters and sport hunters in the mid- to 

late-nineteenth century. Market hunting increased in 

response to the growth in urban population fueled by 

the Industrial Revolution. Between 1820 and 1860, the 

percentage of Americans who lived in cities increased 

from 5 percent to 20 percent; this fourfold increase is 

the greatest proportional increase in urban population that ever occurred in the United States (Reiss 

1995). The demand for meat and hides—along with 

feathers for the millinery trade—led to exploitation 

of game animals by market hunters. Along with the 

increase in the urban population came a new breed of 

hunter—one who hunted for the chase and the challenge it provided. These sport hunters valued game 

animals more when they were alive; market hunters, 

however, placed value on dead animals they could 

bring to market. The growing legion of sport hunters 

started a national movement that resulted in Federal 

and State governments taking responsibility for regulating the take of wildlife. 

The keystone concept of the North American 

Model of Wildlife Conservation, and the bedrock that 

allowed government to exercise control, is the public 

trust doctrine (Geist and Organ 2004). With origins in 

Greek and Roman law, the Magna Carta, and the 1842 

Martin v. Waddell U.S. Supreme Court decision, the 

public trust doctrine as it applies to wildlife conservation is the principle that wildlife belongs to no one; 

it is held in trust for all by government. 

The seven pillars of the North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation follow: 

■■ wildlife as a public trust resource 

■■ elimination of markets for game 

■■ allocation of wildlife by law 

■■ wildlife only killed for a legitimate purpose 

■■ wildlife considered an international resource 

■■ science as the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy 

■■ democracy of hunting 

For more than 100 years, these pillars have stood the 

test of time despite significant changes in approaches to 

wildlife conservation. The original conservation movement championed by Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird 

Grinnell, and others emphasized stemming wildlife 

population declines through implementing programs 

that restricted take and protected lands. During the 

1920s, conservationists realized that more was needed, 

and a committee including Aldo Leopold, A. Willis 

Robertson, and other leading conservationists of the 

time authored the 1930 American Game Policy. This 

policy called for a restoration program for habitats 

and populations based on scientific research and supported with stable, equitable funding. Within a decade, 

many needs of this program were fulfilled through 

landmark legislation, including the Duck Stamp Act 

to fund land acquisition for national wildlife refuges. 

In addition, the Pittman–Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act shifted excise taxes imposed on firearms and 

ammunition to fund wildlife restoration through cooperation between the Service and State fish and wildlife 

agencies. To use this money, States were required to 

pass laws that prevented diversion of hunting license 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 5 

revenues to any purpose other than administration of 

the State fish and wildlife agency. 

In recent decades, wildlife management has placed 

greater emphasis on overall wildlife diversity. All wildlife species have benefited from the North American 

Model of Wildlife Conservation pillars, not just game 

animals. The Refuge System has evolved along with 

the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation— 

it today provides refuge for virtually all species found 

in the United States and recreation for all Americans. 

It is a realization of the North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation to provide for science-based 

management of international wildlife resources held 

in trust for all. The importance of this system to 

American society can best be appreciated if we were 

to contemplate its loss. Wildlife connects us to the heritage of this country and our ancestors who built our 

society. It connects us as well to the natural world of 

which we are a part, but from which we have become 

so disconnected. To lose this connection is to lose the 

basis of our humanity. 

1.4 The U.s. Fish and Wildlife
 

service and Refuge system
 

The 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. 

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, America’s 

fish and wildlife resources were declining at an alarming rate, largely due to unrestricted market hunting. 

Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling 

groups joined together and generated the political 

will for the first significant conservation measures 

taken by the Federal Government. These actions included the establishment of the Bureau of Fisheries 

in the 1870s and, in 1900, passage of the first Federal 

wildlife law—the Lacey Act—which prohibited interstate transportation of wildlife taken in violation 

of State laws. Beginning in 1903, President Theodore 

Roosevelt established more than 50 wildlife refuges 

across the Nation. 

Over the next three decades, the United States 

ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Britain, 

and Congress passed laws to protect migratory birds, 

establish new refuges, and create a funding source 

for refuge land acquisition. In 1940, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service was created within the Department 

of the Interior, and existing Federal wildlife functions 

including law enforcement, fish management, animal 

damage control, and wildlife refuge management were 

combined into a single organization for the first time. 

Today, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant 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 fish and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, and related 

programs across the United States. 

sERvICE ACTIvITIEs IN MoNTANA 

Service activities in Montana contribute to the State’s 

economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The 

following list highlights the Service’s presence and 

activities in 2009: 

■■ employed 220 people in Montana 

■■ coordinated 446 volunteers who donated more 

than 21,780 hours to Service projects on refuge 

and district lands 

■■ managed two national fish hatcheries, one fish and 

wildlife management assistance office, six coordination areas, one fish health center, four ecological services offices, and one fish technology center 

■■ managed 23 national wildlife refuges encompassing 

1,217,617 acres (1.29 percent of the State) 

■■ managed five wetland management districts 

➤■ 48,026 acres of fee-title waterfowl production 

areas 

➤■ 146,816 acres under leases or easements 

■■ hosted 690,173 visitors to Service-managed lands 

➤■ 96,866 hunting visits 

➤■ 80,370 fishing visits 

➤■ 506,632 wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation visits 

➤■ 6,305 visits from students participating in environmental education programs 
6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

■■ provided $9.6 million to Montana Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks (MFWP) for sport fish restoration and $17.4 

million for wildlife restoration and hunter education 

■■ paid Montana counties $394,799 under the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act (money used for schools, 

roads, and any other public purpose) 

Additionally, since 1988 the Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program has helped private landowners 

restore more than 31,759 wetland acres, 360,826 upland 

acres, and 1,263 miles of river habitat as well as install 

45 structures to open 502 river miles for fish passage. 

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 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 National Wildlife 

Refuge System. One hundred years later, the Refuge 

System has become the largest collection of lands in 

the world specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more than 150 million acres within 553 refuges and 

more than 3,000 waterfowl production areas providing breeding and nesting habitat for migratory birds. 

Today, there is at least one refuge in every State as 

well as in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

The Improvement Act 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, every unit of the Refuge System, 

which includes wetland management districts) shall 

be managed to accomplish the following: 

■■ Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. 

■■ Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge and 

district. 

■■ Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first. 

■■ 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, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation are legitimate and priority public uses. 

■■ Retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses. 

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 first. 

■■ 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 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. Consistent with the Improvement Act, the 

Service prepares 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, fishing, hunting, 

photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife recreation contributes billions of dollars to local economies. 

In particular, money generated from the taxing of 

sporting arms and ammunition and of fishing equipment that is authorized by the Pittman–Robertson and 

Dingell–Johnson Acts, respectively, has generated tens 

of billions of dollars. Distributed by the Service, this 

money has been used by States to increase wildlife 

and fish populations, expand habitat, and train hunters 

across the Nation. Approximately 35 million people 

visited the Refuge System in 2006, mostly to observe 

fish and wildlife in their natural habitats (Caudill and 

Henderson 2006). Visitors are most often accommodated through nature trails, auto tours, interpretive 

programs, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Local 

communities that surround the refuges and wetland 

management districts derive significant economic 

benefits. Economists report that Refuge System visitors contribute more than $1.7 billion annually to local 

economies (Carver and Caudill 2007). 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 7 

1.5 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 for the Refuge System are 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee) 

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

Regulations (CFR), “The Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual,” and the Improvement Act (an amendment 

of the Administration Act). 

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System, a new process for determining compatible 

public uses on refuges and districts, and a requirement that each refuge and district be managed under 

a CCP. The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of Refuge System lands and 

that the Secretary of the Interior will make sure 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 

the unit was established. The Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor the status and trends 

of fish, wildlife, and plants in each national wildlife 

refuge and wetland management 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 in appendix E. 

Service policies for planning and day-to-day management of refuges and districts are in the “Refuge System 

Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” 

1.6 Contributions to National 

and Regional Plans 

Lee Metcalf Refuge contributes to the conservation 

efforts outlined in the various State and national plans 

described below. 

FULFILLINg THE PRoMIsE 

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 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), which was attended by 

refuge managers, other Service employees, and representatives from leading conservation organizations. 

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements for wildlife and habitat, 

people, and leadership—all three of these major topics are included in this CCP. 

PARTNERs IN FLIgHT 

The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with 

the recognition of declining population levels of many 

migratory landbird species. The challenge is to manage 

avian population growth while maintaining functional 

natural ecosystems in the face of human population 

growth. To meet this challenge, Partners in Flight 

worked to identify priorities for landbird species and 

habitat types. Partners in Flight activities have resulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering the continental United States. Partners in Flight is a cooperative effort involving partnerships among Federal, 

State, and local government agencies, philanthropic 

foundations, professional organizations, conservation 

groups, industries, the academic community, and private individuals. 

The Partners in Flight program was initiated to 

provide for the long-term health of landbird life of this 

continent. Its mission can be expressed in three related 

priorities: helping species at risk, keeping common 

birds common, and forming voluntary partnerships 

benefiting birds, habitat, and people. The three goals 

developed in support of this mission are as follows: 

■■ Ensure an active, science-based conservation design process that identifies and develops solutions 

to threats and risks to landbird populations. 

■■ Create a coordinated network of conservation partners to implement the objectives of the landbird 

conservation plans at multiple scales. 

■■ Secure sufficient commitment and resources to 

support vigorous implementation of landbird conservation objectives (Rich et al. 2004). 

Montana Partners in Flight considered 141 species for 

priority status. It identified 14 high-priority species 

(priority I) in need of immediate conservation action, 

43 moderate-priority species with lesser threats but 

in need of better monitoring and conservation consideration (priority II), and 51 species of local interest 

whose habitat needs may influence design and selection 

of conservation strategies (priority III). The highest 

priority species are common loon, trumpeter swan, 

harlequin duck, greater sage-grouse, piping plover, 

mountain plover, interior least tern, flammulated owl, 

burrowing owl, black-backed woodpecker, olive-sided 

flycatcher, brown creeper, Sprague’s pipit, and Baird’s 

sparrow (Casey 2000). 

The highest priority habitats in Montana are mixed 

grassland, sagebrush steppe, dry forest (ponderosa 

pine and Douglas-fir), riparian deciduous forest, and 
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

prairie pothole wetlands, some of which occur on the 

refuge. The primary objectives in each priority habitat are to restore ecological processes necessary to 

provide suitable habitat for priority (target) species, 

identify and protect those remaining blocks of habitats that have undergone drastic declines, and develop 

management prescriptions that can be applied at all 

geographic scales. 

To fully implement the goals of the international 

Partners in Flight plan, a series of science-based landbird 

conservation plans with long-term strategies for bird 

conservation have been developed. The geographical 

context of these plans is composed of 58 physiographic 

regions, each defined by similar physical geographic 

features and wholly or partially contained within the 

continental United States and Alaska. Lee Metcalf 

Refuge lies within the physiographic area known as 

the Central Rocky Mountain Physiographic Region. 

Central Rocky Mountain Physiographic Region 

The Central Rocky Mountain Physiographic Region 

is a huge physiographic area, extending from northwest Wyoming to 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 fir, 

with ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in the montane 

zone below. Stand-replacing fire can change forests in 

either of these zones to lodgepole pine or aspen. Fire 

in higher-elevation coniferous forests of the central 

Rocky Mountains tends to be of high intensity and low 

frequency. 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 higher population in the central Rocky 

Mountains than in any other physiographic area. This 

is the highest such number in any physiographic area 

in the contiguous United States, and it seems to represent the huge size of the area and the vast amount 

of quality bird habitat that still exists. 

A huge percentage of the central Rocky Mountains 

in the United States are in public ownership, mostly 

managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) 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. 

There are currently 141 species identified for special consideration within the Montana portion of the 

Central Rocky Mountain Physiographic Region. Generally, priority I species are the highest priority and 

are the focus of proposed conservation actions. The 

priority I species identified for this physiographic 

region are common loon, trumpeter swan, harlequin 

duck, greater sage-grouse, piping plover, mountain plover, (interior) least tern, flammulated owl, burrowing 

owl, black-backed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, 

brown creeper, Sprague’s pipit, and Baird’s sparrow. 

The common loon, trumpeter swan, olive-sided flycatcher, and the brown creeper have been documented 

on the refuge, primarily using the refuge for resting 

and feeding. No nesting has been recorded. 

A priority I species of the Central Rocky Mountain 

Physiographic Region, the brown creeper has been 

documented on Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

 USFWS Dewhurt / Donna 

NoRTH AMERICAN WATERbIRD CoNsERvATIoN 

PLAN 

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

provides a contiguous framework for conserving and 

managing colonial-nesting waterbirds including 209 

species of seabirds, coastal waterbirds (gulls, terns, 

and pelicans), wading birds (herons and ibises), and 

marshbirds (certain grebes and bitterns). The overall 

goal of this conservation plan is to make sure that the 

following are sustained or restored throughout the 

waterbirds’ ranges in North America: (1) the distribution, diversity, and abundance of waterbird populations; (2) waterbird habitats (breeding, migratory, and 

nonbreeding); and (3) important sites for waterbirds. 

The geographic scope of the plan covers 28 countries 

from Canada to Panama as well as islands and nearshore areas of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the 

Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. This waterbird 

partnership consists of Federal, State, and Provincial 

wildlife agencies; individuals; and nonprofit conservation organizations. 

Waterbird planning regions were identified to allow for planning at a practical, landscape-level scale. 

Planning region boundaries are based on a combination of political considerations and ecological factors. 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 9 

Sixteen planning regions were identified within North 

and South Americas. Lee Metcalf Refuge is located 

within the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Region. This is a vast inland area stretching 

from the Rocky Mountains on the east to the Sierra 

Nevada and Cascades on the west. The Intermountain 

West’s dispersed high-mountain lakes, large terminal 

hypersaline lakes, marshes, playas, rivers, streams, 

riparian zones, and fresh and brackish wetlands host 

about 40 waterbird species, including many or most 

of the world’s California gulls, eared grebes, whitefaced ibises, and American white pelicans. Eleven 

waterbirds are identified as species of high concern 

in one or more of the four bird conservation regions 

within the planning area: yellow rail, Franklin’s gull, 

black tern, eared grebe, western grebe, Clark’s grebe, 

snowy egret, American white pelican, common loon, 

American bittern, and certain managed populations 

of the greater and lesser sandhill crane. The Franklin’s gull, black tern, western grebe, American white 

pelican, bittern, loon, and sandhill crane have all been 

documented using the refuge, primarily for resting 

and feeding. However, recent years have seen the 

sandhill cranes nesting with at least two to five successful nests per season. 

Waterbirds using this region are highly adaptable to constantly changing wetland conditions and 

depend on a regional-scale association of wetlands to 

meet habitat and forage requirements during stages 

of their annual life cycle. The competing demands for 

water from agriculture, development, and recreation 

pose the greatest threats to regional waterbird populations. Also, contaminants such as mercury and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (known as DDT) and 

its breakdown products significantly threaten the 

region’s waterbirds. Because of the west’s feast-orfamine water regime, the “Intermountain West Joint 

Venture Coordinated Bird Conservation Plan” stresses 

the necessity of conserving a network of high-quality 

wetland habitats with secure water sources to provide 

options for waterbirds during drought and flood cycles 

(Kushlan et al. 2002). 

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 (USFWS and Canadian Wildlife 

Service 1986). The plan is innovative because of its 

international partnerships and its implementation at 

the local level. Its success depends on the strength 

of the joint ventures, which involve 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. Lee Metcalf Refuge lies 

within the Intermountain West Joint Venture. 

Intermountain West Joint venture 

The Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) was 

established in June 1994 to serve as the implementation arm of the “North American Waterfowl Management Plan” (IWJV 2005a) in the Intermountain West 

region. The focus of the IWJV is conservation of wetland and associated habitats. The IWJV comprises 

multilevel partnerships between diverse public and 

private organizations who share common interests 

in the conservation, maintenance, and management 

of key ecosystems in the Intermountain West region. 

The IWJV encompasses much of the Intermountain 

West region, from the Sierra Nevada and Cascades 

on the west to just east of the Rocky Mountains, and 

from the Mexican border on the south to the Canadian border on the north. This extensive geographic 

region encompasses portions of eleven western states 

and includes an enormous diversity of avian habitat. 

In 2005 the IWJV Montana steering committee developed a “Coordinated Implementation Plan 

for Bird Conservation in Western Montana” (IWJV 

2005b). This team divided the State of Montana into 

Bird Habitat Conservation Areas to be used for all 

bird conservation projects over the next 5–7 years. 

Lee Metcalf Refuge is located in the Bitterroot Valley 

Bird Habitat Conservation Area. The priority habitat types for this area include dry forest (ponderosa 

pine and Douglas-fir), riparian (such as cottonwood), 

wetland (reservoirs, lakes, and marshes), and burned 

forest (recent fires). The refuge has two of these highpriority habitat types, the riparian and the wetland. 

INTERMoUNTAIN WEsT REgIoNAL sHoREbIRD PLAN 

As noted above, the Intermountain West is a huge 

region, stretching from Canada to Mexico and from 

the Rocky Mountains to the Sierra Nevada and Cascades. The six bird conservation regions of the Intermountain West include an array of habitats from saline 

sinks to alpine streams (Oring et al. 2010). The refuge 

is located in the Northern Rocky Mountain Bird Conservation Region, an area characterized by low lying 

desert flats surrounded by rugged, boreal mountain 

ranges. Stream and river valleys occur in the mountains along with many small wetlands and natural and 

constructed lakes. Sewage lagoons near many urban 

areas also host numerous shorebirds. The area is of 

some importance for breeding of several shorebird 

species and of modest importance to many species 

of transients. Eleven species of shorebirds regularly 
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

breed in the Intermountain West, and 23 additional 

species are annual migrants. 

The most important issue facing shorebird conservation in the Intermountain West is the very great 

human-driven competition for water. Finding ample 

high quality fresh water will be the greatest challenge 

faced by future shorebird conservation interests. 

The “Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan” 

recognizes the Lee Metcalf Refuge as 1 of 79 managed 

shorebird sites in the nation, 1 of only 3 identified in 

Montana (Oring et al. 2010). 

sTATE CoMPREHENsIvE FIsH AND WILDLIFE 

CoNsERvATIoN sTRATEgy 

“Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy” (MFWP 2005) is for 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. 

Although game species are included in Montana’s 

conservation strategy, the priority is those species and 

their habitats “in greatest conservation need”—that 

is, focus areas, community types, and species that are 

significantly degraded, declining, federally listed, or 

for which important distribution and occurrence information is lacking. The conservation strategy uses 

five ecotypes to describe the broad areas of Montana’s 

landscape that have similar characteristics. Lee Metcalf Refuge is located in the intermountain and foothill grassland ecotype. The intermountain and foothill 

grassland ecotype is 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, where there remain some 

of Montana’s most diverse fish and wildlife habitats. 

This western Montana ecotype harbors more wildlife 

communities than any other in Montana. It also harbors 

Montana’s largest human population concentration 

in and near the towns of Kalispell, Missoula, Helena, 

and Bozeman. The attraction for wildlife and people is 

western Montana’s broad, lush, and sweeping valleys 

cradled by the peaks of the Rocky Mountains. The intermountain and foothill grasslands are cut and formed 

by meandering rivers that create core riparian zones 

and wetland areas that often include glacial lakes and 

potholes that attract nesting waterbirds. Addressing 

the challenges that accompany the interface between 

human settlement and fish and wildlife and their habitats will be critical to the conservation of these areas. 

Within each of the ecotypes, tier 1 geographic focus 

areas (that is, those in greatest need of conservation) 

were identified for all terrestrial and aquatic areas of 

the State. Lee Metcalf Refuge is located within the 

Bitterroot/Frenchtown Valleys focus area, which is 

dominated by views of the jagged peaks of the Bitterroot Range to the west and the lower Sapphire 

Mountains to the east. The Bitterroot River bisects the 

valley floor north to Missoula. The valley is arid, flat, 

or gently rolling landscapes between 2 and 15 miles 

wide. While the valley supports many habitats—from 

grassland and riparian to forest and sagebrush—most 

of the area is now in subdivided for home sites interspersed with some agricultural production. The rolling 

mountain foothills at the valley edges are important 

elk, white-tailed deer, and mule deer winter ranges. 

In the valley bottoms, the cottonwood riparian habitats are some of the most productive wildlife habitats 

in the State and are home to a wide variety of birds, 

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Of the 16 tier 1 

priority (target) species for this area, 8 have been 

documented on the refuge: boreal toad, long-billed 

curlew, black tern, olive-sided flycatcher, common 

loon, trumpeter swan, bald eagle, and Townsend’s bigeared bat. The target species for this area that have 

not been documented on the refuge are the Coeur d’ 

Alene salamander, northern leopard frog, harlequin 

duck, flammulated owl, black-backed woodpecker, 

northern bog lemming, gray wolf, and grizzly bear. 

The “Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy” (MFWP 2005) outlines five 

conservation concerns and strategies for the Bitterroot/ 

Frenchtown Valleys focus area. The key concerns are: 

■■ habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, especially as a result of human population growth 

and development of transportation infrastructure; 

■■ invasive and exotic plant and animal species; 

■■ range and forest management practices; 

■■ streamside residential development. 

All of these conservation concerns identified in this 

State plan for the Bitterroot/Frenchtown Valleys 

focus area are affecting the management and future 

protection of the Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

1.7 strategic Habitat 

Conservation 

In the face of escalating challenges such as land use 

conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and refuge issues that have been amplified by accelerating 

climate change, the Service has evolved from its ecosystem approach of thinking about conservation to 

developing a broader vision. 

A cooperative effort by the Service and U.S. Geological Survey culminated in a report by the National 

Ecological Assessment Team (USGS 2006). The report 

outlines a unifying adaptive resource management 

approach for conservation at a landscape scale, the 

entire range of a target species or a suite (or guild) of 

species. This approach is strategic habitat conservation—a structured, science-driven approach for making 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 11 

efficient, transparent decisions about where and how 

to expend Service resources for species, or groups of 

species, that are limited by the amount or quality of 

habitat. It is an adaptive management framework integrating planning, design, delivery and evaluation. 

Since 2006, the Service has taken significant steps 

to turn this vision into reality and has defined a framework of 21 geographic areas. Experts from the Service 

and U.S. Geological Survey developed this framework 

through an aggregation of bird conservation regions. 

Lee Metcalf Refuge lands and waters lie in geographic 

area 6—the great northern. This geographic area is 

unique in social values, natural resources, and managerial challenges. The great northern geographic area 

includes one of the largest surface areas of all of the 

geographic areas in North America and spans more 

than 447,000 square miles in the United States (57 

percent) and Canada (43 percent). Ecologically, this 

area represents one of the most relatively intact and 

functional ecosystems in the United States with diverse groups of species and important conservation 

and restoration opportunities. Habitats support plant 

and animal species with cultural significance to multiple Native American tribes and important societal 

and conservation value to the United States, Canada, 

and the world. Cultural traditions are tied closely to 

the land’s natural resources as are contemporary ways 

of life, such as ranching, logging, and recreational and 

subsistence hunting and fishing. The Nation’s largest communities of free-roaming bison, elk, deer and 

other ungulates, wolves, and bears as well as diverse 

salmon and trout populations are hallmarks of the 

great northern geographic area. 

The Service is using this framework of geographic 

areas as the basis to locate the first generation of landscape conservation cooperatives. These cooperatives 

are conservation–science partnerships between the 

Service and other Federal agencies, States, tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, universities, and other 

entities. Designed as fundamental units for planning 

and science, the cooperatives have the capacity to 

help the Service carry out the elements of strategic 

habitat conservation—biological planning, conservation design and delivery, and monitoring and research. 

Coordinated planning and scientific information will 

strengthen the Service’s strategic response to accelerating climate change, land use conversion, invasive 

species, water scarcity, and a host of other challenges. 

CLIMATE CHANgE 

The Service expects that accelerating climate change 

will affect the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

in profound ways. While many species will continue 

to thrive, some may decline and in some instances go 

extinct. Others will survive in the wild only through 

direct and continuous intervention by managers. In 

2010, the Service drafted a strategic plan to address 

climate change for the next 50 years entitled “Rising 

to the Challenge—Strategic Plan for Responding to 

Accelerating Climate Change” (USFWS 2010). The 

strategic plan employs three key strategies: adaptation, mitigation, and engagement. In addition, the plan 

acknowledges that no single organization or agency 

can address climate change without allying itself 

with others across the Nation and around the world 

(USFWS 2010). This plan is an integral part of the 

Department of the Interior’s strategy for addressing 

climate change as expressed in Secretarial Order 3289 

(September 14, 2009). 

The Service will use the following guiding principles 

from the strategic plan (USFWS 2010) in responding 

to climate change: 

■■ priorities setting—continually evaluate priorities 

and approaches, make difficult choices, take calculated risks, and adapt to climate change 

■■ partnership—commit to a new spirit of coordination, collaboration, and interdependence with others 

■■ best science—reflect scientific excellence, professionalism, and integrity in all the Service’s work 

■■ landscape conservation—emphasize the conservation of habitats within sustainable landscapes, 

applying the Service’s strategic habitat conservation framework 

■■technical capacity—assemble and use state-of-theart technical capacity to meet the climate change 

challenge 

■■ global approach—be a leader in national and international efforts to meet the climate change challenge 

Scientific information suggests that the great northern 

landscape has already undergone observable environmental and ecological changes as a result of climate 

change trends. Current patterns in climate change 

are expected to affect high-mountain ecotypes and 

lower-elevation, snowmelt-dependent watersheds more 

acutely than it will affect some other geographic areas. 

Because of the valley-floor location of this refuge, it is 

expected that ground water would continue to surface 

at least though the life of this plan. In consideration 

of anticipated climatic changes and the resulting potential ecological impacts, the following 12 species are 

currently considered to be focal species for the great 

northern geographic area: bull trout, pacific lamprey, 

salmon, steelhead, greater sage-grouse, Lewis’s woodpecker, trumpeter swan, willow flycatcher, Columbia 

spotted frog, cutthroat trout subspecies, Arctic grayling, and wolverine. Four of these focal species have 

been documented on Lee Metcalf Refuge: Lewis’s 

woodpecker, trumpeter swan, willow flycatcher, Columbia spotted frog, and westslope cutthroat trout (in 

the Bitterroot River). To address the ongoing effects 

of climate change, any proposed management changes 

must continue to adapt to a changing environment. 
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

1.8 Planning Process
 

The final CCP was prepared in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” Additional requirements and guidance are contained in 

the Refuge System’s planning policy, issued in 2000. 

This policy established requirements and guidance for 

refuge and district plans—including CCPs and stepdown management plans—to make sure that planning 

efforts follow the Improvement Act. The planning 

policy identified several steps of the CCP and environmental analysis process (figure 3). 

The Service began the preplanning process in July 

2009 by establishing a planning team composed primarily of Service staff from the refuge. Additional 

contributors included staff from other Service divisions; MFWP; Bitterroot National Forest; Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes; local schools; and 

Greenbrier Wetland Services, as well as several other 

partners (appendix F). 

During planning, the team identified and reviewed 

current programs, compiled and analyzed relevant 

data, and determined the purposes of the refuge. An 

additional part of this process was the preparation of 

a habitat analysis report by Greenbrier Wetland Services, a company that focuses on wetland conservation 

and management. Its report entitled, “An Evaluation 

of Ecosystem Restoration and Management Options 

for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge,” took more 

than 2 years to research and prepare and resulted in 

some sound recommendations for the restoration and 

future management of the refuge. 

The planning team provided opportunities for public 

involvement as detailed in appendix A. Following public review of the “Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment—Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge,” the Service analyzed the 

comments received. The planning team reviewed all 

comments both individually and as a team. Modifications, including clarifications, were made to this final 

document based on the public review. Responses to 

substantive comments appear in appendix A. 

Following the Regional Director’s decision on which 

alternative to implement (refer to previous section 1.1), 

the planning team prepared the final CCP. 

Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning process to date for the preparation of this final CCP. 

CooRDINATIoN WITH THE PUbLIC 

During preplanning, a mailing list of more than 270 

names was prepared that included private citizens; 

Figure 3. Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis. 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 13 

local, regional, and State government representatives 

and legislators; other Federal agencies; and interested 

organizations (appendix A). The Service coordinated 

the following efforts to provide information and request ideas and comments from the public: 

■■ Web site. The CCP Web page displayed background 

information on the refuge, the CCP development 

schedule, public meeting information, planning contacts, and electronic versions of planning updates, 

the draft plan, and other planning documents. 

■■ Two planning updates. These fact sheets were sent 

to everyone on the project mailing list. Information 

was provided on the history of the refuge, the CCP 

process, and the alternatives in the draft CCP and 

EA. The updates included invitations to public meetings and provided information on how to provide 

written comments. 

■■ Public meetings. The Service presented information 

about the planning process; the resources; and the 

draft CCP and EA. Attendees were encouraged to 

offer comments and ask questions. 

■■ Public review of the draft CCP and EA. The public had 34 days to review and provide comments 

about the draft plan for the refuge. 

Table 1. summary of the CCP planning process for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

Date Event	 Outcome 

July 13, 2009 Kickoff meeting	 The planning team learned about the CCP process; discussed 

the initial planning team list; developed a mailing list, 

planning schedule, and the first draft of internal issues and 

qualities list; and reviewed biological data needs. 

July 14, 2009 Vision statement development The planning team developed a proposed vision statement 

for the draft CCP. 

August 11, 2009 Public scoping planning The planning team discussed an effective outreach plan 

for public scoping. 

September 9, 2009 Planning update mailing	 The first planning update was sent to mailing list recipients. 

This update described the planning process and announced 

upcoming public scoping meetings. 

September 29, 2009 Public scoping meeting Public attendees learned about the CCP process and 

discussed issues and ideas for future management. 

September 30, 2009 Notice of intent publication A notice of intent to prepare the CCP was published in 

the Federal Register. 

October 1, 2009 Public scoping meeting Public attendees learned about the CCP process and 

discussed issues and ideas for future management. 

November 17, 2009 Visitor services workshop	 A panel of visitor services experts from State, tribal, and 

Federal agencies gathered to discuss and propose options 

for managing the refuge’s visitor services programs and 

facilities. 

January 26–27, 2010 Review of draft habitat analysis report	 Service staff reviewed the draft analysis and recommendations 

(prepared by Greenbrier Wetland Services) that described 

the proposed future ecological restoration and management 

of the refuge’s wetland and floodplain complex. 

January 27, 2010 Review of draft grasslands restoration 

and management report 

Service staff reviewed the draft analysis and recommendations 

(prepared by Aeroscene Land Logic) that described 

proposed future ecological restoration and management 

of the refuge’s grassland areas. 

March 3, 2010 Goals workshop The planning team prepared draft goal statements in 

support of the proposed vision statement. 

April 7, 2010 Alternatives development The planning team began developing and evaluating three 

alternatives for managing visitor services. 

April 20, 2010 Target species determination	 The planning team determined CCP target species by 

reviewing State and national priorities species lists for the 

Service, the State of Montana, and the Bitterroot Valley. 

May 26–27, 2010 Alternatives development and evaluation	 The planning team began developing alternatives for 

biological programs and continued evaluating alternatives 

for managing visitor services. 
14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 1. summary of the CCP planning process for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

Date Event	 Outcome 

June 23–24, 2010 Alternatives review and consequences 

development 

The planning team reviewed the alternatives table and 

discussed environmental consequences. 

July 8, 2010 Environmental consequences review The planning team continued to review the alternatives 

table and discussed environmental consequences. 

July 20–22, 2010 Alternatives and consequences workshop	 An expanded team of partners from the Service and other 

Federal, tribal, and State agencies assembled to review 

three alternatives and determine the environmental 

consequences of each. Alternative B was selected as the 

proposed action. 

November 16, 2010 North Burnt Fork Creek meeting	 The planning team met with scientists from other Service 

divisions and State and Federal agencies to discuss 

options for reconnecting North Burnt Fork Creek to the 

Bitterroot River. 

November 17, 2010 Objectives and strategies workshop The planning team drafted objectives and strategies for 

the proposed action. 

January 13, 2011 Map and figure review The planning team developed a list of needed maps and 

figures for draft CCP and EA. 

January 25 and 

February 2–3, 2011 

Proposed alternatives review Refuge staff met to review and revise the list of proposed 

alternatives. 

March 21–22, 2011 Proposed action review The planning team reviewed the list of objectives, strategies, 

and rationale for the proposed action (chapter 4 of this CCP). 

February 2011– 

September 2011 

Internal draft plan preparation The planning team prepared the draft CCP and EA, 

including maps. The document was edited and prepared 

for internal review. 

September 12–30, 

2011	 

Internal review of draft plan	 The draft CCP and EA was sent to a list of internal 

reviewers consisting of Service, State, tribal, and other 

Federal staff. Comments were collected and resulted in 

several modifications to this public draft. 

October 2011–March 

2012 

Public draft plan preparation The planning team prepared the public draft CCP and 

EA. The document was edited and prepared for public 

distribution. 

March 28, 2012	 Notice of availability publication, draft 

plan public review, planning update 

distribution 

The notice of availability of the draft CCP and EA was 

published in the Federal Register (volume 77, number 60, 

pages 18852–18853). The draft CCP and EA was made 

available on the project Web page, and hard copies were 

distributed per requests. The public was provided 34 

days to review and comment on the draft CCP and EA. 

A planning update was sent to the mailing list; the update 

summarized the draft plan and announced the upcoming 

public meeting. 

April 9, 2012 Public meeting The public had an opportunity to learn about and provide 

comments on the draft CCP and EA. 

April 30, 2012 End of public review period Public comments that would be considered had to be 

received or postmarked by this date. 

May 7 and 9, 2012 Public comments review The planning team reviewed the public comments and 

determined needed changes for the final CCP. 

May 10–July 13, 2012 CCP revision The planning team made revisions to the draft CCP based 

on substantive public comments. 

July 18, 2012 Decision on preferred alternative The Regional Director selected the preferred alternative 

and signed the finding of no significant impact. 

August 2012 Final CCP preparation The planning team finished revising and editing the final 

CCP for printing and distribution. 
CHAPTER 1—Introduction 15 

The Service recorded all comments given at the public 

meetings. In addition to oral comments, the planning 

team received written comments through email, comment forms, and letters. Planning team members, individually and as a team, reviewed all comments. Some 

modifications, including clarifications, were made to 

this final document based on the public review. Appendix A contains more detail about the Service’s involvement of the public, including responses to substantive public comments on the draft CCP and EA. 

sTATE CooRDINATIoN 

At the start of the planning process, the Service’s 

Regional Director (Region 6) sent a letter to MFWP, 

inviting its staff to participate in the planning process. 

State biologists and outdoor recreation specialists have 

since been involved in the planning process, offering 

input on current and future biological and visitor services programs. At the start of the process, each office 

of Montana’s U.S. congressional delegation—Senator 

Jon Tester, Senator Max Baucus, and Representative 

Dennis Rehberg—were sent letters that notified them 

of the planning process and invited their comments. 

Five Montana State senators and representatives and 

Governor Brian Schweitzer were sent similar letters. 

The State has been most concerned with the visitor services programs, and State staff participated in 

the planning meetings to discuss the proposed future 

management of these programs. The State has been 

supportive of the planning process. 

TRIbAL CooRDINATIoN 

Early in the planning process, the Service’s Regional 

Director (Region 6) sent a letter to tribes with potential cultural and historical connections to the area 

in which the refuge is located. Tribes contacted were 

the Confederated Salish and Kootenai and Nez Perce 

tribal councils and culture committees. A staff person 

and tribal member from the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Natural Resources Division offered her assistance in developing and reviewing the alternatives for 

the visitor services and cultural resources programs. 

Each contacted tribe was provided an opportunity to 

comment on the draft CCP and EA. 

CHAPTER 2—The Refuge


Nearly 1,000 acres of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge consist of open water, mostly in wetland impoundments. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge consists of 2,800 

acres of lands and waters all located within Ravalli 

County near Stevensville, Montana. This chapter discusses the refuge’s establishment, management history, 

purposes, and special values as well as its proposed 

vision, goals, and planning issues. 

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, 

and Management History 

The following section describes the establishment, 

acquisition, and management history of the Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

LEE METCALf NATioNAL WiLdLifE REfugE 

Lee Metcalf Refuge is approximately 2 miles north 

of Stevensville and 25 miles south of Missoula in Ravalli County, Montana. The refuge lies in the heart of 

the Bitterroot Valley, cradled between two mountain 

ranges: the Bitterroot Mountains to the west and the 

Sapphire Mountains to the east. Today, the refuge 

boundary encompasses 2,800 acres (figure 4). Elevation ranges from about 3,225 feet on the north end of 

the refuge to about 3,314 feet on the south. 

The refuge contains upland habitat composed of 

floodplain and terrace grasslands, shrublands, or a 

combination of both. The refuge also has riparian 

habitat consisting of woodlands, wetlands, and wetland impoundments that have open water and persistent emergent vegetation. Other habitats include the 

river channel and areas of either bare or very sparse 

vegetation (table 2). 

The refuge serves as a staging and nesting area 

for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, sandhill cranes, 

and other migratory birds. A variety of refuge habitats are home for native resident wildlife such as bats, 

white-tailed deer, porcupines, and beaver. 

The refuge is located in the Bitterroot River floodplain, and the river runs through or alongside refuge 

lands for approximately 5 miles. The Bitterroot River 

has two forks with headwaters in the Anaconda-Pintler 

Mountains and in the Bitterroot Mountains at the Idaho 

and Montana stateline. The river flows north and has 

areas of inherently unstable channel configurations 

until its confluence with the Clark Fork River near 

Missoula. The floodplain at the refuge is characterized 

by multiple abandoned channels, backwater flooding, 

and entrances of two tributaries from the east (North 

Burnt Fork Creek and Three Mile Creek). 

After establishment of the refuge in 1964, an extensive system of levees, ditches, and water control 

structures were constructed to capture and manage 

the available water supply with a primary purpose 

of providing migration and nesting habitat for waterfowl. By the late 1980s, more than 1,000 acres had 

been partially or completely impounded in 14 ponds 

for managed wetland units. Today, these ponds range 

in size from 8 acres to more than 200 acres, and their 

water levels are seasonally managed for waterfowl 

and shorebirds. Additionally, tributaries and natural 

springs have been altered by dams or weirs that have 

allowed the direction or level of surface waterflow to be 

manipulated. With 24 water claims and 1 water permit, 
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

figure 4. Approved acquisition boundary of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge 19 

Table 2. Habitat type and associated acreages found on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

Habitat type Acres 

Uplands (primarily tame grasses) 1,186.43 

Woodlands and wetlands near woodlands 502.58 

Wetland impoundments (open water, emergent vegetation) 958.19 

River channel 62.73 

Bare or sparse vegetation 89.59 

Total 2,799.52 

the refuge has the right to 34,209.38 acre-feet of water 

per year to use for habitat management purposes. The 

diverted water provides feeding, resting, and nesting 

habitat for migratory birds, wetland-related wildlife, 

and other resident wildlife. 

Gallery and riverfront forest cover portions of the 

western third of the refuge. Soil types, elevation, and 

historical vegetation data suggest that several of the 

impoundments or ponds were once forested or consisted of native grasslands. 

SuMMARy of LANd ACquiSiTioN HiSToRy 

On December 10, 1963, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission used the authority of the 1929 Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] 715–715d, 715e, 715f–715r) (45 Stat. 1222) to 

approve the acquisition of 2,700 acres in 18 tracts of 

land to establish the Ravalli National Wildlife Refuge. In 1978, the refuge was renamed to honor the 

late Senator Lee Metcalf, who was instrumental in 

establishing this refuge, and to recognize his lifelong 

commitment to conservation. On February 4, 1964, the 

first purchase was made, Tract 21, consisting of 408.05 

acres. Over the next 25 years, the Service purchased 

an additional 23 tracts for a total of 2,799.52 refuge 

acres (table 3). There were also two permits acquired 

from the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to access 

a pumping station and to cross the railroad tracks to 

access refuge lands. In 2009, a facilitation easement 

was recorded for an irrigation ditch that traverses 

through a subdivision. 

In 1978, the refuge was renamed to honor the late Senator 

Lee Metcalf, who was instrumental in establishing this 

refuge, and to recognize his commitment to conservation. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

2.2 Purposes 

Every national wildlife refuge has a purpose for which 

it was established. This purpose is the foundation on 

which to build all refuge programs—from biology and 

public use to maintenance and facilities. The refuge 

purposes are found in the legislative acts or Executive 

actions that provide the authorities to either transfer 

or acquire a piece of land. Over time, an individual refuge may contain lands that have been acquired under 

various transfer and acquisition authorities, giving the 

unit more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, and 

strategies in this final CCP (chapter 4) are intended 

to support the individual purposes for which the refuge was established. 

The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission justification for establishing the Lee Metcalf Refuge was 

to provide a feeding and resting area for migrating waterfowl in a locality where some sanctuary is needed. 

The legislative purposes of the Lee Metcalf Refuge are as follows: 

For “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

16 U.S.C. 715–715d, 715e, 715f–715r, 45 Stat. 

1222, as amended) 

As “suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) 

the protection of natural resources, (3) the 

conservation of endangered species or threatened species ...” 

“the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real 

... property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of 

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 

(Refuge Recreation Act 16 U.S.C. 460k–460k–4) 
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 3. Land acquisition history for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana (1964–2009). 

Tract number Acres Date acquired Means of acquisition 

21 408.05 02/04/1964 Fee 

21a 25.39 02/04/1964 Fee 

19 305.93 04/10/1964 Fee 

25 167.10 06/09/1964 Fee 

25a 90.86 06/09/1964 Fee 

12 298.11 06/11/1964 Fee 

24 9.47 06/12/1964 Fee 

13 160 08/24/1964 Fee 

11 309.32 05/21/1965 Fee 

11a 4.27 05/21/1965 Fee 

20 175.89 01/03/1966 Fee 

15 2.23 06/14/1966 Fee 

14a 5.13 06/15/1966 Fee 

23 2.60 01/25/1967 Fee 

10 26.48 06/12/1967 Fee 

10a 292.53 06/12/1967 Fee 

22 8.13 08/14/1967 Fee 

27 336.31 12/06/1968 Fee 

27–I 0.31 12/06/1968 Fee 

19a 63.78 11/13/1974 Fee 

29 4.4 06/12/1978 Fee 

16 80 03/23/1988 Fee 

17 16.23 05/23/1988 Fee 

19b 01 10/01/1989 Fee—life estate 

28M 01 12/01/1967 Permit from railroad company—pump station 

28R 01 02/01/1970 Permit from railroad company—crossing 

30D 7 01/09/2009 Easement 

Total 2,799.52 

1

Acreage figure is minimal. 

The refuge’s upland habitat primarily consists of grassland, shrubland, and a combination of both. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge 21 

2.3 Vision
 

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions for 

the future, that describes the essence of what the Service is trying to accomplish. The following vision for 

the Lee Metcalf Refuge is a future-oriented statement 

and is to be achieved through refuge management 

throughout the life of this CCP and beyond. 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
 

is a representation of the diverse native
 

wildlife habitat once found abundantly
 

between the Bitterroot and Sapphire
 

Mountains and along the ever-changing
 

Bitterroot River. This floodplain refuge,
 

fed by mountain snow, is a diverse mosaic
 

of forest, grassland, and riparian habitat
 

that provides protected lands and waters
 

for migratory and resident wildlife.
 

The refuge, in partnership with its 


neighbors, friends, and the community, 


is a conservation leader in the valley, 


ensuring that the biological integrity 


of this refuge and other valley habitats 


remains intact or, where appropriate, 


is restored. 


These protected lands and waters are 


a place of discovery for visitors to 


experience fish and wildlife firsthand and 


where children can experience nature 


with all their senses. Visitors to the 


refuge can appreciate the beauty of the 


setting and experience a sense of wonder 


and pride to be preserving this part of 


the Bitterroot Valley and the National 


Wildlife Refuge System. 


2.4 goals 

The Service developed nine goals for the refuge based 

on the Improvement Act, the purposes of the refuge, 

and information developed during project planning. 

The goals direct efforts toward achieving the vision 

and purposes of the refuge and outline approaches for 

managing refuge resources. 

BiTTERRooT RiVER fLoodPLAiN ANd 

ASSoCiATEd WiLdLifE 

Manage and, where appropriate, restore the natural 

topography, water movements, and physical integrity 

of surface water flow patterns across the Bitterroot 

River floodplain to provide healthy riparian habitats 

for target native species and to educate visitors about 

the benefits of sustaining a more natural floodplain. 

WETLANd iMPouNdMENT HABiTAT ANd 

ASSoCiATEd WiLdLifE 

Where appropriate, manage wetland impoundments 

to create a diversity of habitats for target waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and other associated native wetland-dependent species. 

gRASSLANd ANd SHRuBLANd HABiTAT ANd 

ASSoCiATEd WiLdLifE 

Create the conditions that will allow for the restoration, maintenance, and distribution of native grassland 

and shrubland species (such as rabbitbrush, needle 

and thread grass, Junegrass, and hairy golden aster) 

to provide healthy lands for a diverse group of target 

native resident and migratory wildlife species and to 

educate visitors about the historical plant and animal 

diversity of the Bitterroot Valley. 

iNVASiVE ANd NoNNATiVE SPECiES 

Prevent, reduce, and contain the invasion and spread 

of noxious, invasive, and harmful nonnative species 

within the refuge while working with partners to address off-refuge infestations within the surrounding 

landscape. 

RESEARCH 

Pursue and maintain compatible research projects 

that will provide information on refuge resources and 

address refuge issues to assist management in making decisions based on the best available information 

and science. 

CuLTuRAL RESouRCES 

Provide opportunities for visitors to learn about the 

unique glacial, Native American, and Euro-American 

history of the Bitterroot Valley while maintaining and 

protecting the integrity of the refuge’s cultural and 

historical resources. 

ViSiToR SERViCES 

Provide visitors of all abilities with opportunities to 

participate in and enjoy quality, compatible wildlifedependent recreation, environmental education, and 

interpretation programs that foster an awareness and 

appreciation of the importance of protecting the natural and cultural resources of the refuge, the Bitterroot Valley, and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

PARTNERSHiPS 

Maintain and cultivate partnerships that help achieve 

the vision and supporting goals and objectives of the 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and support other initiatives 

designed to protect and restore habitats for Federal 

trust species within the Bitterroot River Valley. 

oPERATioNS ANd fACiLiTiES 

Prioritize wildlife first and emphasize the protection 

of trust resources in the utilization of staff, volunteers, 

funding, and facilities. 

2.5 Special Values 

Early in the planning process, the planning team and 

public identified the refuge’s unique qualities or special 

values—characteristics and features of the refuge that 

make it special, valuable for wildlife, and an integral 

part of the Refuge System. It was important to identify the special attributes of the refuge to recognize its 

value and to make sure that these attributes are conserved, protected, and enhanced through the planning 

process. These special values can be unique biological 

values as well as simple values like providing a quiet 

place to see a variety of birds and enjoy nature. The 

following list summarizes many of the qualities that 

make the refuge unique and valued: 

■■ protects 2,800 acres of diverse habitats—riparian, 

wetland, and upland—in a rapidly growing county 

■■ supports a healthy riparian corridor used by breeding neotropical songbirds 

■■ contains gallery forest along the Bitterroot River 

■■ provides a wildlife corridor that runs north to south 

along the Bitterroot River and east to west from 

North Burnt Fork Creek to Kootenai Creek 

■■ contains the largest montane wetland complex in 

the Bitterroot Valley on which many migratory 

bird species are dependent for breeding and migration stopovers 

■■ provides resting habitat for trumpeter swans primarily during migration 

■■ provides habitat for a great blue heron rookery 

containing 12–18 nests 

■■ provides habitat for one bald eagle nest and foraging habitat for one additional nest less than 0.5 

mile from the refuge 

■■ provides exceptional viewing opportunities for 

nesting osprey and maintains the longest running 

dataset for nesting osprey in Montana 

■■ lies within the Bitterroot River Important Bird Area, 

as designated by the National Audubon Society 

■■ provides habitat for 242 bird species, 40 mammal 

species, and 11 species of reptiles and amphibians 

■■ contains 45 documented species of concern (38 

birds, 3 mammals, 2 plants, 1 aquatic insect, and 1 

amphibian) listed in Montana 

■■ provides habitat for moose, black bear, and (occasionally) elk on the valley floor 

■■ includes designated critical habitat for endangered 

bull trout 

■■ includes a portion of the Bitterroot River, which is 

considered a blue ribbon trout fishery 

■■ lies within the Bitterroot Valley, the traditional 

homeland of the Salish, Nez Perce, and Pend 

d’Oreilles native peoples 

■■ located a few miles from Stevensville, the oldest 

continuous Euro-American settlement in Montana 

■■ contains the historic Whaley Homestead, which was 

built in 1885 and is listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places 

■■ offers one of the few places to hunt waterfowl on 

public land in Ravalli County and the entire Bitterroot Valley 

■■ provides environmental education and research 

opportunities for more than 16,000 area students 

of all ages (Missoula to Hamilton) 

■■ serves as a “window” on the Refuge System for its 

143,000 annual visitors, providing the public with 

a multitude of wildlife-dependent recreational activities in a peaceful and beautiful setting 

■■ provides a visitor contact area staffed by volunteers and an outdoor amphitheater with vistas of 

refuge wetlands, the heron rookery, and the Bitterroot Mountains 

■■ provides universally accessible nature trails with 

views of multiple habitat types and opportunities 

to view a variety of wetland, grassland, and forest bird species 

■■ contains a 2.5-mile-long designated National Recreation Trail 

■■ contains portions of the Ice Age Trail and the Nez 

Perce Trail 

■■ collaborates with a wide variety of area organizations to carry out the refuge mission (that is, land 

management, visitor service, historic restoration, 

and research) 

■■ provides close-up wildlife viewing opportunities 

■■ serves as a point of pride for area citizens 

■■ provides research opportunities for dozens of wildlife and environmental researchers 

■■ attracts dozens of volunteers who annually donate 

8,500 work hours 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge 23 

2.6 Planning issues
 

Several key issues were identified following the analysis 

of comments collected from refuge staff and the public 

and a review of the requirements of the Improvement 

Act and NEPA. Two public meetings, news releases 

in the local and regional press, an announcement in 

the Federal Register, and planning updates were used 

to solicit public input on which issues the CCP should 

address. Substantive comments (those that could be 

addressed within the authority and management capabilities of the Service) were considered during formulation of the alternatives for future management. 

These key issues are summarized below. 

BiTTERRooT RiVER MigRATioN 

The Bitterroot River traverses the Bitterroot Valley 

floor and is characterized by a constantly migrating 

stream channel that flows through extensive cottonwood 

and ponderosa pine bottomland forest. Naturally, the 

river fluctuates in water volume depending on winter 

snowpack and spring precipitation. These fluctuations 

regularly flood braided river channels and may create new ones. Much of this flooding and migration is 

natural and can be beneficial. However, as development increases, many more landowners are installing 

riprap along their properties in an attempt to prevent 

riverbank erosion; this directs the river (and its energy 

and increased velocity) to unprotected areas and increases the rate of erosion above natural levels. Such 

erosion has occurred in the refuge’s wildlife viewing 

area (WVA), where erosion has exceeded 100 feet in 

one area, partially destroyed a universally accessible 

paved trail, removed many large ponderosa pine and 

black cottonwood trees, and left a steep bank next to 

the shelter and terminus of the WVA accessible trail, 

a National Recreation Trail. 

Additionally, increased erosion from upstream bank 

stabilization also contributes to a loss of riparian habitat, including both types of woodlands (riverfront and 

gallery forest) and wetlands (streams and sloughs). 

Woodlands provide a migration corridor for birds, 

a home to several bat species of State concern, and 

shade and habitat structure for terrestrial and aquatic 

species. The refuge faces challenges and uncertainty 

in managing riparian habitat in the face of intensified 

bank erosion, increased river velocities, and shorter 

and more dramatic flood frequencies due to upstream 

channel alterations and bank stabilization. 

Flooding of the Bitterroot River is a common occurrence 

on the refuge. 

© Kimi Smith 

WETLANd iMPouNdMENTS (oR PoNdS) 

Shortly after acquiring the first tract of refuge land, 

the Service constructed several impoundments (commonly referred to as ponds) to hold water for migratory waterfowl. These impoundments were mostly 

built atop agricultural fields. Before this area was 

homesteaded in the 1870s, these lands consisted of 

native grassland and shrubland habitats, gallery forests, and some natural streams (as identified in a 1964 

habitat map, figure 5). Currently, there are 958 acres 

of wetland impoundments. 

Some impoundments are surrounded by persistent 

emergent wetland vegetation like cattail. Cattail is an 

aggressive emergent plant that can completely fill wetland areas; once established, it is extremely difficult to 

control and can limit habitat value for waterfowl and 

other migratory birds. However, a balanced mosaic 

of open water, cattail, and other emergent vegetation 

usually benefits nesting habitat for diving ducks; brood 

habitat for diving and dabbling ducks; and nesting and 

roosting habitat for rails, American bitterns, and redwinged and yellow-headed blackbirds. 

The constantly migrating Bitterroot River has 

started to erode some levees on the north end of the 

refuge, making Pond 13 susceptible to river movements and leaving refuge staff with little control over 

its water level. The structures and levees on one other 

impoundment in the refuge’s north end are threatened 

by erosion as well. Maintaining these impoundments 

may be costly and ecologically unsound, depending on 

the river’s future channel migration. 

Management of impoundments depends on a consistent water source and the ability to fill and drain 

wetlands. Refuge impoundments receive water from 

irrigation ditches diverted from the Bitterroot River, 

tributary creeks, natural springs, tile drainage of agricultural fields, and subsurface groundwater. Drainage and irrigation ditches may receive outflow from 

adjacent agricultural operations and residential and 

industrial septic systems, and such impacts on water 

quality could in turn pose a threat to refuge wildlife. 

Also of concern is the presence of nonnative aquatic 

predators. In the early 1990s, MFWP and the refuge 

released 10,000 bass fingerlings into Otter Pond for 

ospreys and eagles and to promote recreational fishing; as a result, largemouth bass have spread to most 

ponds (Ponds 5–13). Largemouth bass can be voracious 
24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

figure 5. Composite vegetation community models Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, for 1964 and 

2005 (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 
CHAPTER 2—The Refuge 25 

predators on fish, frogs, and aquatic insects and have 

been known to consume ducklings. In addition, bullfrogs also inhabit most of the impoundments. This 

nonnative amphibian displaces and consumes not only 

native amphibians but avian chicks, small snakes, and 

small mammals as well. 

uPLANd HABiTAT ANd ASSoCiATEd WiLdLifE 

The intermountain and foothill grassland ecotype, 

which is found in the Bitterroot Valley and other broad 

mountain valleys in western Montana, contains some 

of Montana’s most diverse fish and wildlife habitats. 

These areas also contain some of the largest populations of humans in Montana. The Bitterroot Valley 

area is considered a terrestrial conservation focus 

area in greatest need due to the loss of this habitat 

to agricultural production (MFWP 2005). 

The refuge has 1,186 acres of upland habitat that 

consists of grassland, shrubland, and a combination 

of both. Due to the retirement of agricultural crops, 

encroachment of development, and spread of invasive 

plants, few native plant species remain, and wildlife 

value has been degraded. In many uplands, the dominant plant species are nonnative (tame) grasses and 

weeds such as smooth brome, crested wheatgrass, 

cheatgrass, knapweed, and thistle. A combination of 

management actions have been applied—prescribed 

fire, disking and seeding, herbicide application, and 

manual weed removal—with varying results. 

WATER 

Lee Metcalf Refuge receives surface water from 

tile drain ditches, springs, ephemeral and perennial 

creeks and subsurface flow, and three lateral irrigation ditches: the North Lateral Ditch, Middle Lateral 

Ditch, and South Lateral Ditch. These lateral ditches 

are supplied by the Supply Ditch, a primary canal that 

carries diverted Bitterroot River water from Victor 

to just north of the refuge. Water entering the refuge from the east often has a high nutrient load as it 

traverses or drains out of grazed or farmed lands. As 

a result, the refuge receives nutrient-rich drainage 

water that results in abundant algal growth during 

summer months. 

In the past 5 years, algal growth has increased in 

the impoundments, possibly in part due to the combination of increased nutrient loading in surface water and potentially in subsurface water. Algal growth 

results in diminished water clarity and subsequent 

reduction in light penetration and vegetative quality 

of refuge impoundments. 

Currently, the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology has established shallow wells to collect subsurface water quality data and is also evaluating surface 

water quality within the refuge boundary. 

The North Lateral Ditch, also called the Alleman 

Ditch, flows through private land, traverses alongside 

Eastside Highway, and then enters the refuge on 

Rathbun Lane. In the last several years, the refuge 

has received water from this ditch, even though it has 

become silted and overgrown with vegetation. However, when the headgate is opened, the ditch tends to 

overflow and flood private lands. 

East of the Eastside Highway, subdivisions have 

been developed along and over the Middle Lateral 

Ditch (also called the McElhaney Ditch) and affected 

the efficiency of flows leaving the Supply Ditch and 

reaching the refuge. Currently, refuge management is 

working with the Supply Ditch Association, landowners, and staff to replace this ditch with a pipeline. If 

successful, this effort could conserve water, provide a 

more reliable flow to the refuge, reduce noxious weed 

seed transfer from ditchbanks and neighboring lands, 

end periodic localized flooding, and possibly provide 

a gravity-flow water source into the refuge wheel 

lines, thereby saving thousands of dollars annually 

in pumping costs. 

In recent years, much of the refuge water from 

the South Lateral Ditch (also called the Warburton 

Ditch) has not reached the refuge. Refuge law enforcement officers have monitored diversions along 

this ditch in the past. 

Other historical ditches (now McPherson and Nickerson Creeks) remain on the refuge but have not been 

maintained in recent years. 

Invasive and noxious species are a threat to native plants 

on the refuge, including velvet lupine. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

iNVASiVE ANd NoxiouS SPECiES 

The State of Montana has identified 32 noxious plant 

species, which are nonnative plants that must be 

treated by rule of the Montana County Weed Control Act. Fifteen of these species have been found on 

the refuge. Invasive species prevent desirable native 

vegetation growth and often severely degrade habitat for native wildlife by altering its structure and its 

species and ecosystem interactions. When invasive 

species become widespread, they often change the 

habitat structure and vegetative variability that wildlife need for food and cover. These nonnative plants 
26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

often create monotypic stands, using up soil moisture 

and nutrients and outcompeting more desirable native species. This change in plant species, structure, 

and diversity impacts habitat for migratory birds, a 

group of species for which this refuge was established. 

Multiple factors have likely contributed to the 

noxious and invasive plant problem on the refuge. 

Historically, factors like soil type, flood frequency, topography, availability of irrigation, and dominant vegetation likely influenced how lands that now compose 

the refuge were used. Much of this land was managed 

for agriculture, including growing small grains and 

potatoes, haying, and grazing. It is also evident that 

croplands were leveled and parts of the refuge may 

have been drained. After refuge establishment, much 

of the agricultural land was developed into wetland 

impoundments or managed for migratory waterfowl 

food resources. Later, gravel levees were developed 

to protect refuge facilities from periodic flooding from 

the Bitterroot River. White-tailed deer move daily off 

the refuge and back from neighboring lands and potentially carry weed seeds in fur or scat. All of these 

actions—both before and after refuge establishment— 

disturbed the soil and created abundant opportunities 

for noxious and invasive plants to take root. 

Land uses in and around the refuge contribute to 

invasive species challenges. Such uses include subdivisions, irrigation laterals and tile drains, roads, and 

uncontrolled weed infestations on neighboring lands. 

In particular, roads like Rathbun Lane and Eastside 

Highway present opportunities for invasive species 

transport and establishment, as does the county road, 

Wildfowl Lane, which runs west, north, and east through 

the southern half of the refuge. The Montana Rail Link 

traverses the width and length of the refuge and provides additional opportunity for weeds to spread on 

disturbed ground. Also, the Bitterroot River runs the 

length of the refuge, and the water current as well as 

recreationists often transport seed from one area to 

another along this waterway. 

RESEARCH, iNVENToRy, ANd MoNiToRiNg 

Over the years, research, inventory, and monitoring of 

refuge resources have been sporadic and minimal. In 

most cases, research is proposed by another agency or 

a university, not by refuge staff. Consequently, some 

management programs have not necessarily been 

designed from refuge-specific data or in response to 

critical refuge needs and issues. This had led in part 

to some of the habitat management difficulties described in this section. 

ViSiToR SERViCES 

Each year, the refuge hosts more than 143,000 visitors 

from all over the country and the world. It is valued 

as a place to discover, enjoy the beautiful scenery, and 

be close to nature. 

The refuge has always done well to accommodate 

visitors by providing facilities and programs intended 

for education and enjoyment. The refuge currently 

employs one outdoor recreation planner who manages and designs all programs. Dedicated volunteers 

assist with these programs and help greet visitors at 

the refuge headquarters. Nevertheless, there is tremendous potential for improvement, namely through 

providing new programs, tours, offsite programs, and 

interpretive displays and by expanding and improving current facilities, particularly the visitor contact 

area. Although the visitor contact area does allow for 

some interpretation, it is small (about 500 square feet) 

and inadequate for conducting tours, accommodating 

larger groups, or housing displays that could better 

interpret refuge resources and programs. The refuge 

is very popular with local schools and other groups; 

accordingly, there is a need for additional programs 

and an indoor classroom. 

Many visitors asked for additional trails and opportunities to explore more of the refuge. Requests 

were also made to afford all visitors the same access 

provided to refuge hunters. The refuge currently has 

2.09 miles of trails in the WVA, some of which require 

improvement or relocation. A portion of the trail in 

the WVA is slowly eroding as a result of the migrating Bitterroot River. The Kenai Nature Trail, located 

north of the refuge headquarters, is also very popular 

with visitors, but it is surrounded by a closed area that 

does not allow visitors to leave this trail. 

Hunting for waterfowl and white-tailed deer is very 

popular on the refuge. The refuge is located in a State 

management unit that only permits archery hunting 

for big game. The refuge suspects that the lack of regeneration in the understory of the forest is a direct 

result of overbrowsing by white-tailed deer. Should 

this be the case, the refuge may need to work with 

the State to find other methods to better disperse the 

deer or reduce the population on the refuge. 

STAffiNg 

Currently, the refuge employs eight full-time employees (three of whom are zone or state-wide support 

employees who do not exclusively support refuge operations). If the refuge is to accomplish the goals set 

forth in this CCP within the established timeframe, 

adequate staffing and resources will be needed. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources
 

Sagebrush buttercup is one of many plant species found on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

This chapter describes the characteristics and resources of the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

in Montana and is organized in the following sections: 

■■ 3.1 Physical Environment
 

■■ 3.2 Biological Resources
 

■■ 3.3 State and Federally Listed Species
 

■■ 3.4 Cultural Resources
 

■■ 3.5 Special Management Areas
 

■■ 3.6 Visitor Services
 

■■ 3.7 Management Uses
 

■■ 3.8 Socioeconomic Environment
 

■■ 3.9 Partnerships
 

■■ 3.10 Operations
 

3.1 Physical Environment 

The following sections describe aspects of the physical 

environments that may be affected by implementation 

of the CCP. Physical characteristics include climate and 

hydrology, climate change, physiography and geography, soils, topography and elevation, and air quality. 

Unless otherwise noted, the information in this section 

is from unpublished Service data or a hydrogeomorphic 

(HGM) report entitled “An Evaluation of Ecosystem 

Restoration and Management Options for Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge,” which was developed by 

Greenbrier Wetland Services (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

ClimATE And HydRology 

The climate of the Bitterroot Valley is characterized 

by cool summers, generally light precipitation, little 

wind, and relatively mild winters. Annual precipitation averages about 13 inches but is variable related to 

position in the valley (figure 6). Precipitation increases 

with elevation along the valley margins and ranges 

from less than 13 inches in the Bitterroot Valley floor 

to nearly 60 inches near the Bitterroot Mountain summits on the west side of the valley. In contrast, precipitation along the crest of the Sapphire Mountains 

on the eastern margin of the valley is about 25–35 

inches per year. The growing season in the Valley averages about 103 days; on average, the last freeze occurs May 30, and the first frost occurs September 10. 

Spring is the wettest period of the year, with about 25 

percent of the annual precipitation falling in May and 

June (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). Runoff in the Bitterroot 

River is highest in spring, with about 55 percent of 

the river’s discharge occurring in May and June following snowmelt and local rainfall (McMurtrey et al. 

1972). Natural flows in the Bitterroot River decline 

from spring peaks throughout the summer and remain 

relatively stable through winter. On average about 
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Figure 6. Ravalli County, montana, average annual precipitation (inches) (USdA 2012). 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 29 

1.772 million acre-feet of water flows into the Bitterroot basin via the Bitterroot River each year. Of this, 

52 percent flows from the west, 37 percent flows from 

the south, and 11 percent flows from the east (Briar 

and Dutton 2000). 

Numerous tributaries enter the Bitterroot Valley 

from mountain canyons. North Burnt Fork Creek and 

Three Mile Creek are major tributaries flowing across 

Lee Metcalf Refuge into Francois Slough and North 

Island Slough, respectively (figure 7). Other minor, 

within-floodplain drainages that historically crossed 

refuge land and ultimately emptied into the Bitterroot 

River included, Swamp Creek, Rogmans Creek, and 

the modified McPherson and Nickerson Creeks (now 

called Ditches). Rogmans Creek’s historical channel is 

now covered by Ponds 2–10 and Otter Pond. Rogmans 

Creek was renamed “Spring Creek” on the 1967 U.S. 

Geological Survey topographical map. Valley-wide, 

about four times as many tributaries join the river 

from the Bitterroot Mountains on the west compared 

to the drier Sapphire Mountains on the east. 

Records of flow and flood frequency relationships 

for the Bitterroot River near Florence date back to 

1950. For this period of record, the river exceeded 1,050 

cubic feet per second (cfs) at a 50-percent recurrence 

interval, or a frequency of every other year. Bank full 

discharge at Florence is about 13,000 cfs. This high 

flooding discharge causes extensive flooding throughout higher floodplain areas (figure 8) but occurs very 

infrequently (that is, at a greater than 50-year recurrence interval). At flows greater than 10,000 cfs, some 

modest backwater flooding on the refuge occurs with a 

greater than 7-foot stage height (USFWS 1974). This 

spring backwater flooding into connected floodplain 

sloughs and oxbows occurs regularly (that is, at a 5–10 

year recurrence interval). 

The Darby stream gauge station, approximately 35 

miles upstream of the refuge, has the longest period 

of record for discharge on the Bitterroot River (beginning in 1937). Discharges on the Bitterroot River 

at Darby have less influence from irrigation return 

flow; accordingly, this gauge station represents the 

best location to evaluate relatively natural long-term 

patterns in riverflow. Records of peak discharge at 

Darby from the 1940s suggest some higher periodic 

discharge (greater than 10,000 cfs) at about 20- to 25­

year intervals, with intervening years of moderate 

to low flows (figure 9). During the period of record, 

more very low flow (less than 4,000 cfs) years, about 

20, occurred than did more average flow (greater than 

8,000 cfs) years, about 16. In summary, river gauge 

data suggest the floodplain at the refuge was seldom 

extensively flooded historically (for example, 1974; 

figure 8), but that some backwater flooding into primary sloughs and tributaries occurred at a less than 

50-percent recurrence interval in spring. 

Many of the morphological characteristics of capillary (or secondary) channels of the Bitterroot River 

floodplain, including those at the refuge (such as Three 

Mile, Rogmans, McPherson, and Nickerson Creeks and 

Francois Slough), show an intimate connection with 

ground water discharge (Gaeuman 1997). Large upstream and downstream variations in discharge within 

individual channels, and observed springs along the 

margins of floodplain terraces reveal a substantial 

subsurface flow. Many of these channels are probably remnants of formerly large channels (including 

past abandoned channels of the Bitterroot River) that 

have filled incompletely. In other cases, ground water 

discharge may be actively excavating channels that 

seem to be growing by head cuts (abrupt changes in 

streambed elevation). 

Alluvial aquifers in the Bitterroot Valley are generally unconfined and interconnected, although the 

configuration of water-bearing layers in the heterogeneous valley fill is highly variable (Briar and Dutton 

2000). Permeability is highest in alluvium of the low 

Quaternary terraces and floodplain, and hydraulic conductivity of up to 75 feet per day has been calculated 

in low terrace alluvium. Ground water circulation is 

predominantly away from the valley margins toward 

the Bitterroot River. The basin-fill aquifers are recharged by infiltration of tributary streams into coarse 

terrace alluvium, subsurface inflow from bedrock, and 

direct infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt. High 

amounts of precipitation on the western side of the 

valley cause greater recharge in this area than on the 

east side of the valley. Ground water discharge occurs 

through seepage to springs and streams, evapotranspiration, and now by withdrawals from wells. Water 

in basin-fill aquifers is primarily a calcium bicarbonate 

type. Median specific conductance is about 250 microsiemens per centimeter at 77 °F, and median nitrate 

concentration is relatively low—0.63 milligrams per 

liter (mg/L)—within the aquifer. Nitrate concentration in surface waters may reach 6 mg/L (Briar and 

Dutton 2000). 

ClimATE CHAngE 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order 

in January 2001 requiring Federal agencies under its 

direction with land management responsibilities to 

consider potential climate change effects as part of 

long-range planning endeavors. The U.S. Department 

of Energy’s report, “Carbon Sequestration Research 

and Development” (1999), concluded that ecosystem 

protection is important to carbon sequestration and 

may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored 

in the terrestrial biosphere. The report defines carbon 

sequestration as “the capture and secure storage of 

carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain 

in the atmosphere.” 
30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Figure 7. Primary channels and sloughs present at lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana, in the 1940s. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 31
 

Figure 8. Flooding of the Bitterroot River on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, 

montana, in 1974. 

USFWS 

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

Peak annual streamflow (cubic feet per second) 

4,000

2,000

0

1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year 

Figure 9. Bitterroot River streamflow near darby, montana (USgS 2011). 
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Although prescribed burning releases CO2, there is no net 

loss of carbon because new vegetation quickly germinates 

or regrows to replace the burned-up biomass. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the 

earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise 

in surface temperature commonly referred to as global 

warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation 

planning for Refuge System units, carbon sequestra

tion constitutes the primary, climate-related effect to 

be considered in planning. 

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon 

sequestration. Large, naturally occurring communities 

of plants and animals that occupy major habitats— 

grassland, forest, wetland, tundra, and desert—are 

effective both in preventing carbon emission and in 

acting as biological scrubbers of atmospheric CO2. 

One Service activity in particular—prescribed burn

ing—releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere from 

the biomass consumed during combustion. However, 

there is no net loss of carbon because new vegetation 

quickly germinates or regrows to replace the burnedup biomass. This vegetation sequesters an approxi

mately equal amount of carbon as was lost to the air 

(Dai et al. 2006). 

Climate data for Montana show a slight reduction 

in annual precipitation and increases in temperatures 

over the last 100 years (National Climatic Data Center 

2011). Climate change impacts predicted in the Rocky 

Mountains are rising temperatures, less snow, less wa

ter in snowpacks, earlier spring snowmelts, and lower 

streamflows in the summer. These changes will in turn 

lead to increased forest ecosystem water stress, in

creased winter temperatures, earlier snowmelts, and 

longer summer drought periods. With this warming 

trend, the growing season will increase, but with lim

ited water resources, forest ecosystems will be water 

stressed and most likely begin to release CO2 instead 

of acting as net absorbers of CO2 (Running 2010). 

Other impacts anticipated include increased wildfires 

and insect infestations. This change in climate could 

also alter vegetation patterns and species, possibly 

allowing for additional invasive species to become es

tablished. Invasive plants could spread more rapidly, 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

the effectiveness of control methods may be altered, 

and certain species would likely survive the drier and 

milder climates, thereby outcompeting native plants. 

Stronger and more frequent droughts associated 

with climate change could cause waterfowl and other 

waterbirds to lose breeding and stopover habitat. 

Because of the valley-floor location of this refuge, it 

is expected that ground water would continue to surface at least though the life of this plan. In addition, 

changes in the timing of migration and nesting could 

put some birds out of synchronization with the life 

cycles of their prey. Natural food sources for wildlife 

could be reduced or eliminated. 

As surface water supplies might decrease with climate change, the refuge could depend more on subsurface water sources; this would increase management 

costs due to the challenges of pursuing ground water 

that has also been depleted by increased demand. Less 

ground water recharge, along with a greater demand 

for human consumption and irrigation, could limit water available for wildlife purposes. Increased potential 

exists for managed wetlands that depend on runoff 

and delivered water to not receive adequate amounts 

of water for waterbird habitat. Water impoundments 

might go dry more often and for possibly longer periods of time. Compatible public use activities may be 

affected on Service lands due to degraded habitats 

and less wildlife. Furthermore, climate change could 

displace local ranchers and farmers if they could no 

longer produce enough crops and livestock to maintain 

the viability of their businesses; this could cause an 

even greater change in land use as ranches and farms 

become further subdivided and developed. 

PHySiogRAPHy And gEology 

The Bitterroot Valley, where the Lee Metcalf Refuge 

is located, is a north-trending basin bounded by the 

Bitterroot Mountains on the west and the Sapphire 

Mountains on the east. These mountains and the rich 

montane Bitterroot Valley date to nearly 90 million 

years before the present (B.P.) (Hodges and Applegate 

1993). The Bitterroot Valley extends about 120 miles 

from the confluence of the east and west forks of the 

Bitterroot River south of Darby to its junction with 

the Missoula Valley and Clark Fork River 5 miles south 

of Missoula. The elevation of the valley floor ranges 

from about 3,900 feet above mean sea level (amsl) 

in the south to about 3,200 feet amsl near Missoula. 

Summit elevations of surrounding mountains range 

from 6,000 to 8,000 feet amsl in the Sapphire Range 

and exceed 9,500 feet amsl in the Bitterroot Range. 

The Bitterroot Mountains are composed of granitic 

rocks, metamorphic materials, and remnants of preCambrian sediments of the Belt series. The Sapphire 

Mountains are mostly Belt rocks with localized occurrences of granitic stocks. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 33 

The unusually straight front of the Bitterroot 

Range is a zone of large-scale faulting (Langton 1935, 

Pardee 1950); however, the Bitterroot Valley shows 

little sign of recent tectonic activity (Hyndman et 

al. 1975). Undisturbed valley fill shows that tectonic 

movement since the early Pliocene has been slight or 

that the entire valley floor has moved as a single unit. 

The structural basin of the Bitterroot Valley has accumulated a considerable thickness of Tertiary sediments capped in most places by a layer of Quaternary 

materials. Surficial geology evidence suggests Tertiary 

fill in the Bitterroot Valley may be up to 4,000 feet 

thick in some locations (Lankston 1975). Sediment is 

coarse colluviums near the fronts of mountains with 

finer-grain alluvial fill deposits that interfinger with 

floodplain silts and clays. Channel deposits of the ancestral Bitterroot River lie beneath the valley center. 

Low terrace alluvium occurs as outwash, or alluvial 

fans, below the mouths of tributaries on both sides of 

the valley (Lonn and Sears 2001). Floodplain alluvium 

is mostly well-rounded gravel and sand with a minor 

amount of silt and clay derived from the edges of the 

neighboring terraces and fans. Most of the refuge is 

mapped as Qal alluvial deposits of recently active channels and floodplains. These deposits are well-rounded, 

and sorted gravel and sand with a minor amount of 

silt and clay. Minor amounts of Qaty (younger alluvial 

outwash terrace and fan complex deposits from the 

late Pleistocene) occur next to the Bitterroot Valley 

alluvium on the north end of the refuge. Materials in 

these terraces are well-rounded and sorted gravel of 

predominantly granitic, gneissic, and Belt sedimentary origin (Lonn and Sears 2001). Qafy surfaces extend along the Bitterroot Valley on both sides of the 

refuge. These surfaces are younger (late Pleistocene) 

alluvial outwash terrace and fan complexes of wellrounded cobbles and boulders in a matrix of sand and 

gravel deposited in braided-stream environments that 

formed between and below the dissected remnants of 

older fans. These surfaces appear to have been at least 

partly shaped by glacial Lake Missoula, which reached 

an elevation of 4,200 feet and covered the Bitterroot 

Valley near the refuge 15,000–20,000 years B.P. during the last glacial advance (Weber 1972). 

The Bitterroot River has an inherently unstable 

hydraulic configuration and high channel instability, 

particularly between the towns of Hamilton and Stevensville (Cartier 1984, Gaeuman 1997). The river reach 

immediately upstream from the refuge has a complex 

pattern that is characterized by numerous braided 

channels that spread over a wide area of the valley 

bottom. The zone of non-vegetated gravels associated 

with this main braided channel system has widened 

and straightened since 1937 (Gaeuman 1997). In addition to this widening, severe bank erosion is common, 

but numerous cutoff chutes counteract some lateral 

bend displacement. Together, active river movements 

and a braided river channel pattern create low riverbanks and natural levees that encourage chutes and 

other avenues of river overflow. A complex network 

of minor channels occurs in the valley floor including 

the floodplain lands on the refuge (figure 10). These 

minor channels appear to flow from ground water 

discharge, which promotes erosion at slope bases and 

headwater retreat of small channel head cuts on the 

floodplain. Channel fragmentation appears to be controlled by irregularities in the respective elevation 

gradients of the valley. 

About 10–15 miles north of Stevensville, the Bitterroot River channel is more confined, compared to 

its highly braided form farther south. Despite limited changes in river shape north of Stevensville, the 

river stretch along the refuge has maintained a highly 

dynamic, instable channel form due to its geological, 

topographic, and hydraulic position. The historical 

floodplain at the refuge was characterized by the following: (1) multiple abandoned channels (for example, 

Barn and Francois Sloughs) that were connected with 

the main river channel during high-flow events; (2) 

small within-floodplain channels (for example, Rogmans and Swamp Creeks) that received water from 

ground water discharge and occasional overbank backwater flooding during high-flow events; (3) entry of 

two mountain- or terrace-derived major tributaries to 

the Bitterroot River (for example, North Burnt Fork 

Creek and Three Mile Creek); (4) slightly higher elevation inter-drainage point bars, natural levees, and 

terraces; and (5) alluvial fans (figure 7). 

SoilS 

Nearly 25 soil types or groups currently identified by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Geographic Databases are present on or next to the Lee 

Metcalf Refuge. The most extensive soils are RiverrunCurlew-Gash complex, Ambrose creek sandy loams, 

and Riverside-Tiechute-Curlew complexes. Current 

soil maps of the refuge are constrained by numerous 

water impoundments where no soil type is identified 

and each impoundment area is simply identified as 

water. Consequently, soil surveys conducted before 

major floodplain developments and impoundment 

construction are more useful for understanding soil 

types. These soil surveys can also be used to determine the historical distribution of plant communities. 

The combination of soils on the refuge is complex 

and highly interspersed, and it reflects the numerous 

channel migration events across the floodplain. It also 

reflects the introduction of mixed-erosion sediments 

from surrounding Quaternary and Tertiary terraces 

and alluvial deposition of Bitterroot Valley parent 

materials. Most soils on the refuge are shallow, with 

thin layers of silts and clays overlying deeper sands 

and gravels. In many places sandy outcrops occur, 

especially near the Bitterroot River. 
34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Figure 10. network of minor channels occurring in the valley floor on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, 

montana (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 35 

ToPogRAPHy And ElEvATion 

Elevations on the Lee Metcalf Refuge range from 

about 3,230 feet on its north end to about 3,260 feet on 

its south end at the river (figure 11). The topographic 

variation within the refuge is related to the historical channel migrations of the Bitterroot River and 

its tributaries, scouring and natural levee deposition 

along minor floodplain channels, and alluvial deposition. A large southeast portion of the refuge contains 

higher, more uniform elevations while north and west 

portions of the refuge have lower, more diverse elevations. Alluvial fans are present in many locations 

along the Qafy geomorphic surfaces on the east side 

of the refuge. A larger tributary fan is present where 

North Burnt Fort Creek enters the Bitterroot River 

floodplain; this fan is much larger than the alluvial 

fans along the floodplain margin that grade into the 

Sapphire Mountains. 

WATER RigHTS 

The refuge has a complex system of irrigation ditches, 

springs, creeks, impoundments, and water control 

structures for moving water within the refuge to fill 

the various impoundments and to irrigate upland fields. 

In 1982, the refuge submitted 24 water right claims 

in response to State Senate Bill 76, which mandated 

adjudication of pre-1973 State water rights. These 24 

pre-1973 claims total 31,297.88 acre-feet per year. There 

is also one post-1973 storage permit (300 acre-feet per 

year) and two domestic well permits (11.5 acre-feet 

per year) that increase the total refuge-owned water 

rights to 31,609.38 acre-feet per year (table 4). Most 

of these rights are supplemental, meaning the water 

sources are commingled to supply the refuge needs for 

optimum operation. In addition, the refuge receives up 

to 2,600 acre-feet per year (average diversion rate of 

8.57 cubic feet per second) from the Supply Ditch Association to augment refuge water rights. This water 

flows through three lateral irrigation ditches and costs 

approximately $3,600 annually; however, the refuge 

does not receive this water at a rate of 8.57 cfs for a 

variety of reasons including the lack of ditch capacity and side diversions. Post-1973 claimed, permitted 

water rights total 34,209.38 acre-feet per year. 

In 2008, the Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation of the State of Montana began 

examining water right claims for the refuge. In this 

process, a claims examiner reviews various elements 

to determine the validity and necessity of each claim. 

A preliminary decree is anticipated to be issued by 

the water courts in the next few years. After the objection process is completed and the water court is 

satisfied, the claim representing prior use and a final 

decree will be issued. 

Water is diverted on the refuge to store approximately 2,079 acre-feet of water on 795 acres of wetland impoundments. Water is also used for grassland 

units on approximately 205 acres. The main season of 

water use is from mid-March until early December. 

This varies with water conditions as determined by 

annual precipitation, snowmelt, and availability of 

water from the Supply Ditch. Adequate water is important to provide spring and fall migration stopover 

habitat for migratory birds and for irrigation of habitat restoration sites within upland fields during the 

summer. During the winter, most impoundments are 

kept full to provide water for resident species such as 

bass, aquatic invertebrates, and wintering waterfowl. 

HydRogEomoRPHiC CHAngES 

The Bitterroot River stretch at the Lee Metcalf Refuge 

lies near the geomorphic threshold between a highly 

braided river channel pattern from Hamilton to Stevensville and a straight or sinuous channel pattern 

immediately downstream (figure 10). Consequently, 

the river channel pattern for the area is changing 

and highly sensitive to perturbation (for example, 

inputs of sediment, changes to shading or discharge) 

(Gaeuman 1997). The combination of irrigation development and land use changes, mainly in the 1900s, 

significantly altered hydrology and river channel morphology and movement in the Bitterroot Valley and 

its floodplains and facilitated degradation and loss of 

wetlands in this ecosystem (for example, Kudray and 

Schemm 2008). The extensive irrigation network of 

the Bitterroot Irrigation District led to construction 

of reservoirs, ditches, water diversion structures, and 

modified natural drainage routes. Stream channel 

networks, common in the Bitterroot Valley near the 

refuge, were altered by culvert and bridge crossings, 

railroad levees and beds, and extensive channelization 

of tributaries. Many stream channels, including sections of the Bitterroot River, were lined with riprap 

rock and car bodies to slow stream migration and inchannel bank erosion (figure 12). In addition to local 

physical disruptions to topography and hydraulics, 

the entire fluvial system of the Bitterroot River has 

been altered by historical land use changes (see section 

3.4, “Cultural Resources”). The valleys and lower hill 

slopes have been grazed and farmed, while the upper 

valleys and mountains have been partly deforested. 

Overgrazing was common on many valley terraces 

and, when coupled with deforestation in neighboring 

mountains and slope areas, led to erosion and increased 

sediment loading in the Bitterroot River (Briar and 

Dutton 2000). Subsequently, extensive sedimentation 

has occurred in drainages and floodplain depressions 

on the refuge (USFWS 1988–93). 

The channel morphology and discharge of the Bitterroot River has also been affected by land and water 

use in the valley (Gaeuman 1997). From 1936 to 1972, 

the Bitterroot River underwent significant adjustments 

in sinuosity and braided character causing a nearly 

4-percent reduction in channel length between Darby 
36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Figure 11. map of lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana, showing 1-foot contour intervals 

(Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 
Table 4. Water rights summary for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Volume rate Volume 

Water right (cubic feet (acre-feet Irrigated 

number Priority date per second) per year) acres Source 

76H–W–142486 04/05/1882 3.57 1,060 1,837 North Burnt Fork Creek 

76H–W–188239 06/10/1882 5 560 1,929 Rogmans Creek (also known as Spring

Creek) 

76H–W–142487 10/01/1882 2.5 742.5 1,837 North Burnt Fork Creek 

76H–W–142482 06/15/1903 10 742.6 2,188 South Drain 

76H–W–188233 06/15/1905 1.86 1,344 1,536 Unnamed tributary of Bitterroot River 

76H–W–142483 05/15/1930 1 49 14 Three Mile Creek 

76H–W–188235 07/02/1931 1.28 470 51 Middle Drain 

76H–W–188236 05/07/1938 8 3,008 1,038 Rogmans Creek 

76H–W–188231 08/15/1941 10 535.5 1,866 Swamp Creek 

76H–W–142493 01/29/1947 10 2,162 1,544 Bitterroot River 

76H–W–188238 11/04/1950 25 980 1,929 Rogmans Creek 

76H–W–142492 04/01/1952 0.9 212 1,029 Unnamed tributary of Spring Creek 

76H–W–142491 05/15/1953 5 301 1,619 Unnamed tributary of Bitterroot River 

76H–W–142489 11/13/1957 1.8 1,306 2,188 Unnamed tributary of Spring Creek 

76H–W–142484 07/13/1960 1 49 None Three Mile Creek 

76H–W–142485 12/10/1963 2 1,120 209 Three Mile Creek 

76H–W–188237 12/10/1963 20 6,317 1,929 Rogmans Creek 

76H–W–188232 12/10/1963 0.25 181.5 720 Unnamed tributary of Spring Creek 

76H–W–142490 12/10/1963 2 629.8 67 

Drain #2 (also known as water and 

seepage; also known unnamed tributary 

of Spring Creek) 

76H–W–188234 12/10/1963 1.86 1,344 1,536 

Middle Drain (also known as water 

and seepage; also known unnamed 

tributary of Spring Creek) 

76H–W–184100 12/10/1963 5 3,629 1,288 

South Drain (also known as water 

and seepage; also known unnamed 

tributary of Spring Creek) 

76H–W–142488 12/10/1963 2 1,445 1,837 

Drain #1 (also known as water and 

seepage; also known unnamed tributary 

of Bitterroot River) 

76H–W–188240 12/10/1963 1.25 32 1,288 Spring (unnamed tributary to Bitterroot

River) 

76H–W–188230 12/10/1963 5 3,078 1,866 Swamp Creek 

76H–81434 02/02/1968 0.021 1.5 None2 Ground water 

76H–W–10850 12/30/1976 0.033 10 None2 Ground water 

069642–S76H 10/14/1988 25 300 None4 Spring Creek 

1

 Equals well pumping capacity of 12 gallons per minute.


2

 Domestic use.
 

3 Equals well pumping capacity of 15 gallons per minute.


4 Post-1973 permit for Otter Pond.
 

Source: USFWS, Region 6 Water Resources Division 2011. 

CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 37 
and Missoula (Cartier 1984). Other data suggest that 

in the last decade, increased instability, channel migration, and overall widening of the river’s braided area 

from Hamilton to Stevensville has occurred compared 

to other reaches of the Bitterroot River both above 

and below (Gaeuman 1997). This instability has caused 

rapid erosion of riverbanks on the refuge (figure 13) 

and increased physical dynamics of sediment and waterflow that facilitate rapid lateral channel migration 

across the refuge floodplain. In contrast to the highly 

active river migration physics from Hamilton to Stevensville, substantial narrowing of the Bitterroot River 

occurred near Stevensville and the refuge lands after 

1937 in part because of artificial control structures. 

Part of the river has been channelized immediately 

upstream of riprap bank stabilization structures near 

the railroad embankment on the refuge. This artificial narrowing of the Bitterroot River to control river 

migration and bank erosion has actually heightened 

river migration tendencies immediately upstream of 

structures and has the potential to carve new channels across the refuge floodplain. 

Aerial photograph maps of a 2.5-mile stretch of the 

Bitterroot River on the north end of the refuge from 

Figure 12. Car bodies along the Bitterroot River on lee metcalf national 

Wildlife Refuge, montana, that were intended for erosion control before 

refuge establishment. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

Figure 13. Bank and levee erosion along the Bitterroot River on the west side

of lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

B USFWS Danley /ob 

38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 39 

1937 to 2009 show the highly unstable channel location 

of the river (figure 14). Three key points (labeled A, 

B, and C on figure 14) of river migration are apparent 

through the time-series of photographs, and typical 

movements of the outer riverbanks average about 

8 feet per year. During more active periods of river 

channel bank migration, the rate of erosion is greater 

than 32 feet per year. The 1955 photograph reveals 

that the river migrated significantly to the south and 

was deemed a threat to the existing railroad bed and 

trestle. Subsequently, actions were taken by the railroad company to stop river migration by placing car 

bodies (figure 12) along the riverbank to act as riprap 

and cut off the river, which created an oxbow that is 

still present. The most active area of river migration 

in 2009–2010 is at point C. Between 2004 and 2009, the 

river migrated about 197 feet east, or about 39 feet 

per year. If this rate of river migration continues, then 

the river may reach the refuge’s main road in about 

15 years and effectively remove about 10.5 acres of 

current floodplain land. 

The Bitterroot River Irrigation District’s Main 

Supply Canal continues to transport water to most of 

the eastern benches in the Bitterroot Valley, including 

those next to the refuge. This canal facilitates a net 

transfer of about 75,000 acre-feet per year of water 

from the west side of the valley to the eastern benches 

and terraces. During summer, irrigation withdrawals significantly reduce flow in the Bitterroot River 

and some of its tributaries. Part of the diverted flow 

eventually drains back into the river system; this irrigation return flow is about 280,000 acre-feet per 

year in normal precipitation years. This includes well 

water and other canals used for irrigation. Average 

discharge of the Bitterroot River near Florence is 

1,540,000 acre-feet per year, and at this point there 

is about a 13 percent current loss of discharge from 

irrigation use, other consumptive uses, and evapotranspiration. More than 10,000 wells are now in the 

valley, and the extraction of water from these wells, 

coupled with irrigation diversion, may be affecting 

ground water levels, recharge to floodplain wetlands, 

ground and surface water quality, and the connections 

of branches (anastomosis) of the Bitterroot River 

(Briar and Dutton 2000). 

AiR QUAliTy 

Air quality is a global concern. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has lead responsibility 

for the quality of air in the United States; through 

the 1990 Clean Air Act, the agency sets limits on the 

amount of pollutants that can be discharged into the 

air. More than 170 million tons of pollution are emitted annually into the air within the United States, 

through either stationary sources (such as industrial 

and power plants) or mobile sources (such as automobiles, airplanes, trucks, buses, and trains). There are 

also natural sources of air pollution such as fires, dust 

storms, volcanic activity, and other processes. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency has identified six 

principal pollutants that are the focus of its national 

regulatory program: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen 

dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. 

Air quality problems in Montana are usually related to urban areas and narrow mountain river valleys that are prone to temperature inversions. These 

temperature inversions cause chemical and particulate matter to become trapped in the air. (Particulate 

matter is tiny liquid or solid particles in the air that 

can be breathed in through the lungs, with the smaller 

particulates being more detrimental than larger particles.) These air pollutants have the greatest adverse 

effect on Montana’s air quality. 

Air quality in the Bitterroot Valley and Ravalli 

County is classified as either “attainment” or “unclassifiable-expected attainment” with respect to the 

National and Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for all regulated air pollutants. The primary pollutant 

of concern in the Bitterroot Valley is particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5). Ambient PM2.5 

levels have been measured at several locations in the 

Bitterroot Valley over the past several years and continue to be measured in the community of Hamilton, 

approximately 20 miles south of the refuge. Smoke from 

wood burning appliances (primarily residential heaters 

and woodstoves), forestry and agricultural prescribed 

burning practices, and forest fires occasionally result 

in elevated PM2.5 levels in the Bitterroot Valley. The 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality conducts an open burning smoke management program 

to mitigate impacts from forestry and agricultural 

burning. Nevertheless, Missoula experienced 16 days 

of Stage I Air Alerts in 2003. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality evaluates monitored 

concentrations of PM2.5 during the winter months to 

address elevated PM2.5 levels primarily resulting from 

wood burning appliance emissions during periods of 

poor atmospheric dispersion (Hoby Rash, Monitoring 

Section Supervisor, Ambient Air Monitoring, Montana Department of Environmental Quality; email; 

September 27, 2010). 

3.2 Biological Resources 

This section describes the biological resources that 

may be affected by CCP implementation. It begins 

with a description of the refuge’s historical land cover 

and vegetation communities, and it discusses changes 

to the refuge since its establishment. Following this 

background, the current vegetative habitat type descriptions (upland, riparian, and wetland) and the associated birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and 
40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

fishes are described. The remainder of this section 

describes the invasive species, wildlife diseases, and 

contaminants found on the refuge. 

Unless otherwise noted, the information in this 

section is from unpublished Service data; a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) report entitled “An Evaluation of 

Ecosystem Restoration and Management Options for 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge,” developed by 

Greenbrier Wetland Services (Heitmeyer et al. 2010); 

or from another habitat analysis entitled “Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge 2009 Assessment of Upland 

Units” prepared by Aeroscene Logic (Graham 2009). 

These data and reports are available at the refuge 

headquarters. 

lAnd CovER And vEgETATion CommUniTiES 

The Bitterroot Valley is composed of the intermountain and foothill grassland ecotype cut and formed by 

the meandering Bitterroot River that creates core riparian zones and wetland areas. This ecotype harbors 

more wildlife communities than any other in Montana 

(MFWP 2005). The relatively low precipitation in the 

Bitterroot Valley prohibits the establishment of expansive areas of densely wooded or herbaceous wetland 

vegetation communities. Consequently, the distribution of woody or wetland-type species is restricted to 

areas of greater soil moisture—primarily sites next to 

the Bitterroot River and in floodplain drainages and 

depressions (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

Historically, vegetation in the Bitterroot River 

floodplain on the Lee Metcalf Refuge included seven 

distinct habitat and community types: (1) riverfronttype forest, (2) floodplain gallery-type forest, (3) persistent emergent wetland, (4) wet meadow herbaceous, (5) floodplain and terrace grassland, (6) saline 

grassland, and (7) grassland-sagebrush. Figure 15 is 

a composite model of potential historical vegetation 

communities present on the refuge before significant 

alteration and development beginning in the late 1800s; 

community identification was made on the basis of 

HGM attributes (table 5). 

The Bitterroot River floodplain at the refuge historically supported a wide diversity of vertebrate 

and invertebrate animal species associated with the 

interspersed riparian woodlands, floodplain wetland, 

and grassland habitats (appendix G). Resources used 

by animal species were seasonally dynamic and also 

annually variable depending on long-term climate and 

riverflow and flooding patterns. In the refuge region, 

most bird species exploited seasonal resources during 

migration and in the summer, but a few species overwintered in the area. Many waterbirds likely stayed 

in the Bitterroot Valley during wet summers to breed 

when floodplain wetlands had more extensive and prolonged water regimes. In contrast, limited numbers 

of species and individuals probably bred in the valley 

during dry years. In the years when wet springs combined with carryover water in the fall, larger numbers 

of waterbirds would stopover in the valley during fall 

migration. In average or dry years, however, little 

wetland habitat would have been available in fall 

except in historical river channels. Cold winter temperatures freeze most wetlands in the floodplain, but 

the river and a few springs remain open throughout 

winter in most years and provided sanctuary, loafing, 

and some foraging resources for some species. Amphibian and reptile annual emergence and life cycle 

events coincided with spring thaw and flooding and the 

availability of key arthropod and other prey species. 

Larger mammals moved in and out of the floodplain 

Table 5. Hydrogeomorphic matrix of historical distribution of vegetation communities and habitat types on lee 

metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Geomorphic 	 Flood Habitat type 	 Soil type surface1	 frequency2 

Riverfront forest Qal, Qaty 	 Riverside, Riverwash, Chamokane gravelly-sand,

sand, fine sand-loam 1YR–I

Gallery forest Qal Chamokane loam and loamy sand 	 2–5YR 

Robust emergent–shrub or scrub Qal Slocum poorly drained loam 	 1YR–P 

Wet meadow Qal Slocum deep loams 	 2–5YR 

Grassland 	 Qal, Qafy Corvallis, Hamilton, Grantsdale silt loam >5YR 

Grassland-saline Qal Corvallis saline silt loam 	 >5YR 

Grassland-sage 	 Qafy Lone Rock mixed erosional alluvial fan >10YR 

1	 Qal = Quaternary alluvial deposits, Qafy = Quaternary younger alluvial fan and outwash terrace complex, Qaty = 

late Riverside and Hamilton terraces. 2	 1YR–I = annually flooded for intermittent periods, primarily during high water periods of the Bitterroot River; 2–5YR 

= surface inundation at a 2- to 5-year recurrence interval; 1YR–P = annually flooded primarily for most of the year; 

>5YR = surface inundation at a greater than 5-year recurrence interval; >10YR = surface inundation rare except for 

lower elevations during extreme flood events. 

Source: Heitmeyer et al. 2010. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 41
 

Figure 14. maps showing the changes in the main channel of the Bitterroot River in montana. 

CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 43
 

Figure 15. Hydrogeomorphic-derived map of potential vegetation communities on lee metcalf national Wildlife 

Refuge, montana, before European settlement in the mid-1800s. 
44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

to forage and take advantage of cover during winter 

and in other seasons when nutritious grassland forage 

and prey were present. 

Figure 16 shows the 2,800 acres of habitat and 

vegetation communities that exist today. Historical 

vegetation communities have changed over time due 

to past and present land uses, including agriculture 

and the creation of wetland impoundments. The existing habitat and community types present today are 

shown in figure 16 and described below in three different vegetation communities: 

■■ uplands (grassland, shrubland, and a combination 

of both) 

■■ riparian (river channel, woodland, and natural 

wetlands) 

■■ wetland impoundments (open water and robust 

emergent) 

Migratory birds are especially abundant on the refuge 

during fall and spring migration. More than 260 species of birds are present in the Bitterroot River watershed, and 242 species have been documented on the 

refuge (USFWS, unpublished refuge files), including 

grebes, bitterns, herons, egrets, waterfowl, raptors, 

shorebirds, flycatchers, swallows, chickadees, warblers, 

wrens, sparrows, and blackbirds. Additionally, many 

bird species nest in forest, wetland, and grassland 

areas; the most common species are ducks, warblers, 

flycatchers, swallows, blackbirds, sparrows, wading 

birds, and raptors. 

More than 40 mammal species also are present in 

the refuge. Some of the more common species include 

white-tailed deer, yellow-bellied marmot, yellow-pine 

chipmunk, northern pocket gopher, meadow vole, 

porcupine, striped skunk, muskrat, American beaver, 

mink, and raccoon. At least eight species of reptiles 

and amphibians commonly use the refuge including 

three snakes, one turtle, two frogs, one toad, and one 

salamander. Several species of native fish historically 

were present in the Bitterroot River, and many moved 

into floodplain drainages, oxbows, and wetlands during high flow periods. Native species include mountain 

whitefish, northern pikeminnow, large scale sucker, 

longnose sucker, and redside shiner. Presently several 

nonnative fish are also present in refuge impoundments, 

including, but not limited to, largemouth bass, yellow 

perch, and brown and rainbow trout. 

HABiTAT modiFiCATionS SinCE 

ESTABliSHmEnT 

Following establishment, the refuge began physical 

developments on floodplain lands in the mid-1960s, with 

the purpose of creating wetland habitat for waterfowl 

and other waterbirds. By the late 1980s, fourteen impoundments (or ponds) encompassing more than 1,000 

acres had been created (figure 17). 

The following list encompasses major wetland 

management and development activities on refuge 

lands from 1963 through the early 1990s, according 

to refuge annual narratives (USFWS 1988–93) and 

as summarized in Heitmeyer et al. (2010): 

■■ Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge was authorized by Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

on December 10, 1963. 

■■ The first parcel was purchased in February 1964. 

■■ In the mid-1960s, evidence revealed that the west 

Barn Slough area, a pre-refuge diversion structure, 

was sending water through the McPherson and 

Nickerson Creeks (now Ditches). 

■■ Ponds 1–4 were completed in the summer of 1966 

(refuge files). By 1970, Pond 5 was impounded 

by forming the existing county road into a levee. 

Ponds 6, 8, and 10 were constructed between 1967 

and 1970, judging from photos from this period. 

■■ In the mid-1960s, no dikes or structures existed 

on Francois Slough and North Burnt Fork Creek 

was unimpeded on the refuge. By 1970, three water control structures were constructed on these 

waterways, and they remain in place today. 

■■ Ponds 11–13 were built between 1970 and 1973, as 

refuge photos show the north ponds in the flood 

of 1974. Pond E, which was a small impoundment 

on Rogmans Creek near Pond 11, was likely built 

around the same time. Pond E was expanded by 

the creation of Otter Pond in 1989. 

■■ In the early 1980s, the refuge focused on Three Mile 

Creek sedimentation issues. This creek flowed into 

Pond 11 and out through Pond 13 to the river. Two 

supply ditches were cleaned out in 1985. A bypass 

channel with three sediment ponds was constructed 

in 1984 to lead the creek directly to the river. These 

ponds filled quickly and were cleaned out in 1987. 

■■ By July 1988, the Pair Ponds were established as 

part of a rehabilitation project by the Montana 

Power Company. Pair Ponds comprise 10 acres 

and are up to 3 feet deep in some areas. 

■■ Otter Pond was built in 1989 as a solution to the 

sedimentation of the northern ponds from Three 

Mile Creek. An 18-inch diameter siphon was constructed to bring water from Pond 10 under Three 

Mile Creek bypass to supply water to Ponds 11, 

12, and 13. This expanded the existing Pond E to 

about 65 surface acres. 

■■ In the early 1990s, ditch leveling was completed in 

Swamp Creek and Ponds 1, 3, 4, 11, and 12. 

These wetland impoundments were developed using 

levees to back water up drainages and depressional 

areas. Because of river channelization, development, 

and wetland loss, the refuge currently manages more 

than 20 percent of all palustrine wetlands present in 
Figure 16. Existing habitat and vegetation communities on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 45
 
46 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Figure 17. Ponds and upland fields in lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 47 

the Bitterroot Valley (Kudray and Schemm 2008). 

Water control structures that significantly alter the 

direction and amount of surface water flow in natural 

drainages have been constructed on Rogmans Creek, 

Barn Slough, and Francois Slough/North Burnt Fork 

Creek. Three Mile Creek used to feed Ponds 11, 12, 

and 13 but was re-routed because of sedimentation in 

ponds. Wetland impoundments have been managed by 

diverting irrigation and tile drain water (that is, excess 

water drained from agricultural subsurfaces), flows in 

minor channels and tributaries, springs, and Three 

Mile Creek water into and through the impoundments. 

Water that enters or can be diverted to the refuge 

comes from multiple points of diversion (PODs). Certain 

sources, such as the South Lateral Ditch and Middle 

Lateral Ditch, supply private property in addition to 

the refuge. Tile drain water also enters the refuge from 

open tile drains or ditches from surrounding private 

lands. The refuge receives nutrient-rich water from 

these drains, and during summer months this water 

has abundant algal growth. Most water enters managed wetland impoundments from the south end of 

the refuge and sequentially is routed via gravity flow 

through Ponds 1–13. However, the variability of water 

sources often results in variable amounts and timing 

of available water for individual ponds. For example, 

water from the South Lateral Ditch can be moved by 

gravity flow into all refuge ponds, whereas water from 

Rogmans Creek can only be used for Ponds 2–13. The 

Spring Creek POD (outlet of Pond 10) flows under the 

railroad tracks into Otter Pond and is then siphoned 

under Three Mile Creek to feed Ponds 11, 12, and 13. 

Currently, Three Mile Creek contains high sediment 

loading that, when diverted into impoundments, precipitates out. Three Mile Creek is currently directed via 

a bypass channel to what is now North Island Slough. 

Since refuge establishment, most wetland impoundments have been managed to promote waterfowl production by holding water through summer 

or year-round and occasionally draining areas for 

vegetation management using tillage, grazing, and 

burning (USFWS 1988–93). Otter Pond was stocked 

with warm-water fish in 1989 to provide both prey for 

nesting osprey and limited public fishing opportunities. Other wetland developments included construction of a siphon to move water from Otter Pond to 

Ponds 11, 12, and 13; level-ditching in Swamp Creek 

and Ponds 1, 3, 4, 11, and 12; pool construction near 

Potato Cellar Pond; and sediment removal in Three 

Mile Creek. Ephemeral ponds also resulted from the 

excavation of gravel pits. 

Certain upland areas were converted to warm- or 

cool-season grasses for dense nesting cover for waterfowl in the early 1990s (figure 18), and two predatorexclusion fences were built around some fields and a 

levee. These fences were removed in 2010. From the 

1960s through the early 1980s, some higher elevation 

fields on the refuge were used for small grain production. 

In 1971, the refuge contracted the placement of 

riprap material along 1,250 feet of the east bank of the 

Bitterroot River west of McPherson Ditch (USFWS 

1988–93). This riprap was subsequently eroded and 

moved by high riverflows; by 1984 the riprap was gone, 

and the bank at this location was moving eastward. 

Since the mid-1990s, levees built along the Bitterroot 

River, including the area where the riprap was placed 

Figure 18. Field planted as dense nesting cover on lee metcalf national Wildlife 

Refuge, montana. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 
48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

in 1971, have eroded and been at least partly breached 

in places as the Bitterroot River attempts to move laterally (figure 14). Also, the Bitterroot River appears 

to be moving more discharge through the North Island Slough area immediately north of Otter Pond on 

the north side of the refuge. These river movements 

could potentially affect the north Otter Pond levee; 

cause water movement across other floodplain areas 

on the refuge; and affect other structures, roads, and 

the railroad bed. 

More than 18 miles of roads are present on the refuge along with six buildings, two trails, two shelters, 

and an amphitheater. Eight residences and several 

outbuildings have been removed over time. 

I

c

n add CHAngES To THE vEgET esses ATion CommUniTiES 

Collectively, the many landscape and hydrological 

changes in the Bitterroot Valley since the presettlement period have dramatically altered the physical 

nature, hydrology, and vegetation communities of 

the Lee Metcalf Refuge. Before Euro-American settlement, the relatively dry climate of the valley and 

the traveling nature of the Bitterroot River created 

a heterogeneous mix of communities: riverfront and 

gallery forest next to the Bitterroot River and floodplain drainages, persistent emergent wetland communities along floodplain drainages and fluvial-created 

depressions, wet meadow habitats, and grassland and 

sagebrush communities on higher elevation terraces 

and alluvial fans (figure 15). This community matrix 

was maintained by: 

■■ periodic overbank flooding of the Bitterroot River 

that inundated much of the floodplain for relatively 

short periods in spring; 

■■ regular backwater flooding of the Bitterroot River 

up tributaries and floodplain secondary channels 

into floodplain wetland depressions; 

■■ annual spring discharge of water from tributaries, 

sheet flow across terraces and alluvial fans, and 

seep and spring discharge from mountain slopes 

and terraces; 

■■ frequent burning of the grasslands and shrublands 

(primarily by Native Americans) that may have 

led to frequent, low-intensity fires in the adjacent 

ponderosa pine forest (Arno 1980) that, when 

combined with grazing, recycled nutrients and established germination and regeneration sites for 

specific plant species. 

Each of these primary ecological processes at the refuge has been systemically altered: 

■■ Water diversions, channel constriction, and river 

channel modification have reduced overbank flooding and restricted floodplain connectivity. Fewer 

extensive overbank events now occur, but lateral 

movement and bank erosion of the Bitterroot River 

have been accelerated in this river stretch. 

■■ The above changes, some of which have occurred 

upstream of the refuge, have restricted backwater 

flow from the Bitterroot River into its floodplain and 

tributaries, and floodplain secondary channels have 

been ditched, diverted, dammed, and impounded. 

■■ Waterflow across the floodplain has been altered by 

extraction and diversion of water from drainages 

before reaching the floodplain. Sheet flow across 

terraces and alluvial fans is almost completely eliminated, and ground water aquifers and discharge 

from seeps and springs are changed, usually by 

reduction from presettlement times. 

■■ Wildfires have been eliminated or greatly reduced. 

ition to changes in the primary ecological proof the Bitterroot Valley ecosystem on the refuge, the local and regional landforms and vegetation 

communities have been negatively affected by many 

alterations to topography, drainages, clearing, conversion to various agricultural crops or livestock forage, 

extensive grazing by cattle and sheep, sedimentation, 

expansion of nonnative plants, and recent urban expansion. Vegetation changes are documented in aerial 

photographs from the 1940s to the present (figures 5 

and 10). Collectively, the system now has: 

■■ reduced areas of riverfront and gallery forest;
 

■■ fewer wet meadows;
 

■■ increased areas of persistent emergent and open-


water habitat; 

■■ increased areas of herbaceous wetland vegetation; 

■■ fewer native grassland communities; 

■■ more agricultural and tame grass fields; 

■■ increased presence of invasive and exotic plant 

species. 

Invasions of sulfur cinquefoil, Dalmatian toadflax, 

leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, Canada and musk 

thistle, houndstongue, St. Johnswort, and yellow flag 

iris are present in many areas on the refuge (Kudray 

and Schemm 2008, Lee Metcalf Refuge unpublished 

data). Of the 32 currently considered noxious weeds in 

Montana, 15 species are present on the refuge. (Refer 

to “Invasive and Noxious Species” under section 2.6 

for more detail). 

CHAngES To FiSH And WildliFE PoPUlA TionS 

The many ecological and community changes to the 

Lee Metcalf Refuge ecosystem have corresponding 

effects on fish and wildlife populations using the area. 

Unfortunately, few quantitative data are available on 

animal use of the area during historical times, but correlations of species occurrences with specific habitat 

types can indicate relative abundance for at least some 

groups. Apparently, waterbirds and other wetland associated birds increased in number and seasonal occurrence on the refuge at least during the 1970s and 
45

40

35

Number of chicks fledged 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

40

33

29

28

23

21 21

20

19

18

16

15

13 13 13

12 12 12 12

11 11

10 10 10 10

9

8 8 8

3 3

2

45678901234567890123456789012345678901234567

66666677777777778888888888999999999900000000

99999999999999999999999999999999999900000000

11111111111111111111111111111111111122222222

Year 

Figure 19. osprey production on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana, 1964–2007. 

CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 49 

1980s after wetland impoundments were built and 

managed for more prolonged water regimes during 

summer and fall. Peak numbers of dabbling and diving 

ducks, shorebirds, and wading birds on the refuge collectively exceeded 20,000, especially during spring and 

fall migrations in some years in the 1970s and 1980s; 

now, they seldom exceed 5,000 (USFWS 1988–93). One 

contributing factor may be the conversion of grain 

fields surrounding the refuge to housing developments. 

Production of ducks on the refuge also reached 10,000 

in some years during the 1970s and 1980s, but now annual production typically is less than 1,000 ducklings 

(unpublished refuge data). Populations of other birds 

associated with more permanently flooded wetlands 

including osprey and certain passerines also apparently 

increased 20–30 years after wetland impoundments 

were built, but now these populations are declining. 

For example, osprey production on the refuge reached 

a peak of forty young in 1988, but it has declined since 

(figure 19). Concerns about mercury contamination of 

osprey eggs and young relate to their consumption of 

warm-water fish present in several ponds and high 

mercury levels of fish in other refuge impoundments 

and regional waters. Methylmercury concentrations 

in fish (mainly largemouth bass) on the refuge average 

more than 0.1 milligram per kilogram wet weight for 

14- to 22-inch size classes (figure 20). 

Some data suggest declines in animals using riparian forest, grassland/sagebrush communities, and 

floodplain channels and tributaries to the Bitterroot 

River (Brandt 2000, USFWS unpublished refuge inventories). Reduction of riparian forest habitat has 

meant less foraging, nesting, loafing, and stopover 

habitat for many passerine birds, raptors, and native 

resident species. Additionally, conversion of native 

grassland to pasture, hayland, and agricultural crops 

has reduced resources for many birds, mammals, and 

amphibians. While the Bitterroot River and its floodplain did not historically support a large diversity of 

native fishes, many species were highly abundant and 

widely distributed, especially when overbank and backwater floods occurred. Distribution is now restricted 

to primary channels of the Bitterroot River and impoundments or ponds (Brandt 2000). The federally 

listed threatened native bull trout is now rarely found 

in the river (Chris Clancy, fisheries biologist, MFWP, 

personal communication, October 2011) but historically 

occurred in North Burnt Fork Creek. The bull trout 

is now restricted to the upper reaches of this creek 

on U.S. Forest Service land because of dammed and 
 

 

 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

6–10 10–14 14–18 18–22 22–26 26–30 

Red Rock Lakes Refuge 

Medicine Lake Refuge 

Lee Metcalf Refuge 

a Lee Metcalf Refuge

Mercury concentration

(milligrams/kilogram wet weight) 

Ninepipe Refuge 

Size class 

(inches) 

Two meals per week, men 

One meal per week to one meal 

per month, women and children 

Two meals per week, women and children 

a

 Whole fish. The remaining analyses 

only used fillet samples. 

Figure 20. mercury concentration in fish from montana national wildlife refuges. 

50 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

diverted waterflows, sedimentation, and increased 

water temperatures in the creek and the impounded 

Francois Slough area on the refuge (Stringer 2009); 

heavy irrigation modifications upstream of the refuge 

have also contributed to the decline of this species. 

UPlAnd HABiTAT 

The Lee Metcalf Refuge’s 1,186 acres of uplands consist of floodplain and terrace grasslands, combined 

grasslands and shrublands, and shrublands. These 

communities are characterized by having grassland 

and shrubland species that usually occur in nonwetland habitats. Historical documents suggest that 

most higher elevations within the refuge’s floodplain 

region were covered with grasses and some scattered 

shrubs (Eckmann and Harrington 1917, Cappious 

1939, Popham 1998). Sites with occasional surface 

flooding contained more wet meadow or grassland 

communities interspersed with wetland herbaceous 

plants (like smartweed), while higher floodplain terraces, slopes, and alluvial fans included both wetland 

and upland-type grasses (like needle and thread and 

Junegrass) and shrubs (like rabbit brush and sage). 

Most floodplain grassland areas have Corvallis, Hamilton, and Grantsdale silt loam and loam soils. Certain 

small sites in the refuge have saline soils that could 

have supported more salt-tolerant species. Larger alluvial fans, such as those near Three Mile Creek, are 

present on “Qafy” surfaces with Lone Rock mixed 

erosion soils, and these sites historically had a mixed 

grassland-sagebrush community (for example, Clary 

et al. 2005). 

The uplands in the valley have historically been 

disturbed by a variety of land uses since Euro-American settlement in 1841. In 1872 Peter Whaley broke 

the first sod on what would become the refuge. The 

primary land use in the valley was cattle grazing and, 

later, agricultural crops (vegetables and grains). Once 

the refuge was established, the uplands were still disturbed by grazing, farming, haying, and other land 

practices. Eventually, these grazed and farmed areas 

were retired and seeded with nonnative grasses. These 

practices greatly altered the land, decreasing overall 

habitat and animal diversity and increasing the presence of invasive plant species (Graham 2009). Most 

wet meadows have disappeared, and potential saline 

grasslands are now mostly thistle and wheatgrass. 

Historical grassy upland terraces no longer contain 

substantial amounts of native forbs, grass, or shrub 

species. It is estimated that invasive and other nonnative species now affect more than 70 percent of refuge 

uplands. Dominant species now found in those areas 

include, but are not limited to, cheatgrass, smooth 

brome, common tansy, mustard species, spotted knapweed, and musk and Canada thistle. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 51 

Characteristic Wildlife 

Some of the more common wildlife species observed 

in the upland habitat are small mammals like the Columbian ground squirrel, meadow vole, American deer 

mouse, white-tailed deer, striped skunk, coyote, red 

fox, and American badger. Common reptile species 

include the terrestrial garter snake and the common 

garter snake. Sandhill cranes have also been seen 

foraging in the upland fields. The abundance of small 

mammals in this habitat provides feeding opportunities for great blue herons and raptors including redtailed hawk, rough-legged hawk, American kestrel, and 

prairie falcon. Upland habitats also provide browsing 

opportunities for white-tailed deer. As uplands are 

dominated by invasive and other nonnative species, 

most upland areas do not provide adequate nesting 

cover and protection from predators for many species 

of grassland-dependent migratory birds. 

A bull moose browses on the refuge. 

© Kimi Smith 

RiPARiAn HABiTAT 

The Bitterroot Valley is bisected by the Bitterroot 

River, which originates in the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness and the Bitterroot Mountains and flows north 

to empty into the Clark Fork River near Missoula. 

Alongside the river are riparian habitats consisting 

of woodlands (riverfront and gallery forest), scattered 

grasslands, and wetlands. 

The Bitterroot River is characterized by constantly 

shifting stream channels through the riparian habitat. 

This habitat provides some of the most productive 

wildlife habitat in the State and is a home to a wide 

variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians 

(MFWP 2005). According to the Bitterroot Audubon 

Society, the Lee Metcalf Refuge is a cornerstone of 

the Bitterroot River Important Bird Area: it is the 

place where all key valley habitats come together and 

provide bird species richness (Sherry Ritter, Chair 

of the Important Bird Area Committee, Bitterroot 

Audubon Society, Montana; email; August 14, 2010). 

The riparian habitat also includes wetlands in low 

elevation oxbows, depressions, and tributary off-channel areas that contain more permanent water regimes 

and support water-tolerant wetland vegetation species 

edged by persistent emergent species such as cattail. 

Riparian Woodlands (Riverfront and gallery 

Forests) 

The riparian woodlands of the refuge consist of 483 

acres of riverfront and gallery forest. Each community 

has different vegetation and succession requirements. 

Riverfront forest includes early successional species such as black cottonwood and sandbar willow 

characterized by very little, if any, understory. Wood’s 

rose, fescue, and wheatgrass species may be present. 

This vegetation is present on newly deposited and 

scoured gravelly-sand, sand, and fine sandy-loams 

near the active channel of the Bitterroot River and in 

sand outcrop sites next to floodplain drainages. These 

sites have high water tables for most of the year and 

are inundated for short periods during high spring 

riverflows almost annually. Regularly scoured soils 

provide bare soil sites for seed deposition and subsequent germination and growth of willow and cottonwood (Cooper et al. 1999). 

The riverfront forest lies alongside the Bitterroot 

River, running south to north within the boundary of 

the refuge. In some places, the riverfront forest occupies both sides of the river; in others, the riverfront 

forest occupies only the eastern side, primarily due 

to land clearing on the western side for other uses. 

Upstream development and riprap efforts along the 

river have caused increased flow velocity and energy 

reaching the refuge, resulting in the loss of riverfront 

forest in several areas in the refuge. 

Gallery forest is located mostly on the western portion of the refuge, west of the river as well as east of 

the river, between the riverfront forest and the wetland impoundments. This habitat is more closely associated with backwater and overbank flooding than 

with drier upland conditions. Dominated by mature 

black cottonwood and ponderosa pine, it is found on 

higher floodplain elevations with layers of Chamokane 

loams over underlying sands along natural levees and 

point bar terraces next to minor floodplain tributaries. 

Indicator tree and shrubs species for gallery forest 

include ponderosa pine with black cottonwood along 

with an understory of large woody shrubs such as thinleaved alder, river hawthorn, red osier dogwood, and 

Wood’s rose. There may also be mixed grasses such 

as bluebunch and fescue under and between trees and 

shrubs. Historically, gallery forests were flooded by 

occasional overbank or high backwater floods from the 

Bitterroot River and secondary floodplain channels. 

When flooding did occur, it was for short durations 

during spring. Fire and grazing by native ungulates 

probably sustained the savanna nature of these sites 

and encouraged a mix of grass, shrubs, and overstory 

trees (Fischer and Bradley 1987). 
52 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Riparian Wetlands 

The wetland component of the refuge’s riparian habitat 

community is 20 acres of oxbows, sloughs, remnants 

of former gravel pits and creeks—specifically, Barn 

Slough, Oxbow, North Island Slough, Francois Slough, 

North Burnt Fork Creek, and Three Mile Creek. These 

wetlands are interspersed in the southern portion of 

the refuge with the exception of Three Mile Creek, 

Oxbow and North Island Slough, which are in the 

north. A bypass was constructed in the mid-1980s to 

channel Three Mile Creek directly to the Bitterroot 

River to end sediment buildup in the open-water impoundments. Waterflow in some of these sloughs and 

creeks varies seasonally according to spring rainfall, 

upstream irrigation use, and the upstream snowpack 

and the rate at which it melts. 

Barn Slough is fed by natural springs; North Island 

Slough was created by the migration of the Bitterroot 

River and is now becoming a more established river 

channel. Oxbow was the river channel in the mid-1950s 

but was closed at both ends when the river moved 

back north. North Burnt Fork Creek and Three Mile 

Creek originate in the Sapphire Mountains and flow 

westward down the valley slope, ending at the Bitterroot River on the refuge. North Burnt Fork Creek 

feeds Francois Slough, which then empties into the 

river. Dominant vegetation in these riparian habitats 

consists of alder willow, snowberry, horsetail, various 

sedges, rushes, and reed canarygrass. 

Characteristic Wildlife 

Riverfront woodlands and wetlands provide important nesting, foraging, and stopover habitat for many 

birds. These include neotropical songbirds such as least 

flycatcher, yellow warbler, Vaux’s swift, and Lewis’s 

woodpecker, and waterbirds such as common merganser and wood duck. Riverfront forest is also important 

for nesting and perching sites for large raptors such 

as bald eagles and osprey. There is at least one known 

eagle nest on the refuge, and trees and numerous 

nesting platforms provide desirable nesting sites for 

osprey. The most common reptiles are garter snakes. 

Mammals that use the riverfront forest include the 

northern river otter, mink, white-tailed deer, raccoon, 

beaver, muskrat, and the yellow-pine chipmunk. 

As the gallery forest is found upslope from the riverfront corridor, many of the same bird species found 

in the riverfront forest—including Lewis’s woodpecker, 

Vaux’s swift, and wood duck—are present in the gallery forest, along with the red-naped sapsucker and 

brown creeper. These last two species rely on the 

mature trees found in the gallery forest for feeding 

and nesting. Yellow warbler, least flycatcher, and MacGillivray’s warbler feed and nest in the understory of 

the forest. Some mammals include the red squirrel, 

raccoon, white-tailed deer, porcupine, yellow-bellied 

marmot, red fox, and coyote. There are eleven bat 

species found on the refuge (appendix G), all of which 

depend on the gallery forest for various stages of their 

life cycles. Of these 11 species, 3 of them are State 

species of concern including Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, hoary bat, and fringed myotis. 

Throughout the riparian woodlands are various 

wetland types including ephemeral pools, sloughs, 

and remnants of former gravel pits which provide 

breeding grounds for amphibians such as the longtoed salamander and the boreal toad, a State species of 

concern. Documented fish species include both native 

fish (pike minnow and longnose sucker) and nonnative 

fish (largemouth bass, pumpkinseed, and brook and 

brown trout). Native beavers and Columbia spotted 

frogs and nonnative American bullfrogs also inhabit 

these wetlands. 

The Service designated North Burnt Fork Creek 

as critical habitat for bull trout in October 2010. Historically, bull trout used North Burnt Fork Creek as 

a passageway to return to their spawning grounds 

in the headwaters in the Sapphire Mountains where 

populations are still viable. This no longer occurs. The 

refuge installed several structures along the refuge 

portion of the creek in an effort to create more pondlike habitat for waterfowl and warm-water fish (providing more fishing opportunities in the public area). 

Off-refuge, along the creek, ditching and irrigation 

occurred on private land. These actions resulted in 

a loss of stream habitat and fish passage for the federally listed bull trout (listed as threatened in 1994). 

Fish occupying the creek still consist of native species 

including minnows, suckers, and whitefish. Nonnative 

species such as brown and brook trout and pumpkinseed also use the stream (unpublished refuge files: 

Fish Trap Data 2009). 

Lewis’s woodpecker nests in tree cavities on the refuge. 

 USFWS Menke / Dave 

WETlAnd imPoUndmEnT HABiTAT 

Wetland habitat on the refuge, other than that described above, consists of wetland impoundments and 

their surrounding areas. Wetland impoundments were 

created throughout the refuge to provide wetland 

habitat for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 53 

Levees were constructed, and water control structures 

were installed. A number of impoundments were semipermanently flooded, constituting the largest area of 

open water in the Bitterroot Valley. The refuge now 

manages many impoundments for migratory birds by 

periodic drawdowns to increase their productivity. 

Water to flood the impoundments is provided by natural springs, tile drains, creeks, and irrigation ditches. 

The impoundments have areas of open water with 

mudflat edges and are surrounded and interspersed 

with submergent and emergent vegetation. Submergent flowering aquatic vegetation in many areas of the 

open water includes northern water milfoil, hornwort, 

and Richardson and Sago pondweed. Emergent vegetation includes, water smartweed, cattail, and various species of rushes and sedges. The combination of 

these and similar vegetative species is often referred 

to as persistent/robust emergent habitat, and it provides cover and nesting opportunities for American 

bitterns, rails, wrens, blackbirds, and waterfowl. However, if left unmanaged, emergent vegetation such as 

cattail can grow into a monoculture and leave little 

edge, outcompeting other emergent vegetation and 

reducing the amount of open water. 

Characteristic Wildlife 

The wetland impoundments and surrounding emergent vegetation make up 958 acres of the refuge. These 

impoundments provide stopover habitat for migrant 

waterbirds including waterfowl species such as mallard; gadwall; northern pintail and shoveler; cinnamon, 

green-winged, and blue-winged teal; and wood, redhead, and ruddy duck. Other waterbirds documented 

on these impoundments includes six species of grebe, 

American white pelican, white-faced ibis, and occasionally a great egret. Both trumpeter and tundra swans 

stopover at the refuge, and bitterns are sometimes 

seen hiding amongst the cattail. When extensive mudflats are present, migrant shorebirds such as least 

sandpiper, semipalmated plover, American avocet, 

black-necked stilt, dowitcher, and yellowleg are seen 

feeding in these areas. Double-crested cormorants 

can usually be found in the north ponds and have historically nested over water in dead trees. Abundant 

yellow-headed and red-winged blackbirds can be found 

nesting in the summer among the cattails along with 

marsh wren, sora, and Virginia rail. 

REmAining REFUgE ACRES 

Habitats that do not fall in the above categories include 63 acres of the Bitterroot River channel and 90 

acres of bare or sparse vegetation that includes gravel 

bars, parking lots, roads, and facilities. 

invASivE SPECiES 

Nonnative species are prolific on the refuge, displacing 

native plants and affecting more than 70 percent of 

refuge lands as a result of alterations to topography, 

drainages, clearing, conversion to various agricultural 

crops or livestock forage, grazing by cattle and sheep, 

and sedimentation pre- and post-establishment of the 

refuge. Many of the species are transported to the 

refuge as “hitchhikers” on vehicles, pedestrians, and 

animals. Wildfowl Lane, a county road that bisects the 

refuge, is used by more than 143,000 visitors annually 

in vehicles from all over the country. These factors have 

contributed to the introduction and distribution of invasive species, as have the surrounding development, 

landscape level invasive species in western Montana, 

the vulnerable exposed soil on the refuge (from wetland habitat construction and prior agricultural uses), 

and the locations of the Bitterroot River, the railroad 

bed, Highway 93, and Eastside Highway. 

The State of Montana has 32 plant species on the 

Montana Noxious Weed List, 15 of which are found on 

the refuge in various degrees of infestation. During 

the past several years, new invaders (hoary alyssum, 

Dalmatian toadflax, and blueweed) have been detected. 

These species rank as high priority species for early 

detection and rapid response treatment. Some species, 

while not considered noxious by the State of Montana, 

are considered undesirable and problematic by refuge 

staff; these include musk thistle, cheatgrass, kochia, 

reed canarygrass, and teasel (table 6). 

The refuge has a number of resources to respond 

to the invasive species problem. The refuge provides 

office space and other support for one of the Service’s 

Montana Invasive Species Strike Teams. This team 

works with refuges throughout the State, including Lee 

Metcalf Refuge, inventorying and treating new invaders and high priority invasive and nonnative plants. 

Additionally, a partnership with the Ravalli County 

Weed District has provided several crew members 

wholly dedicated to treating more established noxious weeds. An annual volunteer weed-pull event for 

the public occurs, and youth groups like the Montana 

Conservation Corps, Youth Conservation Corps, and 

Selway-Bitterroot Foundation interns have also assisted in refuge treatment efforts. Also, invasive species 

spread and control is integrated into staff fieldwork. 

The main planning tool for treating invasives on the 

refuge is using integrated pest management (IPM). 

IPM is a structured and logical approach to managing 

weeds by using a combination of biological, mechanical, and chemical tools. Past IPM efforts have included 

mapping, treating, and monitoring invasive species 

on the refuge. Treatment methods for invasives vary 

with species, daily weather conditions, plant growth 

stage, and time of year. Methods used to treat invasives have included herbicide application, prescribed 

fire, biological controls (including goats, flower and 

root weevils, and flower and root moths), hand pulling, 

mowing, and cultivating. Along with prescribed burning and grazing, chemical applications of herbicides 
Table 6. documented invasive and nonnative plant species on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana, 

as of 2010 and the degree of infestation, priority for treatment, and State noxious status. 

Degree of Area of infestation or Priority for State noxious status1 

Common name infestation number of plants found treatment and comments 

Tall buttercup Medium 0.23 acre2 High Priority 2A—common in some areas, 

eliminate or contain 

Yellowflag iris Medium 0.82 acre2	 High Priority 2A 

Blueweed Low Two plants found High Priority 2A 

Hoary alyssum Low 3.56 acres2 High Priority 2A 

Canada thistle High 50 acres3 Medium	 Priority 2B—abundant and widespread, 

eradication or containment where less 

abundant 

Field bindweed Low 1 acre	 High Priority 2B 

Leafy spurge Medium 7.51 acres2 High Priority 2B 

Spotted knapweed High 6.64 acres2 Medium Priority 2B 

Dalmatian toadflax Low <5 plants	 High Priority 2B 

St. Johnswort Medium 15.2 acres2 Medium Priority 2B 

Sulfur cinquefoil Low 0.06 acre2	 High Priority 2B 

Common tansy High 28.89 acres2, 3 Medium Priority 2B 

Oxeye daisy Medium 6.43 acres2 Medium Priority 2B 

Houndstongue High 48.33 acres2, 3 

High 

Priority 2B 

Yellow toadflax Medium 1.48 acres2, 3 Medium Priority 2B 

Cheatgrass High 26.74 acres2, 3 Low	 Priority 3—regulated plant with poten

tial to have significant impacts, may not 

be intentionally spread or sold 

Musk thistle High 70 acres3	 Medium n/a 

Italian bugloss Medium 2.97 acres2 High n/a 

Teasel Low 0.5 acre3	 Medium n/a 

Kochia High 7 acres3	 Medium n/a 

Reed canarygrass High 200 acres3	 Low n/a 

1	 Sources: Montana Department of Agriculture 2010, USDA 2010. 2	 Estimated acreage of infestation (treated and untreated) within areas surveyed based on USFWS, Montana Invasive Species 

Strike Team 2009; additional infestations may occur within unsurveyed areas. 3 

 Acreage is estimated.
 

Additional source: unpublished refuge data.
 

54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

­

have significantly aided efforts to control the spread of 

invasive plant species and possibly the elimination of 

invasives from specific areas on the refuge. Chemical 

applications are used on specific species and applied 

during the optimal plant stage of growth to increase 

the effectiveness of the application. All chemicals must 

be approved by the Service for use on refuges, and the 

application of a specific chemical onsite must undergo a 

pesticide use proposal evaluation. Approximately 400 

acres per year are treated for invasive plants, using 

chemical applications and mechanical means. 

WildliFE diSEASES And ConT AminAnTS 

Several wildlife diseases have the potential in the near 

future to spread to the refuge from western Montana 

and neighboring states. Contaminants from surround

ing residential development, historical mining activity, 

and atmospheric deposition also pose a threat. 

­

Wildlife diseases 

Two common avian diseases have been documented 

near the refuge in very small numbers (less than 30 

birds): aspergillosis and salmonellosis. Often fatal, as

pergillosis is caused by birds ingesting or inhaling toxic 

fungi in contaminated feeds. Salmonellosis can also be 

fatal; it is caused by Salmonella bacterium that spreads 

through (1) the air via bacteria shed from seed kernels 

or insects, (2) an infected organism’s feather dust or 

feces, or (3) through other contact. While these are the 

only two diseases documented in this area, there may 

­
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 55 

be impacts on the refuge in the future from unknown 

or emerging contaminants or diseases. 

Highly pathogenic avian influenza has not yet been 

documented in North America, but because of the se

rious health risks to humans and domestic fowl, the 

Service has entered into an interagency agreement 

to develop an early detection system should this in

fluenza migrate to the continent. Additionally, in 2006 

the refuge completed a “Highly Pathogenic Avian In

fluenza Disease Contingency Plan.” This plan will be 

reviewed annually and updated as new information 

becomes available. 

Since 2006, the refuge has collaborated with MFWP 

to sample for avian influenza. More than 200 samples 

(obtained through cloacal and pharyngeal swabbing 

of hunter-killed ducks) were collected. All of these 

samples tested negative for highly pathogenic avian 

influenza. Another avian influenza testing effort was 

led by the University of California, Los Angeles and 

the Institute for Bird Populations. The goal of this 

project was to determine the pattern, distribution, 

and transmission of various strains of avian influenza 

between migratory and resident species. Neotropical 

migrants and resident passerines were sampled for 

avian influenza in 2007 and 2008 at the refuge bird 

banding station. No highly pathogenic avian influenza 

was documented in refuge birds. 

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissible 

spongiform encephalopathy that is found in deer and 

elk in North America. Spongiform encephalopathy is 

a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that pro

duces changes in the brain and causes fatal chronic 

weight loss. The main theory of a causative agent is 

the abnormality of a group of proteins called prions. 

These prions infect the host and cause tissue damage 

in the brain, resulting in a “sponge-like” appearance. 

CWD is contagious and can be transmitted directly 

between animals through nose-to-nose contact and 

indirectly through shedding of infectious prions into 

the environment that are later ingested by healthy 

animals (U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife 

Health Center 2007). All 48 contiguous states have 

some form of CWD surveillance in place, and CWD 

has been found in Montana but only in game farms. 

It is anticipated that CWD will appear in wild popu

lations because it is documented in the neighboring 

states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, 

as well as in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The refuge 

completed a “Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance 

and Contingency Plan” in 2005. Beginning in 2014, this 

plan will be reviewed annually and updated as new 

information becomes available. 

­

­

­

­

­

Contaminants 

Concerns about links between mining-related contami

nants in river sediment and their occurrence in nesting 

osprey prompted scientists to study the refuge and

­

other areas throughout the Clark Fork River Basin 

(Langner et al. 2011). The refuge participated in this 

3-year research project conducted between 2006 and 

2009 by the University of Montana. The Bitterroot 

River was used as a control site, including the stretch 

alongside the refuge. The study tested mercury levels 

from several sources: river sediments, aquatic inver

tebrates, trout, and blood and feathers from osprey 

chicks. Osprey were chosen as subjects in this study 

as they are regarded as indicators of aquatic ecosys

tem health. Chicks were sampled because virtually 

all of their biomass grew from consumption of local 

fish, thus reflecting local environmental conditions. 

One discovery was that osprey chicks within and 

downstream of the refuge were found to have methyl

mercury in their blood and tissue samples. An organic 

form of mercury, methylmercury is the most toxic form, 

and it bioaccumulates in fish (USGS 2012). In the Lee 

Metcalf Refuge Bitterroot River reach, the mercury 

concentration of the fine-grain sediment is relatively 

low; nevertheless, the blood analysis showed the 

presence of methylmercury in refuge osprey chicks. 

Methylation occurs when elemental mercury enters 

the water and is taken up by bacteria that convert it 

to methylmercury in anaerobic conditions (Langner et 

al. 2011). Many of the sampled chicks from the refuge 

were in nests alongside wetland impoundments. The 

wetland impoundments likely enhance methylation 

rates and mercury biomagnification within the aquatic 

food web (Langner 2011). Both methylation rates and 

the stability of methylmercury in sediments appear 

to be enhanced under anaerobic conditions, whereas 

methylation rates are low under aerobic conditions, 

probably because of the reduced activity of anaero

bic sulfate-reducing bacteria. On the other hand, the 

degradation of methylmercury appears to be gener

ally favored by aerobic conditions (Ullrich et al. 2001). 

The resulting methylmercury is moved through the 

food chain, eventually reaching osprey and other top 

predators such as otter. This could be a cause of the 

20-year decline in chicks fledged on the refuge from a 

peak of 40 in 1988 to 9 in 2007 (figure 19). The precise 

mechanism of forming methylmercury is still unclear 

as the synthesis of methylmercury in aquatic systems 

is influenced by a wide variety of environmental fac

tors. The efficiency of microbial mercury methylation 

generally depends on factors such as microbial activ

ity and the concentration of bioavailable mercury 

(rather than the total mercury pool), which in turn 

are influenced by parameters such as temperature, 

pH, redox potential (gain or loss of electrons), and the 

presence of inorganic and organic complexing agents. 

While there is no simple relationship, it appears that 

enhanced rates of methylmercury production are 

linked in particular with low pH, low salinity, and the 

presence of decomposable organic matter in reducing 

environments (Ullrich et al. 2001). 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
56 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Other contaminant concerns on the refuge are 

pharmaceuticals and nutrients (which enter the refuge 

ground water from the many subdivisions next to the 

refuge), acid rain, and residual pesticides. 

3.3 State and Federally listed 

Species 

The Service has not documented any current candidate or federally listed species under the Endangered 

Species Act using any lands or water within the Lee 

Metcalf Refuge. Many of the species found within the 

refuge have been designated as species of concern by 

MFWP and the Montana Natural Heritage Program 

(Montana Natural Heritage Program 2012) or as birds 

of conservation concern by the Service (USFWS 2008). 

SPECiES oF ConCERn 

According to the Montana Natural Heritage Program, 

species of concern are native animals breeding in 

Montana that are considered to be at risk due to their 

declining population trends, threats to their habitats, 

or restricted distribution (Montana Natural Heritage 

Program 2012). The Service identifies birds of conservation concern as migratory and nonmigratory birds 

of the United States and its territories that have declining populations, naturally or human-caused small 

ranges or population sizes, threats to their habitat, or 

other threats. Bird species considered for inclusion 

on this Federal list include non-gamebirds, gamebirds without hunting seasons, subsistence-hunted 

non-gamebirds in Alaska, birds that are candidates 

or proposed as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act, and birds that recently have 

been removed from a Federal listing (USFWS 2008). 

Some of these Federal birds of conservation concern 

are not listed as State species of concern (for example, 

the horned grebe). This Federal species list covers the 

entire Northern Rockies, not just Montana; therefore, 

the species may not be imperiled in Montana and not 

warrant listing as a State species of concern. This 

designation helps stimulate coordinated and proactive 

conservation actions among Federal, State, tribal, and 

private partners. 

A total of 42 wildlife State species of concern and 21 

Federal birds of conservation concern have been found 

in the Bitterroot Valley (USFWS 2008). These wildlife species are identified on the State and/or Federal 

lists as species that require special attention to prevent them from becoming threatened or endangered. 

All but eight of these species have been documented 

using the refuge. There are also two plant species of 

concern found on or near the refuge, Guadalupe waternymph and shining flatsedge. 

The State forest and grassland bird species of concern that have been recorded on Lee Metcalf Refuge 

are peregrine falcon, black swift, burrowing owl, great 

gray owl, Lewis’s woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, 

Clark’s nutcracker, loggerhead shrike, black-and-white 

warbler, Le Conte’s sparrow, and bobolink. There 

are also three documented mammal State species of 

concern on the refuge: hoary bat, fringed myotis, and 

Townsend’s big-eared bat. A damselfly, the boreal 

bluet, and an amphibian, the boreal toad, are also species of concern that have been recorded on the refuge. 

The State wetland bird species of concern that 

have been recorded on the refuge are common loon, 

American white pelican, American bittern, great 

blue heron, black-crowned night-heron, white-faced 

ibis, trumpeter swan, bald eagle, long-billed curlew, 

Franklin’s gull, black tern, common tern, Caspian tern, 

and Forster’s tern. 

The bull trout is federally listed as threatened 

and historically used North Burnt Fork Creek, which 

traverses through the refuge, as passage to spawning grounds. Although it has not been documented on 

the refuge, there is a population off the refuge in the 

upper reaches of North Burnt Fork Creek in the Sapphire Mountains. On September 30, 2010, the Service 

designated 18,795 miles of streams and 488,252 acres 

of lakes and reservoirs in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, 

Montana, and Nevada as critical habitat for the wideranging native fish. The Bitterroot River and North 

Burnt Fork Creek are both located within this designated area. This designation and the status of the bull 

trout emphasize the need for coordination with other 

efforts to restore this critical habitat including special consideration in management of refuge resources. 

Table 7 lists State species of concern and Federal 

birds of conservation concern that have been found in 

the Bitterroot Valley and on the refuge. 

Bull trout, a threatened species, are not found in refuge 

waters but once crossed the refuge to spawning grounds. 

Jim Mogen / USFWS 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 57
 

Table 7. montana listed species of concern and Federal birds of conservation concern recorded in the Bitterroot 

valley and on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Federal birds of Species State species of concern1 Recorded using the refuge3 

conservation concern2 

Boreal toad4 X n/a X
 

Trumpeter swan X — X
 

Common loon X — X
 

Horned grebe X X X
 

Clark’s grebe X — X
 

American white pelican X — X
 

American bittern4 X X X 

Great blue heron X — X
 

Black-crowned night-heron X — X
 

White-faced ibis X — X
 

Bald eagle X X X
 

Northern goshawk X — X
 

Swainson’s hawk — X X
 

Golden eagle X X X
 

Peregrine falcon X X X
 

Prairie falcon — X X
 

Black-necked stilt X — X
 

Long-billed curlew X X X
 

Marbled godwit4 — X X
 

Short-billed dowitcher — X X
 

Franklin’s gull X — X
 

Forster’s tern X — X
 

Black tern X — X
 

Caspian tern X — X
 

Common tern X — X
 

Least tern X — X
 

Black-billed cuckoo X X X
 

Burrowing owl X X X
 

Short-eared owl — X X
 

Great gray owl X — X
 

Flammulated owl X X X
 

Black swift X X X
 

Calliope hummingbird — X X
 

Lewis’s woodpecker4 X X X


Pileated woodpecker X — X
 

Willow flycatcher4 — X X
 

Olive-sided flycatcher — X X
 

Loggerhead shrike X X X
 

Clark’s nutcracker X — X
 

Pinyon jay X — X
 

Brown creeper4 X — X

Winter wren — — X
 

Veery X — X 
Table 7. montana listed species of concern and Federal birds of conservation concern recorded in the Bitterroot 

valley and on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 

Federal birds of Species State species of concern1 Recorded using the refuge3 

conservation concern2 

Sage thrasher X X X 

Le Conte’s sparrow X — X 

Bobolink4 X — X 

Fringed myotis X n/a X 

Townsend’s big-eared bat X n/a X 

Hoary bat4 X n/a X 

Bull trout5 X n/a — 

Boreal bluet X n/a X 

Boreal whiteface X n/a X 

Shining flatsedge X n/a X 

Guadalupe water-nymph X n/a X 

1 Source: Montana Natural Heritage Program 2012. 4

 Proposed target species for refuge management. 2 Source: USFWS 2008. 5 Listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act as threatened. 3 Source: unpublished refuge data, includes casual sightings. 

58 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

3.4 Cultural Resources and 

History 

The following section describes the cultural resources 

and history of the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley, 

starting with the earliest documented occupation by 

Native Americans circa 12–15,000 years before present 

(B.P.). It then discusses Euro-American settlement in 

the valley and changes to the area’s land uses, including those within the refuge boundary. 

PREHiSToRiC oCCUPATion 

The cultural sequence for prehistoric occupation in 

this area is split into three major subdivisions based 

on Malouf (1956) including Early Hunter (10,000 to 

6,000 before Christ [B.C.]), Middle Period (6,000 B.C. 

to Anno Domini [A.D.] 800), and Late Hunter (A.D. 

800 to 1870). 

Early Hunter 

Woodside (2008) examined oral histories and other 

documentation to propose the presence of Paleo-Indians in Oregon and Washington before the flooding of 

Glacial Lake Missoula. Paleo-Indians, or Paleoamericans, is a classification term given to the first peoples 

who entered, and subsequently inhabited, the North 

American continent during the final glacial episodes 

of the late Pleistocene period. Woodside examined the 

Native American oral history of tribes in Oregon and 

Washington that described the cataclysmic flooding 

of Glacial Lake Missoula and how the tribes survived 

this event, dating about 15,000 years ago. Her research did cover other areas impacted by Glacial Lake 

Missoula, including the refuge. Ryan (1977) recovered 

two Cascade Points (projectiles) while performing 

archaeological research along the Clark Fork River 

west of Missoula. These points are indicative of this 

period and definitive evidence of Paleo-Indian presence. Ryan hypothesized that the Clark Fork Valley 

was an important corridor connecting the Columbian 

Plateau and the Northern Plains. Ryan also found an 

abundance of sites containing prehistoric activity. 

Alternately, Ward (1973) found a small number of archaeological sites in the Bitterroot Valley; many were 

pictographs only and not considered evidence of this 

period, nor did they date to this period of time. 

middle Period 

Glacial Lake Missoula receded about 12,000 B.P., according to Alt (2001). Eventually native people occupied the new valleys formed by this event. Ward 

(1973) searched the Bitterroot Valley for middle prehistoric evidence of occupation. She found 19 sites no 

older than 5,000 B.P. None contained the traditional 

pottery, roasting pits, tipi rings, battle pits, rock piles, 

or fishing gear associated with this time period. Many 

had pictographs, which connect site occupation to the 

middle period. Ward refers to other work including 

that done in 1951 by Carling Malouf and his University 

of Montana archaeology class who found jasper and 

flint chips at the mouth of the North Burnt Fork Creek 

(a small occupation site on the refuge) (Malouf 1952). 

late Hunter 

Malouf (1952) notes that in A.D. 1730 the Shoshoni 

of Idaho gave horses to the Salish of this area. This 

significantly changed the culture of the Salish people. 

Malouf stated that the Salish have occupied western 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 59 

Montana for several centuries dating back at least A.D. 

1700. He cites tribal myths of animals that occupied 

this area, specifically coyote, beaver, otter, jay, and owl. 

Protohistoric and Early native Americans 

The protohistoric period is the period of time between the arrival of horses and manufactured goods 

but before the arrival of Euro-American traders and 

explorers. This time period lasted only about 70 years 

due to the arrival of the Lewis and Clark expedition 

in 1805. Malouf (1952) noted that these intermountain 

areas of western Montana were the last areas of the 

United States to be settled by whites. Many traits of 

aboriginal times survived through this period without 

influence from Euro-American culture. 

When early Euro-American explorers arrived, the 

area of western Montana was occupied primarily by 

three tribal groups: the Flathead and Pend d’Oreille 

(both considered Salish) and the Kutenai. In 1855, 

Governor Isaac Stevens stated the tribal population 

in western Montana to be 2,750 (Ryan 1977). In an 

unpublished University of Montana paper, Malouf 

(1952) reconstructed economy and land use by these 

tribes in western Montana using ethnographical and 

historical data. 

All tribes were hunters and gatherers, and as such 

they did not allow for the accumulation of surplus food 

and supplies. However, famines were rare. Approximately 28 species of plants were the main sources of 

foods, medicines, cookware, and housing. The root of 

the bitterroot plant was a central dietary feature. One 

of the best places to dig the root was a mere 3 miles 

north of the refuge boundary at the mouth of Eight 

Mile Creek. Families could dig 50–70 pounds of bitterroot in late March or April. Arrowleaf balsamroot, an 

abundant plant in most elevations of western Montana, 

was also extensively eaten. Stems were typically peeled 

and eaten raw before flowering, and later roots were 

harvested and cooked. Ponderosa pine provided four 

forms of food: inner bark, sap between woody layers, 

cone nuts, and moss hanging from branches. Narrow 

leaf willow, a pioneer species on river gravel bars, was 

used in the construction of sweat lodges and baskets 

for cooking (sealed with gum). Most of the common 

mammals present today in western Montana were 

hunted including white-tailed deer and mule deer. 

Columbian ground squirrel, which is still abundant in 

places on the refuge, was also harvested. Woodchuck 

Creek, about 5 miles north of the refuge, was a site 

where Salish regularly used dead fall traps to harvest 

marmots. Most birds were not harvested except waterfowl, yet mallard eggs were particularly plentiful 

and popular. Other gamebirds were not numerous. 

Fishing was employed on bison hunts and by those 

left behind when these bison hunt parties were gone. 

The place name for Missoula refers to the bull trout 

caught there. 

The vicinity of Stevensville was the center of social 

and economic life for the Salish. Most tributaries in the 

Bitterroot Valley had one or more families inhabiting 

it. The alluvial fan at the mouth of North Burnt Fork 

Creek (partially on refuge property) was also home 

for a considerable number of Salish families. JoAnn 

BigCrane, a Native American historian, visited this 

part of the refuge in August 1990 (refuge annual narrative) and agreed that a seasonal encampment was 

here at one time. North Burnt Fork Creek doubled 

as a highway of sorts for Native American travel to 

the Clark Fork Valley over the Sapphire/Rock Creek 

divide. This was the shortest route requiring only one 

night of camping. 

HiSToRy oF THE SAliSH 

The Salish–Pend d’Oreille Culture Committee furnished the following narrative for use on the Lee 

Metcalf Refuge Web site. 

The Bitterroot Mountain range is the backbone 

of the valley. The Salish call the Bitterroot 

Mountains “VCk Welk Welqey” which means 

“the tops are red.” The life way of the Salish 

people is a cooperative dependent relationship 

with the land, plants, and animals. 

Salish is the name of a group of people, consisting of several tribes, and the language they 

spoke. The Bitterroot Valley was the permanent 

home of their forefathers. The Stevensville 

vicinity was their main winter camp. 

After the Hellgate Treaty of 1855, pressure 

increased for the removal of the Salish from the 

Bitterroot to the Jocko Valley on the Flathead 

Reservation. In 1872, General James Garfield 

presented the three Salish Chiefs Charlo, 

Arlee, and Adolf, with a second treaty which 

Charlo refused to sign. Charlo remained in the 

Bitterroot for 20 more years until he and his 

band were escorted from the valley by General Carrington in October 1891. 

The respect and love for the Bitterroot can 

be summed up in the words of Louise Vanderburg, a Salish elder: 

“When we go home I think about our old people. 

I walk lightly when I walk around. The bones 

of my Grandparents and their Grandparents 

are all around here. We return to the Bitterroot each year on a Pilgramage to honor our 

connection with our homeland. Also to ensure 

the preservation of our ancestors’ graves and 

sacred sites. In doing so we acknowledge the 

gifts left here by those who have gone on before 

us, gifts of language, songs, dance, spirituality. This way of life has been sustained for 

generations by our ancestors’ prayers.” 
60 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

EURo-AmERiCAn SETTlEmEnT And lAnd USE 

CHAngES 

The Bitterroot Valley was used by the first Euro-American explorers to the western United States, including 

Lewis and Clark. Following the Lewis and Clark expedition, fur traders from the Hudson’s Bay Company 

entered the Bitterroot Valley to secure furs from the 

Indians and establish forts and missions. The oldest 

consistently occupied town in Montana was initially 

established at the present day site of Stevensville by 

Catholic missionaries in 1841 (Stevensville Historical 

Society 1971). At the request of four separate Indian 

delegations from the Salish tribe, Father Pierre De 

Smet came to the valley from St. Louis in the late 

1830s. De Smet and other priests were eventually 

joined by Father Anthony Ravalli in 1845. Named 

St. Mary’s Mission, this community kindled additional 

settlement in the region. St. Mary’s Mission was closed 

in 1850, and the community was renamed Fort Owen, 

and then later Stevensville, after Isaac Stevens, the 

first Governor of the Montana territory. 

The primary early land use by settlers in the Bitterroot Valley was cattle grazing. By 1841 extensive 

areas of the valley were grazed and used for winter 

range as cattle were moved from summer grazing and 

calving locations in mountain slopes and foothills back 

into the valley in the fall (Clary et al. 2005). 

In the mid-1850s, the discovery of gold in western 

Montana fueled immigration to the State, and a short 

flurry of gold exploration and mining occurred in the 

Bitterroot Valley. Early workers in the gold camps 

subsisted on wild meat and the importation of produce, 

meat, and dairy products. At this time some residents 

began growing vegetable crops to feed the miners, and 

this demand stimulated the first agricultural development in the Bitterroot Valley. Subsequently, the Bitterroot Valley became the “breadbasket” that nourished 

Montana’s genesis, and Fort Owen was the nucleus of 

the first Euro-American settlement. Gold exploration 

was short-lived in the Bitterroot region, and by the 

1870s the area’s economy was almost solely based on 

local agricultural crops and cattle production. Ravalli 

County was created in 1893, and by 1914 extensive 

settlement had occurred in the region. Timber harvest 

and grazing were the predominant economic uses of 

the area at that time (Clary et al. 2005). 

The dry climate of the Bitterroot Valley created 

annual variation in the availability of water to support agricultural crops. As early as 1842, priests at 

St. Mary’s Mission successfully planted and irrigated 

crops of wheat, potatoes, and oats (Stevensville Historical Society 1971), and thus by appropriation, the 

first water right in Montana was established. A water 

right on the North Burnt Fork Creek was filed in 1852 

by Major John Owen, who used creek water to run a 

grist mill and sawmill. 

Two methods of water appropriation occur in Montana. The first—used by early settlers, miners, and 

mill operators—applies the “relation back” rule of 

law, meaning that the right is dated to the beginning 

of construction of a ditch or a means to use the water 

in a so-called “beneficial” way. The second method involves posting a POD on a creek or other drainage and 

filing notices in the courthouse. A stream inevitably 

becomes over-appropriated when many people and 

industries make demands on it. Over-appropriation 

usually ends in “quick frozen” or “decreed” action, 

and adjudication of a stream becomes necessary when 

rights are conflicting. 

In the early 1900s, the Bitterroot Valley Irrigation 

Company (formerly the Dinsmore Irrigation and Development Company) began construction of a major 

irrigation system for the Bitterroot Valley (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1939, 1982; Stevensville Historical 

Society 1971). This system included water storage and 

conveyance facilities along the Bitterroot River and 

its tributaries as well as several reservoirs, including 

Lake Como west of Darby, and a diversion dam on Rock 

Creek. In 1905 the existing dam at Lake Como was 

raised 50 feet, and by the winter of 1906, 17 miles of 

canals were built to convey Lake Como water northward in the Bitterroot Valley. Eventually, a channel 

was built from Lake Como to the Bitterroot River, at 

which point it was reverse siphoned into a 24-foot-wide 

canal, capable of carrying water 6 feet deep. Water 

was then flumed across several small gulches, across 

Sleeping Child Valley, and around the foothills for 75 

miles to the Eight Mile Creek east of Florence. By 

1909, 56 miles of canal had been built northward to 

North Burnt Fork Creek. Subsequently about 14,000 

acres of cropland were sold, and irrigation water was 

delivered to the acreage. The company’s Main Supply 

Canal (known as the “Big Ditch”) was originally constructed to primarily deliver water to apple orchards. 

The canal, however, was only able to supply about half 

an inch of water per acre, which was barely enough 

to support fruit trees and only about half enough for 

other crops. The land was bought by local farmers and 

then re-sold in promotional schemes to eastern families 

for mainly apple production. Limited water and poor 

yields collapsed orchard production, and by 1918 the 

Bitterroot Valley Irrigation Company went bankrupt. 

In 1920, a reorganized Bitterroot Irrigation District was formed, and it issued bonds to purchase 

water rights and to develop water storage and distribution works. Drought conditions in the late 1920s 

and 1930s coupled with the Depression-era economics 

further exacerbated water problems in the valley and 

curtailed agricultural expansion in the region during 

this period (Cappious 1939, Stevensville Historical 

Society 1971). Following further financial difficulty, 

in 1930 Congress authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to liquidate private indebtedness and rehabilitate 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 61 

the Bitterroot Irrigation District (U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation 1939). Extensive rehabilitation to the 

district’s Main Supply Canal and its distribution system was conducted from 1963 to 1967. Flood damage 

occurred in 1974, and extensive repairs were made 

on many structures. Currently the Bitterroot Irrigation District provides water to about 16,665 acres on 

the east side of the Bitterroot River (U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation 1982). 

Today, the Bitterroot Irrigation District’s Main 

Supply Canal runs 1 mile east of the Lee Metcalf Refuge; however, it does not supply water to the refuge. 

Instead, irrigation water is supplied by the Supply 

Ditch Association, a private company formed in 1909. 

The association’s Supply Ditch delivers Bitterroot 

River water to the refuge via three lateral ditches: the 

North Lateral Ditch (also called the Alleman Ditch), 

the Middle Lateral Ditch (also called the McElhaney 

Ditch), and the South Lateral Ditch (also called the 

Warburton Ditch) (figure 21). 

Most of the Bitterroot Valley was unfenced in the 

early era of settlement from 1850 to 1910. However, in 

the early 1900s, the “apple boomers” who bought land 

in the valley began fencing most of the area. By the 

mid-1930s, more than 50,000 sheep and 30,000 cattle 

were present in the Bitterroot Valley; only about 22 

percent of the valley was harvested cropland (Richey 

1998). In the late 1940s and early 1950s generally wet 

conditions stimulated agricultural production in the 

Bitterroot Valley. Large-scale cattle grazing and haying operations and some small grain farming were 

conducted in and near the Lee Metcalf Refuge. Some 

native riparian forest and grassland in the Lee Metcalf 

Refuge region had been cut, cleared, or converted to 

alternate land uses by the mid-1900s. Two of the larger 

minor floodplain channels, Nickerson and McPherson 

Creeks (now called Ditches), were partly ditched in 

the early 1900s, and some minor impoundment of low 

elevation depressions and drainages occurred. By the 

1960s, lands that became part of the refuge were controlled by about 13 landowners who heavily cropped 

and grazed the area. Much of the site was irrigated 

crop and pastureland using the extensive ditch and 

irrigation diversion system constructed across the 

floodplain (figure 21). These impounded ponds probably 

were created as water sources for livestock. Another 

development—a golf course—was established in 1933 

within the southwest side of what became the refuge. 

It still exists today. 

Many roads have been built in the Bitterroot Valley 

starting with a stage coach road in 1867 (Stevensville 

Historical Society 1971). This route eventually became 

Highway 93. Part of the main county road through the 

refuge follows the existing road shown on the 1873 plat 

map. Other early roads in the area were constructed 

from 1870 to 1900. These roads skirted higher ground 

and avoided the river, but eventually bridges were 

built across the Bitterroot River beginning in the late 

1800s. These bridges were often destroyed by high 

water levels and floods. 

The Bitterroot Branch of the Northern Pacific Railroad was constructed from Missoula to Grantsdale in 

1889 and soon thereafter was extended to Darby. This 

rail line was built primarily to transport timber from 

the slopes of the Bitterroot Mountains and sawmills 

that sprang up all along the west side of the valley. Rail 

spurs connected mills, and eventually logging and mills 

expanded to the east side of the valley. Transporting 

lumber from the east side of the valley eventually led 

to the construction of rail bridge crossings over the 

Bitterroot River including the bridge and line at the 

northern boundary of the Lee Metcalf Refuge. In the 

high waters of June 1943, this bridge collapsed under 

the weight of a train loaded with logs. In 1927 and 1928, 

the railroad was relocated from south of Florence to 

the east side of the river. 

By the late 1970s, farm sizes in the Bitterroot 

Valley increased greatly, but agricultural economies 

prevented more extensive small grain farming in the 

valley and landowners began subdividing holdings for 

residential development (Richey 1998). By the early 

1990s, Ravalli County had the fastest growing population and residential expansion in Montana, expanding from about 25,000 residents in 1990 to more than 

40,000 in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Today, most 

Ravalli County residents live on the Bitterroot Valley floor within a few miles of the river. Much of the 

increase in population occurred outside of established 

towns and became concentrated in areas where each 

dwelling or subdivision has its own well and septic 

system. Several hundred residential structures now 

essentially surround Lee Metcalf Refuge (figure 22). 

Whaley Homestead (national Register of Historic 

Places) 

The Whaley Homestead, which was included as part 

of a major land acquisition by the refuge in 1988, is 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

The Whaley Homestead was home to the family of 

Peter Whaley, an Irish immigrant who came to Montana in the 1860s, lured by gold strikes at Bannack and 

Alder Gulch. Whaley’s wife, Hannah, and their nine 

children shared his adventures, including his service 

as the first agent on the Flathead Reservation, until 

the family settled on deserted land claimed in 1877. 

The house, built circa 1885, survives as an outstanding 

example of vernacular frontier architecture. Weatherboard siding conceals a massive, complicated understructure of square-hewn logs. 

The Whaley family farmed and raised livestock 

until 1905 when they sold the property to a shortlived horse breeding operation. At the height of the 

“apple boom” in 1909, the Bitterroot Valley Irrigation Company purchased the homestead, planting the 
62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Figure 21. Proposed land use and drainage and irrigation infrastructure on lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, 

montana, in the 1960s (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 63
 

Figure 22. locations of structures near lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 
64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

upper fields with McIntosh apple trees and gooseberry 

bushes for nursery stock. 

In 1921 new owners Fred and Anna Hagen returned 

the homestead to a self-sufficient farm, raising corn, 

potatoes, hogs, and dairy cows. After more than 50 

years of farming, they sold the land to the refuge and 

their son, Harold, and his wife remained there until 

1988. During the 1979 ceremony renaming the refuge 

in Senator Lee Metcalf’s honor, Harold Hagen waxed 

philosophical of the agricultural practices on the family farm that became refuge property: “I believe that 

we have attempted to mold the land to our ideas, to 

what it should produce when the land should have 

shaped our ideas and dictated to us what it could best 

produce” (refuge files). 

3.5 Special management 

Areas 

Areas with official designations are managed to retain 

the special features that led to their designation. While 

not suitable for inclusion in the Wilderness System, the 

Lee Metcalf Refuge has been identified as a significant 

part of the Bitterroot River Important Bird Area. 

WildERnESS REviEW 

A wilderness review is the process used for determining whether to recommend Service lands or waters to 

Congress for designation as wilderness. The Service 

is required to conduct a wilderness review for each 

refuge as part of the CCP process. Lands or waters 

that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness would 

be identified in a CCP and further evaluated to determine whether they merit recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System. To be designated as 

wilderness, land must meet certain criteria as outlined 

in the Wilderness Act of 1964: 

■■ generally appears to have been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature, with the imprint of human 

work substantially unnoticeable 

■■ has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation 

■■ has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient 

size to make practicable its preservation and use 

in an unimpaired condition 

■■ may also contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value 

The refuge is only 2,800 acres and is altered by roads, 

ditches and levees. The refuge is also bordered by 

private land that has been developed for agriculture 

or housing. Although the refuge does provide visitors with opportunities for solitude and educational 

and scenic value, overall the refuge does not meet the 

criteria for wilderness designation and is not being 

recommended for inclusion in the Wilderness System. 

imPoRTAnT BiRd AREA 

The Important Bird Areas program, initiated in Montana in 1999, is a global effort managed by the National 

Audubon Society to identify and conserve areas vital 

to birds and biodiversity. To date 39 sites have been 

designated as important bird areas in Montana, encompassing more than 10 million acres of outstanding 

wildlife habitat, including streams and wetlands. To 

qualify as an important bird area, sites must satisfy 

at least one of the following criteria to support the 

following types of bird species groups: 

■■ species of conservation concern (for example, 

threatened and endangered species) 

■■ restricted-range species (species vulnerable because they are not widely distributed) 

■■ species that are vulnerable because their populations are concentrated in one general habitat type 

or biome 

■■ species or groups of similar species (such as waterfowl or shorebirds) that are vulnerable because 

they occur at high densities due to their behavior 

of congregating in groups 

Lee Metcalf Refuge is part of the Bitterroot River 

Important Bird Area, one of the largest riparian and 

wetland important bird areas in the State, and part 

of an important bird area network crucial for bird 

survival throughout the year. The boundaries of the 

entire Bitterroot River Important Bird Area were 

made to correspond closely to the 500-year floodplain, 

and the northern and southern extent of the area was 

decided based on wanting to capture the most extensive cottonwood gallery forest that was present. Lee 

Metcalf Refuge is a cornerstone of the Bitterroot 

River Important Bird Area. From the cottonwood 

galleries to willow shrubland, extensive wetlands, 

and valley bottom coniferous forests patches, all key 

valley habitats come together on this refuge to provide great bird species richness. The important bird 

area documentation notes that more than 30 species 

of waterfowl, 20 species of shorebirds, and 20 species 

of riparian-dependent bird species, plus marshbirds, 

terns, and gulls are found on the refuge. 

3.6 visitor Services 

Visitors to the Lee Metcalf Refuge enjoy a variety of 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use activities: 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 65 

The Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge office and 

visitor contact area are open Monday–Saturday, 8:00 

a.m.–4:30 p.m. The remaining areas open to the public can be accessed from dawn to dusk, except during 

hunting season when hunters are allowed reasonable 

time to access hunting areas. Brochures containing 

area maps, public use regulations, wildlife checklists, 

and general information are available to the public at 

the visitor contact area or the WVA kiosk. 

Members of the Audubon Society spot birds at the refuge. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

HUnTing And FiSHing 

The refuge is open to waterfowl hunting and archeryonly hunting for white-tailed deer, both of which have 

occurred on the refuge since 1965 (USFWS 1966, refuge narratives). 

A refuge hunting and fishing brochure was developed and printed in 2010. In addition to the site-specific 

regulations mentioned in the hunting brochure, all 

State of Montana hunting regulations apply to Service 

lands. All entry to refuge hunting areas is restricted 

to five specific parking areas, and all hunter parking 

areas have sign-in boxes to collect harvest data. A kiosk in the parking lot for the waterfowl hunting area 

provides refuge-specific waterfowl hunting regulations and information. 

White-Tailed deer Archery Hunting 

The refuge is located in a State hunting district that 

only permits white-tailed deer to be harvested using 

a bow, also known as archery hunting. The earliest 

reference to archery hunting for deer on the refuge is 

found in the “Wildlife Inventory Plan” (USFWS 1966), 

which states that controlled archery hunts were taking place on the refuge but only in the river bottom. 

Today, 82 percent of the refuge (2,275 acres) land is 

open to archery hunting for deer. Hunters sign in at 

each of the five parking and access sites and may use 

tree stands. Hunters must walk to designated hunting areas from these access sites. Archery hunting in 

the waterfowl hunt area (see restricted archery deer 

hunting area in figure 23) is permitted in September 

except during the youth waterfowl hunt weekend; 

thereafter, archery hunting is permitted during waterfowl hunting season on Mondays and Thursdays. An 

average of 949 archery visits have occurred annually 

between 2005 and 2010 (refuge unpublished data), and 

the trend is moving upward. The highest documented 

usage was in the 2009–2010 season at 1,321 hunt visits. 

An analysis of harvest data collected between 2000 

and 2009 revealed an average of 891 visits annually 

totaling 2,318 hours and resulting in an average harvest of 32 deer per year. 

In 1966, the population of white-tailed deer was 

“about 10 head” (USFWS 1966). In the 1980s, refuge 

staff began to observe that parts of the refuge were 

being overbrowsed, resulting in fewer shrubs and 

little understory in forested areas, both of which are 

important habitat components for a variety of migratory bird species. It is suspected that the larger 

number of deer (100–300 deer between 2001 and 2005) 

(unpublished refuge data) residing on the refuge today may be the cause; however, additional data will 

be needed to make this determination. 

Waterfowl Hunting 

The size of the waterfowl hunting area has remained 

fairly consistent at 654 acres. In 1983 the refuge established 28 hunting blinds within this area. Today 

14 blinds remain and 2 blinds (numbers 2 and 7) are 

reserved for hunters with Montana disability licenses. 

Hunters with disabilities are allowed to park near 

these blinds along Wildfowl Lane. All other hunters 

must enter and exit on foot through the waterfowl 

hunt area parking lot. Waterfowl hunters may only 

possess and use nontoxic shot on refuge lands and 

waters when hunting waterfowl. From 2005 to 2010, 

an average of 1,029 waterfowl hunting visits occurred 

annually. Between 2000 and 2009, the average waterfowl harvest was 786 birds per year from an average 

of 1,299 annual hunt visits totaling 4,111 hours. Refuge 

staff meet with duck hunters each year to discuss the 

upcoming season and address issues to improve the 

quality of the hunt. 

Fishing 

Refuge anglers must adhere to the fishing regulations 

designated by MFWP. Designated fishing sites are 

located in the WVA (figure 23) and include Francois 

Slough and the Bitterroot River shoreline. A fishing 

platform is located along the paved portion of the WVA 

nature trail at a water control structure that moves 

water from Francois Slough to the Bitterroot River. 

The area where Francois Slough intersects the Bitterroot River provides shallow water habitat with a 

solid gravel bottom that is used for fly fishing. 

There are no boat launches within the refuge. However, people can float and fish the part of the Bitterroot River that passes through the refuge, but they 

must remain below the high watermark and must not 

access the refuge from the river. 
66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Figure 23. Public use map for lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 67 

It is difficult to obtain an accurate count on the 

number of anglers. In recent years fishing seems to 

be less popular within the WVA and Francois Slough. 

Painted turtles can be found along refuge ponds. 

© Kimi Smith 

WildliFE oBSERvATion And PHoTogRAPHy 

Opportunities for wildlife observation and photography are located at or along the following places: (1) 

the WVA; (2) visitor contact area (3) Kenai Nature 

Trail; and (4) Wildfowl Lane, a county road that runs 

through the refuge (figure 23). Visitors must follow 

refuge regulations to protect wildlife and their habitats while enjoying the opportunity to view and photograph them. 

Commercial filmmakers must acquire a special 

use permit to work on the refuge. Commercial photographers need a permit if they are granted access 

to areas not normally opened to the general public. 

The permit specifies regulations and conditions that 

the permittee must follow to protect the wildlife and 

habitats they have come to capture on film. 

Wildlife viewing Area 

The WVA is about 188 acres and has a trail 2.5 miles 

long (figure 23). The trail passes through different 

vegetation communities, specifically riverfront and 

gallery forest and persistent emergent wetland. This 

trail is designated as a National Recreation Trail. The 

first 0.55 mile of the trail is a 10-foot-wide paved path 

that is considered accessible for visitors with disabilities. This paved section of trail starts immediately 

at the trailhead, located at a large parking area, and 

ends at a turn-around point at the refuge’s shelter at 

the edge of the Bitterroot River. Other sections of 

the trail are soil or gravel. Facilities at the trailhead 

include an information kiosk and restroom facilities 

(“porta-potties”). This area is open year-round from 

dawn to dusk and is probably the most popular area 

with refuge visitors. Parking at the trailhead is very 

spacious; motorhomes or buses can easily enter and 

exit. Dogs on leashes are allowed here but not bicycles or horses. 

visitor Contact Area and the Kenai nature Trail land Visitors are provided a spotting scope to view waterfowl and other waterbirds and raptors on the ponds 

next to the visitor contact area. This is one of the most 

popular wildlife observation and photography sites for 

visitors, including school groups. The visitor contact 

area is just over 500 square feet and provides some 

interpretation of refuge resources, including numerous taxidermy displays of local wildlife species. 

The Kenai Nature Trail is a 1.25-mile trail accessed 

just north of the refuge headquarters (figure 23). At 

the start of this trail is a 0.25-mile paved loop that is 5 

feet wide. This part of the trail meets Americans with 

Disabilities Act guidelines. A stationary, all-weather 

spotting scope and viewing bench are also along this 

section of trail. The remaining trail is a soil and gravel 

footpath that tracks northward, above and parallel to 

the eastern shorelines of Ponds 8 and 10 (figure 23). 

The views of the Bitterroot Mountains are spectacular 

between this point and the end of the trail, where a 

viewing platform with an all-weather spotting scope 

is available. This part of the trail travels through a 

closed area, so visitors are not permitted off this trail 

and no dogs are allowed. 

Two permanent photo blinds are located along 

the Kenai Nature Trail. Blind 1 is located one-third 

of a mile from the visitor contact area on Pond 8; it 

sits on the edge of 5 acres of open water and marsh 

land and is sheltered to the east by cottonwood, aspen and alder trees. Blind 2 is located 1.25 miles from 

the visitor contact area on approximately 85 acres of 

open water on Pond 10. These blinds are positioned 

on the edge of two different wetlands and face open 

water. Photographers who have regularly contributed 

photos and volunteer time to the refuge helped determine the design, construction, and placement of these 

photo blinds. Photographers are gently reminded that 

subjects and habitats are more important than photographs; nevertheless, there is always the potential 

to disturb wildlife. 

The Kenai Nature Trail traverses the following 

vegetation communities: persistent emergent wet­

, floodplain and terrace grassland, and grasslandsagebrush. The plant communities and views differ 

from those in the WVA, offering visitors a different 

wildlife viewing experience. 

Wildfowl lane 

Wildfowl Lane (figure 24) is a Ravalli County road 

that travels almost 3 miles through the southern half 

of the refuge. This road loops through the refuge and 

connects at both ends to Eastside Highway. It is not 

an official auto tour route, but all refuge visitors use 

this road to access the refuge and view wildlife in the 

adjoining lands and wetland impoundments. Most of 

the road is gravel, but the southern third is tar and 

chip pavement, and the first 3,200 feet of the east end is 

coated with recycled asphalt chipping. Ravalli County 
68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

is attempting to make the road more maintenance-free 

so that it requires less summer blading and fewer applications of anti-dust chemical. 

A superior feature of this road is the width—greater 

than 33 feet—so motorists can safely pull over and 

view wildlife. Automobiles make great wildlife viewing 

blinds, and with modern optics visitors can easily see 

wildlife from the road, causing minimal disturbance. 

The refuge provides environmental education and 

research opportunities for students from surrounding 

schools and universities. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

EnviRonmEnTAl EdUCATion 

Environmental education is a process designed to teach 

citizens and other visitors the history and importance 

of conservation and share scientific knowledge of our 

Nation’s natural resources. Through this process, we 

can help develop a citizenry with the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation, and commitment to 

work cooperatively towards the conservation of our 

Nation’s environmental resources. Environmental 

education within the Refuge System incorporates onsite, offsite, and distance learning materials, activities, 

programs, and products that address the audience’s 

course of study, refuge purposes, physical attributes, 

ecosystem dynamics, conservation strategies, and the 

Refuge System mission. The refuge headquarters has 

a conference room (the Okefenokee Room) that can 

be used for larger groups. There is an amphitheater 

and an environmental education shelter for refuge 

programs and three public restrooms, all within the 

footprint of the refuge headquarters. 

Schools 

On average, the refuge hosts 2,309 students annually. 

Students come from communities as far as Darby to 

the south and Ronan to the north. Most students are 

from grades 3 through 5. Most visits occur during May 

and are usually restricted to one visit per year. Since 

2005, the philosophy of the environmental education 

program has centered on introducing students to common, native wildlife of the refuge. The refuge does not 

have a dedicated or formal curriculum for student visits. There is no visitor services plan, but one will be 

produced following the completion of this CCP. 

Most onsite environmental education programs 

take place in the area immediately around the refuge 

headquarters due to the availability of ample parking, 

the Okefenokee Room, visitor contact area, restrooms, 

the environmental education shelter and amphitheater, habitat diversity, and the Kenai Nature Trail. 

This infrastructure gives staff opportunities and flexibility for providing quality environmental education. 

The Okefenokee Room is especially valuable because 

of its multimedia capabilities; it functions much like 

a formal classroom space. Environmental education 

partner organizations and self-guided teachers and 

school groups also use the WVA. A diverse supply of 

materials and equipment, including a refuge reference 

library, is available for these spaces for use in refuge 

programs or for visiting teachers and students. 

onsite Educators 

The refuge outdoor recreation planner is the only 

staff position dedicated to environmental education. 

However, all refuge staff participate in environmental education activities when possible. Volunteers also 

assist with programs and staffing the visitor contact 

area. Many of these volunteers are self-taught, but 

the refuge works with volunteers in both formal and 

non-formal learning settings to augment their wildlife 

knowledge and associated skills. Without assistance 

from volunteers and partner organizations, the refuge could not accommodate the often large groups of 

students or visitors requesting environmental education programs. Nevertheless, there are requests that 

cannot be met due to a lack of staff. The refuge has 

been investigating the possibility of recruiting skilled 

naturalists as volunteers at the refuge. 

Teacher Workshops 

Teacher workshops were offered many years during the 1990s and in 2006. In 2006 the workshop was 

based on the “Flying Wild Educator’s Guide.” The 

goal of these teacher workshops is to build teachers’ 

wildlife knowledge so they may appreciate and use 

the refuge appropriately for student learning and 

become self-directed when using the refuge for environmental education. 

off-Refuge Efforts 

Refuge staff have visited local schools and attended 

community organization meetings to perform environmental education, interpretation, and outreach using 

established education kits and programs highlighting 

refuge resources. 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 69
 

Figure 24. Roads in lee metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, montana, including Service roads proposed for removal. 
70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Attendees of the 2011 Montana Junior Duck Stamp 


Award Ceremony gather at the refuge amphitheater.
 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

montana Junior duck Stamp Program 

The refuge outdoor recreation planner is also the 

State coordinator for the Montana Junior Duck Stamp 

program. Both Houses of Congress passed H.R. 3679, 

the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Act 

in 1994. This is a national program managed by the 

Service. Its goals are to connect children with nature 

through science and art. 

A national curriculum is available but is currently 

being updated. Students are asked to depict a North 

American duck, goose, or swan in its natural habitat. 

At the State level, the artwork is then judged by a 

distinguished panel of local wildlife experts, artists and 

photographers and the entry deemed “best of show” 

is sent to Washington, DC to compete at the national 

level. The winner from the Federal competition is then 

made into the Federal Junior Duck Stamp, available 

for purchase for $5. All proceeds from the sale of the 

Federal Junior Duck Stamps support conservation 

education. Awards include savings bonds, art supplies, 

and various other gifts. 

Nationally, about 25,000 entries are received per 

year. In Montana, the average annual number of participants in kindergarten through grade 12 is 391 

(2000–2010, refuge files). A Montana entry has won 

the national championship twice between 1994 and 

2010. Montana’s best of shows have finished in the 

national top ten in 2009 and 2010, a sign of continued 

excellence by Montana students. 

For program support within Montana, two trunks 

have been developed that contain a variety of waterfowl reference materials; these trunks can be loaned 

to schools. A portable exhibit showcases the program 

and winning entries and is sent to libraries, schools and 

post offices around the state. A detailed overview of 

the program is available at www.fws.gov/juniorduck. 

inTERPRETATion 

Interpretation provides opportunities for visitors to 

make their own connections to resources. By providing 

opportunities to connect to the resource, interpretation provokes participation in resource stewardship. 

It helps refuge visitors understand their relationships 

to, and impacts on, those resources. Well-designed interpretive programs can be effective resource management tools. For many visitors, taking part in an 

interpretive program may be their primary contact 

with a refuge, the Refuge System, and the Service. 

It is their chance to learn about refuge resource management objectives and could be their first contact 

with conservation and wildlife. Through such contact, 

the Service has the opportunity to influence visitor 

attitudes about natural resources, refuges, the Refuge System, and the Service and to influence visitor 

behavior when visiting units of the Refuge System. 

Brochures 

Refuge brochures contain area maps, public use regulations, and general information. The current refuge 

brochures are available at the refuge headquarters 

and at the main kiosk of the WVA. 

Most of the public brochures have not been updated 

to meet Service standards, with the exception of the 

new hunting and fishing brochure. Brochures that require updating include the general brochure and the 

wildlife checklist for Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

Kiosks 

There are five kiosks on the refuge that are used to 

interpret refuge resources and provide information to 

visitors including maps and refuge regulations. The 

kiosk at the WVA has three interpretive panels displaying a location map, general refuge information, 

wetland facts, and information on habitat management 

techniques. There is a kiosk at each of the entrance 

points on both the south and east end of Wildfowl 

Lane that primarily highlight information about the 

Refuge System. At the start of the Kenai Nature Trail 

there is a small interpretive kiosk primarily used to 

distribute refuge brochures (figure 23). There is also 

a kiosk in the waterfowl hunting area that provides 

updated hunting regulations. 

visitor Contact Area 

The refuge has a 513-square-foot visitor contact area 

that provides a small library of books, natural history 

displays (including representations of refuge wildlife), 

interpretive displays, other environmental education 

materials, a small bookstore, and a large screen television. There are many interpretive displays on local 

plant and animal life. The information is updated based 

on the season or changing refuge activities. The refuge 

also has a Web site that provides information about 

resources, programs, and regulations. 

media 

The refuge has a Web site (http://leemetcalf.fws.gov), 

blog, and social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, and 

Flickr) that provide up-to-date information about 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 71 

refuge resources, programs, upcoming activities, and 

refuge regulations. Refuge staff provide the three local newspapers with periodic news articles on refuge 

activities and events and informative articles on the 

natural resources found throughout the refuge. 

3.7 management Tools 

In recent years, the Service has manipulated habitat 

using various management tools that are carried out 

under specific, prescribed conditions to meet the needs 

of wildlife. These management tools have included water level manipulation, prescribed burning, and prescriptive grazing or mowing, and cooperative farming. 

WATER lEvEl mAniPUlATion 

The refuge manipulates the water levels in 17 wetland 

impoundments that provide approximately 800 acres 

of open water and mudflats for migratory waterbirds. 

The development of these wetland impoundments began in 1964 when levees and berms were constructed 

to capture and impound water. Water control structures were added to control the inflow and outflow of 

water in attempt to mimic wetland cycles. Water levels 

continue to be timed to the needs of wildlife and the 

season. For example, during the migrating shorebird 

season, water levels are lowered to create mudflats. 

For migratory and breeding waterfowl, water levels 

are raised slowly to create optimum foraging conditions and to provide for brood and roosting habitat. 

Wetland impoundments are occasionally drained to 

improve the health and productivity of these impoundments for waterbirds. This also allows the opportunity to reduce cattail monocultures, thereby restoring 

open water areas. 

PRESCRiBEd BURning 

Prescribed burning is a management tool that has 

been used on the refuge since 1988 to control some 

invasive plant species or undesirable monotypic vegetation stands, particularly cattails. It is also used to 

clear ditches of vegetation that may impede waterflow. 

One of the most widespread uses of prescribed fire on 

the refuge is to rejuvenate grassland vigor. 

Since 2004, the refuge has burned 491 acres to 

improve grassland habitat and 463 acres to improve 

wetlands. Each year 3–5 acres of ditches are burned 

to keep them free of vegetation allowing water to 

travel more freely. 

PRESCRiPTivE gRAzing oR moWing 

Historically, the Bitterroot River Valley was grazed 

and browsed by native ungulates such as white-tailed 

deer, mule deer, moose, and elk. Following EuroAmerican settlement, these valley lands were used for 

cattle grazing, primarily as winter range as cattle were 

moved in the fall from the summer grazing and calving 

locations in the mountain slopes and foothills (Clary 

et al. 2005). Cattle grazing on the refuge grasslands 

continued until 1975. Between 1993 and 1997 sheep 

and goats were brought into the refuge in an attempt 

to control cattails and invasive species; however, prescriptive cattle grazing was not consistently used as 

a management tool until 2006. To control monotypic 

stands of cattails in the wetland impoundments, cattle 

were brought in to graze primarily on the young cattail plants. This is one part of a multi-step process of 

thinning cattails. 

CooPERATivE FARming 

Cooperative farming is an arrangement whereby a 

farmer is compensated for planting crops on a refuge 

through keeping a certain percentage of the harvest. 

The refuge can retain its share (1) as standing cover 

for wildlife forage, (2) in exchange for additional work 

from the cooperator such as invasive plant control and 

grass seeding, or (3) in exchange for supplies from 

the cooperator such as herbicides and fence materials. Any income received by the refuge is deposited 

in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. 

Before cooperative farming can take place, the 

refuge manager must issue a cooperative farming 

agreement or a special use permit. Subsequently, 

cooperators are allowed to (1) till, seed, and harvest 

small grain, (2) control invasive plants, or (3) harvest 

hay on the restoration site until native seed can be 

planted and becomes established. These agreements 

are generally issued for 2–4 years to achieve a specific management objective, such as preparing a field 

for restoration to native species. In some cases these 

agreements may extend longer to allow time for the 

establishment of native plants. 

When the refuge was first established, farming was 

used to grow grains including wheat and barley. Historically, the 800 pounds of grain that was harvested 

was sent to Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

to feed wintering swan. Cooperative farming stopped 

in 2002, partly due to the difficulty of finding cooperative farmers and partly due to a trend of restoring 

farmlands to native grasslands. 

While cooperative farming can assist with restoration efforts, unfortunately most of these restoration 

efforts have not succeeded on the refuge, primarily 

due to competition from invasive species. 

3.8 Socioeconomic 

Environment 

Most of the Lee Metcalf Refuge is open to the public 

for uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 
72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

and photography. These recreational opportunities 

attract outside visitors and bring in dollars to the 

community. Associated visitor activities—such as 

spending on food, gasoline, and overnight lodging in 

the area—provide local businesses with supplemental 

income and increase the local tax base. Management 

decisions for the refuge about public use, expansion 

of services, and habitat improvement may either increase or decrease refuge visitation and, in turn, affect 

the amount of visitor spending in the local economy. 

PoPUlATion And dEmogRAPHiCS 

The refuge is located approximately 4 miles northeast 

of Stevensville, Montana in Ravalli County. During the 

1990s, Ravalli County was the fastest growing county 

in Montana and became one of the fastest growing 

counties in the entire United States, as measured by 

percentage change in population. For the period from 

1990 to 2009, the county’s population increased from 

25,010 to 40,431—an increase of 62 percent. A key factor in the character and change of the Bitterroot area 

economy is the county’s proximity to a mid-size regional 

center, the city of Missoula, which is located 25 miles 

to the north in Missoula County. During the 1980s, 

the county of Missoula grew from 76,016 to 78,687, 

an increase of only 3.5 percent. However, between 

2000 and 2009, Missoula County grew by 13.4 percent. 

The communities of the Bitterroot Valley are located 

on a “peninsula” of largely private lands occupying the 

valley floor and mountain foothills surrounded by a 

“sea” of public forest lands. Within the boundaries of 

Ravalli County itself, there are 1,850 square miles of 

forest lands administered by the USDA Forest Service, 

representing about 77 percent of the entire county’s 

land base. Beyond the perimeters of the county, these 

forest lands and wilderness stretch for many miles. 

The presence of these public forest lands has heavily 

influenced the settlement and economic development of 

the Bitterroot Valley, and wood products manufacturing has been a key component of the area’s economic 

base. Historically, the economic role of these forest 

lands has been primarily one of a supplier of raw material for lumber processing in the area. However, 

the role these lands play in the area’s development 

is changing. The Bitterroot Valley’s economy is now 

being increasingly shaped by rapid growth spurred 

by in-migration. The amenities of this picturesque 

mountain valley with its surrounding forests appear 

to be the primary attraction for many of the valley’s 

recent migrants. Similar migration patterns are occurring in non-metropolitan forest land areas like the 

Bitterroot Valley throughout the west. 

The recent rise in population in the Bitterroot Valley has not been evenly shared by various age groups 

within the population. While Ravalli County’s population as a whole grew by 43 percent between 1990 and 

1999, the greatest growth occurred among persons in 

their mid-to-late 40s and 50s. The population 45–54 

years of age increased from 2,994 persons to 6,356—a 

112 percent increase in less than a decade. The population of age group 55–64 increased by 71 percent. The 

county’s 65-and-older population increased by only 

24 percent during this period and actually decreased 

as a percentage of the population between 1990 and 

1999. The area may in fact be losing a disproportionate number of people 65 or older who move away 

from the area. 

The area’s population is racially non-diverse, as is 

the population of the larger region. Of Ravalli County’s 

40,431 residents in 2009, more than 97 percent were 

white. The population of Hispanic or Latino origin is 

the largest racial minority group at 2.8 percent. American Indians, who have a distinct cultural connection to 

this area, make up only 0.9 percent of the population. 

EmPloymEnT 

The unemployment rate in Ravalli County in 2010 was 

10.4 percent, which is greater than Montana’s average of 7.4 percent. In 2009, the median family income 

was $45,691, which is close to the rest of State but less 

than the national 2008 average of $52,029. 

The fastest growing industries are administrative 

and support services, followed closely by waste services, arts, entertainment, and recreation. 

PUBliC USE oF THE REFUgE 

During 2010, 166,767 visits were recorded on the refuge. Between 2005 and 2010 (the period after which 

the new refuge office and visitor contact area opened) 

annual visits averaged 142,971. During this time period, the maximum visitation was 177,563 in 2005 and 

the minimum was 90,000 in 2008. These numbers are 

based on mechanical counters strategically located at 

the WVA, Wildfowl Lane, and the Kenai Nature Trail. 

These numbers do not account for the refuge visitors 

on the Bitterroot River or on refuge lands west of the 

Bitterroot River. The average number of individuals 

who actually came into the visitor contact area during this same period was 6,118. Visitors attending 

special events accounted for 1,741 visitors annually. 

These latter figures are recorded manually by refuge 

volunteers. During hunting and fishing seasons from 

2005–2010, the visitors participating in these activities accounted for 2 percent of all visits (Carver and 

Caudill 2007). It is assumed that the remaining visitors were participating primarily in wildlife observation and photography activities along the county road 

and nature trails. Most wildlife observers visit in the 

spring and summer, when the greatest numbers of 

migratory birds inhabit the area. 

Camping and fires are not allowed on the refuge; 

however, the Bitterroot National Forest manages land 

throughout Ravalli County, including campgrounds, 

one of which is near Stevensville. There is a motel 
CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources 73 

located in the town of Stevensville, a few in Hamilton and Lolo, and dozens more in Missoula, as well as 

several recreational vehicle campgrounds. 

BASElinE EConomiC ACTiviTy 

It is difficult to place a value on the worth of outdoor 

experiences or the importance of maintaining and 

preserving habitat vital to migratory birds and a variety of resident wildlife species. One way of defining 

a refuge’s value and the opportunity to experience 

wildlife-dependent recreation on the refuge may be 

to ask what the area would be like without the refuge (Carver and Caudill 2007). According to the latest “Banking on Nature” economic analysis (Carver 

and Caudill 2007), 13 percent of expenditures associated with a wildlife-dependent recreational visit to a 

refuge come from local residents, thus 87 percent of 

revenue comes from outside area visitors. These expenditures include purchases of food, lodging, transportation, and other expenses. In 2007, refuge visits 

generated approximately $185.3 million in tax revenue 

at the local, county, State, and Federal levels (Carver 

and Caudill 2007). 

Public use is just one way that Lee Metcalf Refuge 

generates revenue and contributes to the economic 

engine of the local economy. Other economic benefits 

include spending by the refuge, spending by refuge employees, payment in lieu of taxes ($13,439 in 2010), the 

economic value of the function of the refuge’s habitats, 

and the increased value of lands next to the refuge. 

U.S. FiSH And WildliFE SERviCE EmPloymEnT 

In 2010, Lee Metcalf Refuge was staffed by nine permanent employees and six seasonal employees. Its 

payroll equaled approximately $601,000. Based on the 

Bureau of Labor statistics, approximately 79 percent 

of each employee’s annual income is spent locally. Using this figure, refuge employees contribute nearly 

$475,000 to the local economy. 

viSiToR SPEnding 

An average of 143,000 visitors enjoy Lee Metcalf Refuge every year though wildlife observation, photography, hiking, and environmental education (sometimes 

referred to as nonconsumptive uses). On Lee Metcalf 

Refuge it is estimated that more than 97 percent of 

visitors participate in these activities. The remaining visitors participate in fishing and hunting (often 

referred to consumptive uses). 

According to the 2007 “Banking on Nature” report, 87 percent of refuge visitors travel more than 

30 miles to visit a refuge (Carver and Caudill 2007). 

This same report stated that 77 percent of these visitors engage in nonconsumptive activities. Nonresident visitors tend to contribute more money to the 

local economy. Based on refuge visitor numbers and 

the estimated percentage of nonresident visitors, it 

is estimated that Lee Metcalf Refuge could possibly 

contribute as much as $15 million annually to the local economy from nonresident, nonconsumptive users, 

and nearly $4 million from nonresident consumptive 

users. Resident nonconsumptive users spend an additional $356,000 while resident hunters and anglers 

spend approximately $140,000. 

3.9 Partnerships 

Lee Metcalf Refuge has a history of fostering partnerships that help accomplish the refuge mission and 

implement programs. From 2005 to the present, the 

Service has entered into various projects and activities with more than 65 organizations including local 

and national conservation organizations, private companies and businesses, other Federal agencies, State 

agencies, universities, local schools, and county and 

city governments. The refuge also has a very active 

volunteer program that primarily assists visitor services programs. The refuge could not begin to meet 

the needs of the thousands of refuge visitors without 

these volunteers. 

These partners have assisted in wildlife and habitat management, visitor services and recreational 

activities, land protection, law enforcement, and community outreach. Several of these relationships have 

developed into formalized partnerships with written 

agreements or memoranda of understanding while 

others remain more informal. 

The Hollingsworth Wetland Project was a collaborative 

effort among the Service and numerous partner 

organizations. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 
74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

3.10 operations
 

Service operations consist of the staff, facilities, equipment, and supplies needed to administer resource 

management and public use programs throughout the 

Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

STAFF 

Lee Metcalf Refuge provides supervision, logistical 

support, office space, storage, and supplies to multiple 

positions that serve a broader set of responsibilities 

than the mission of the refuge. Current staff at the 

refuge consists of five permanent full-time employees 

including a refuge manager, outdoor recreation planner, 

law enforcement officer, maintenance worker, and an 

administrative support assistant. There are also four 

permanent Service employees who are based out of 

this office, but they are not assigned to exclusively 

support refuge programs. These positions include 

the district fire management officer, fire technician, 

regional maintenance team member, and the Montana 

Invasive Species Strike Team leader. These employees 

and their programs are supported partially or wholly 

by Lee Metcalf Refuge with logistics, equipment, and 

materials, and most of these positions are supervised 

by the refuge manager. The refuge does receive some 

assistance on refuge projects from these positions if 

they are not dedicated to other priority projects. 

Seasonal employees are often hired each year. In 

addition to the above refuge positions, the refuge uses 

its management funding to annually hire one to two 

seasonal workers, including a biological technician and 

a maintenance assistant. Since 2009, the refuge has 

hosted a Youth Conservation Corps Crew and leader. 

In 2010, the refuge coordinated with Ravalli County 

Weed District to employ three, 5-month seasonal employees to treat invasive species on the refuge. 

FACiliTiES 

Facilities are used to support habitat and wildlife 

management and wildlife-dependent public use activities. The refuge’s buildings have been updated 

over the years, yet much of the habitat management 

infrastructure such as irrigation components, some 

wetland impoundment levees, and water control structures are in disrepair. 

The refuge headquarters and visitor contact area 

were developed in 2004 from an existing maintenance 

garage. The current maintenance shop, a metal Butler 

building, was constructed in 2000, and a cold storage 

equipment bay building was constructed in 2005. The 

refuge has a bunkhouse, built in 2005, to provide housing for seasonal workers. The refuge historically had 

one refuge house but it was recently deemed unsafe 

for occupancy, and in August 2010 it was removed. 

Most of the refuge wetland impoundments were 

constructed in the late 1960s through the early 1970s. 

Roads and dikes associated with these wetlands were 

constructed at that time and many are in need of repair. In addition to the visitor contact area, visitor 

service facilities include the amphitheater, shelters, 

and 5 miles of trails. 

The following is a list of most of the facilities found 

on the Lee Metcalf Refuge: 

■■ headquarters and visitor contact area (4,488 square 

feet) 

■■ maintenance shop (7,200 square feet) 

■■ cold storage building (3,500 square feet) 

■■ outdoor amphitheater (4,000 square feet) and two 

shelters 

■■ bunkhouse (2,080 square feet) 

■■ hazmat building (390 square feet) 

■■ pole barn (3,000 square feet) 

■■ Grube Barn (3,162 square feet) (poor condition) 

■■ Whaley Homestead (1,416 square feet) 

■■ approximately 23 miles of dikes and roads 

■■ 22 large (greater than 2-foot diameter) water control (stoplog) structures 

■■ 10 small (less than 2-foot diameter) water control 

(stoplog) structures 

■■ 3 water delivery ditches, totaling 6 miles, plus 2 

tile drain ditches 

■■ 3 pumping stations for Fields I–1 through I–7 

■■ 4 domestic wells 

■■ 2 recreational vehicle pads with septic, electrical, 

and water hookups 

■■ 3 vehicle bridges 

■■ 5 miles of walking trails 

■■ 5 walking bridges 

■■ 2 wooden photo blinds 

■■ wildlife observation deck (Kenai Nature Trail) 

■■ 3 entrance signs 

■■ 5 interpretive kiosks 

■■ universally accessible fishing deck (168 square feet) 

■■ 14 waterfowl hunt blinds (includes 2 blinds for 

hunters with disabilities) 

■■ 5 archery hunter parking lots 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction
 

A young visitor participates in a refuge educational program. 

Bob Danley / USFWS 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service selected the management direction described in this chapter after determining that it: 

■■ best achieves the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife 


Refuge purposes, vision, and goals, and helps fulfill 


the Refuge System mission;
 

■■ maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 


biological integrity of the refuge and the Refuge 


System;
 

■■ best addresses the substantive issues;
 

■■ is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.
 

This chapter first describes the management focus for 

the refuge and then sets out the associated objectives 

and strategies that the refuge staff will carry out to 

achieve the CCP goals. Stepdown management plans 

(section 4.11) will provide implementation details for 

specific programs. The chapter sections follow: 

■■ 4.1 Management Focus
 

■■ 4.2 Goal for Bitterroot Floodplain and Associated 


Wildlife
 

■■ 4.3 Goal for Wetland Impoundment Habitat and 


Associated Wildlife
 

■■ 4.4 Goal for Grassland and Shrubland Habitat and 


Associated Wildlife
 

■■ 4.5 Goal for Invasive and Nonnative Species
 

■■ 4.6 Goal for Research
 

■■ 4.7 Goal for Cultural Resources 

■■ 4.8 Goal for Visitor Services 

■■ 4.9 Goal for Partnerships 

■■ 4.10 Goal for Operations and Facilities 

■■ 4.11 Stepdown Management Plans 

■■ 4.12 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation 

■■ 4.13 Plan Amendment and Revision 

4.1 Management Focus 

The Service will carry out science-based management 

of the habitat and wildlife associated with the refuge 

along with compatible visitor services: 

■■ The Service will use the best available science to 

determine the most effective methods for conserving, restoring, and enhancing the habitats within the 

refuge, including grassland and shrubland, gallery 

and riverfront forests, and wetland impoundments. 

Providing these habitats for target migratory birds 

would achieve the purposes of this refuge. A significant part of the restoration proposals will be to 

control invasive plant species, where possible, and 

prevent further spread. Grasses and shrubs native 

to the uplands, including the alluvial fans, will be 

restored, where appropriate, to provide habitat 

for native wildlife including grassland-dependent 
76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

migratory birds. Some wetland impoundments will 

be removed or reduced in size to allow for river migration or provide restoration sites with an overall 

long-term goal to restore the gallery and riverfront 

forest for wildlife that are dependent on riparian 

areas. Most of the remaining impoundments will be 

managed to emulate natural conditions for wetlanddependent migratory birds. 

■■ The Service will expand and improve the refuge’s 

compatible, wildlife-dependent, public use programs, 

in particular the wildlife observation, environmental 

education, and interpretation programs. The visitor 

contact area and associated headquarters will be 

expanded into a visitor center, new office space, and 

a combination conference room and environmental 

education classroom. New displays will be professionally planned and produced for the expanded 

visitor center. Interpretive panels will be located 

at strategic points on the refuge, highlighting the 

restoration efforts. These panels will be designed 

so they could be updated as needed. The refuge 

will work with the county to designate the public 

road traveling through the refuge as an auto tour 

route, which will include pulloffs and interpretation. A seasonal hiking trail will be added, and some 

other existing trails will be improved for wildlife 

observation and photography and other interpretive and education programs. The Service will 

investigate options for slowing the erosion of the 

portion of the WVA next to the Bitterroot River. 

All options will be evaluated based on their cost, 

effectiveness, and impacts on the environment, including the river system. Eroding trails may also 

be relocated if they become impassible. The entire 

length of the Kenai Trail will remain unchanged. 

However, along a small portion of this trail, the 

public will be given the choice to walk down to the 

pond’s edge on the current trail or remain on the 

higher bench (figure 25) that provides a more level 

walking surface. All public use programs will provide visitors with information on the purposes of 

the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System, 

ensuring that almost every visitor would know that 

he or she is on a national wildlife refuge. 

■■ Increased research and monitoring, staff, funding, 

infrastructure, and partnerships will be required 

to accomplish the goals, objectives, and strategies 

outlined in this chapter. 

Sections 4.2 through 4.10 set out the objectives and 

strategies that serve as the steps needed to achieve 

the CCP goals for the refuge. While a goal is a broad 

statement, an objective is a concise statement that 

reveals what is to be achieved, the extent of the 

achievement, who is responsible, and when and where 

the objective should be achieved—all to address the 

goal. The strategies are the actions needed to achieve 

each objective. Unless otherwise stated, refuge staff 

will carry out the actions in the objectives and strategies. The rationale for each objective provides context such as background information, assumptions, 

and technical details. 

Appendix C contains the required compatibility 

determinations for public and management uses associated with this CCP. In addition, appendix H describes the fire management program for the refuge. 

Expanding riparian forest habitat should provide 

additional nesting trees (cavities) for target species, such 

as the wood duck. 

 USFWS Barnes / Thomas 

TARgET SPECiES SElECTion PRoCESS 

Early in the planning process, the Service selected 

three groups of target species that will be supported 

by the objectives and strategies described under the 

habitat goals for the Bitterroot River floodplain, wetland impoundments, and grassland and shrubland habitat. Part of this process was to review three separate 

documents focused on sustaining or recovering species 

in Montana: the “Montana Intermountain West Joint 

Venture Plan,” “Montana State Conservation Plan,” 

and the “Bitterroot River Subbasin Plan.” An initial 

list was developed based on whether a species either 

occurred on the refuge or could occur on the refuge 

if its preferred habitat was expanded or restored, as 

indicated under each goal. Almost all of the species 

selected are recognized in these three documents. The 

life history needs of over 100 species were examined 

for similarities and relevance to the proposed goals. 

The final lists of 16 species were selected based on 

their ability to represent guilds or because they were 

good indicators of the quality of a specific habitat type. 

The habitats that support the migration, foraging, and 

nesting needs of these selected species should benefit a much broader group of secondary bird species 

as well as a variety of other wildlife, both migratory 

and resident. These target species will be monitored 

for trends in abundance and distribution to evaluate 

the effectiveness of these actions. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 77 

Figure 25. Kenai nature Trail, lee Metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 
78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

4.2 goal for the Bitterroot 

River Floodplain and 

Associated Wildlife 

Manage and, where appropriate, restore the 

natural topography, water movements, and 

physical integrity of surface water flow patterns across the Bitterroot River floodplain to 

provide healthy riparian habitats for target 

native species and to educate visitors about 

the benefits of sustaining a more natural 

floodplain. The erosion caused by the meandering Bitterroot River, 

next to the WVA. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

TARgET SPECiES FoR THE BiTTERRooT RivER 

FlooDPlAin 

The Service has identified the habitat needs of a diverse group of target floodplain species, including 

waterbirds, neotropical migrants, and mammals (table 

8). Providing for the life history needs of these species 

will provide the natural floodplain habitat diversity 

and conditions needed not only for these targeted 

species, but also for a broad suite of other floodplainassociated wildlife. Monitoring will focus on these target species to determine their response to floodplain 

management actions. 

FlooDPlAin oBjECTivE 1 

Where channel migration of the Bitterroot River is 

occurring, do not inhibit the river from establishing 

natural flow patterns during high flow events, where 

appropriate, to enhance existing riparian woodlands 

and provide suitable restoration sites for both gallery 

and riverfront forest vegetation that could provide 

breeding, nesting, feeding, or migration habitat for 

target species (over the next 15 years). 

Strategies 

■■ Contracting as necessary, work with engineers and 

hydrologists (with expertise in fluvial geomorphology) to determine and design overflow channels 

in the north part of the refuge (Ponds 11, 12, and 

13) and remove infrastructure to allow for river 

movements into these channels. The design for 

this restoration may indicate the need for changes 

to Otter Pond. Revegetate exposed soils with gallery and riverfront forest species. A second intraService consultation will be conducted once this 

site-specific design is completed. 

■■ Work with partners to investigate options for slowing the erosion of the WVA. All options will be 

evaluated based on cost, effectiveness, and impacts 

on the environment, including the river system. 

■■ Continue to allow seasonal flows (including backwater flooding into Francois Slough) of the Bitterroot 

River into and through North Island and Francois 

Sloughs. File for changes to existing water rights as 

directed by the Service’s water resources division. 

■■ Allow and promote natural regeneration of native 

gallery and riverfront forests and plant native trees, 

shrubs, and grasses, where appropriate. 

■■ Monitor and treat new invaders within channels 

and on the newly exposed soils. 

■■ Monitor the abundance and distribution of target 

species to determine the success of management 

techniques, and use adaptive management to ensure that the refuge is using the most effective 

methods and proven technologies. 

Rationale 

The combination of irrigation ditches and associated 

infrastructure (culverts, water diversion structures), 

development (bridge crossings, riprapping), and land 

use changes has significantly altered the Bitterroot 

River’s channel form, structure, and movement within 

the Bitterroot Valley and its floodplain (Heitmeyer et 

al. 2010). Notably, existing river stabilization structures on the refuge, including frontline levees and 

riprap placed along the Bitterroot River in the 1950s, 

altered the river’s physical and hydraulic dynamics 

and character. Ultimately, these structures may be 

contributing to potential damage on other stretches 

or off-refuge lands along the river, both upstream and 

downstream (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

In addition to the possible impacts caused by infrastructure and land use, the Bitterroot River has an 

inherently unstable hydraulic configuration and high 

channel instability in the stretch immediately upstream 

from and at the Lee Metcalf Refuge. The river in this 

area is characterized by numerous braided channels 

that spread over a wide area of the Bitterroot Valley 

floodplain. Many of these channels are evident on Lee 

Metcalf Refuge. 

Since the 1930s, lateral migration of the Bitterroot 

River channel has apparently accelerated, and the river 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 79 

Table 8. Target species for the Bitterroot floodplain and their habitat needs. 

Nesting or Structural Vegetation height Area breeding Habitat or foraging Migration and cover requirements (after requirements 1991) 

Wood Duck 

Creeks, streams, 

marshes, beaver 

ponds 

Nests in natural cavities; trees 

for nest site are >24 inches DBH; 

cavities average 24 feet or higher 

aboveground 

Freshwater wetlands 

with an abundance of 

vegetative cover; small 

areas of open water 

with 50–75% cover 

Not territorial— 

priority is adequate 

cover 

X X 

Lewis’s Woodpecker 

Riparian woodland 

with ponderosa pine 

and cottonwood, 

logged or burned 

pine, and snags 

Uses brushy understory and ground 

cover; requires snags for nesting 

(standing dead or partially dead); 

nest heights vary between 3 and 

171 feet 

During breeding, eats 

free-flying insects and 

fruit found on serviceberry, hawthorn, dogwood, elderberry and 

sumac 

Determined by food 

and storage-site 

availability 

X X 

Willow Flycatcher 

Riparian woodland with willow 

and other shrubs 

and cottonwood; 

restricted to river 

and creek corridors 

Nests in shrub thickets close to 

ground (3–5 feet high on average); 

willow shrubs are favored nesting 

substrate, but will use other shrubs 

Eats primarily insects 

and occasionally fruit 

Wintering home 

range estimated at 

0.25 acre and breeding range at 1 acre 

X X 

Vaux’s Swift 

Coniferous and 

deciduous forest; 

large- diameter hollow trees (dead or 

alive) and chimneys 

are favored nesting 

and roosting sites 

Cover not important for nesting; 

DBH averages 30 inches (17–43 

inches); tree height averages 85 

feet (30–131 feet); nest height averages 56 feet (30–108 feet) 

Forages for flying insects in air over forest 

canopy and grasslands 

Not territorial; nest 

singly or semi-colonially, when roosting-thousands can 

roost in a single tree 

X X 

Brown Creeper 

Continuous and unfragmented mixed 

coniferous–deciduous forest, mostly 

old growth (>100 

years); large snags 

and live trees; high 

canopy closure and 

high density of trees 

preferred 

Forages especially on large trees 

(average >12 inches DBH) and tall 

trees (>89 feet) with trunks that 

have deeply furrowed bark that 

contain higher arthropod densities; 

nest height ranges between 2 and 

45 feet and nest is almost always 

between trunk and a loose piece 

of bark on a dead or dying tree in 

a dense tree stand 

Forages on variety of 

insects and larvae, spiders and their eggs, ants, 

and a small amount of 

seeds and other vegetable matter; forages 

primarily on trunks 

of live trees and occasionally on large 

branches, but rarely 

on the ground 

During breeding, 

average territory 

size ranges from 

0.02 to 0.06 acre; 

territories break 

down late in the 

fledging period 

X X 

Hoary Bat 

Summer resident 

in forested riparian 

areas and woody 

wetlands 

Roosts on trees 12–40 feet 

aboveground; dense vegetation 

above roost preferred 

Open-air forager that 

prefers moths, but also 

feeds on beetles, wasps, 

grasshoppers, and occasionally small bats 

Solitary with no real 

defined territory 

Unknown X 

Sources: Bull et al. 2007, MFWP 2005, Hejl et al. 2002, Hepp 1995, Montana Bird Distribution Committee 1996, Sedgwick 2000, Texas 

State Parks and Wildlife 2011, Tobalske 1997. 

Abbreviations: DBH = diameter at breast height, X = recorded use on the refuge. 
80 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

is actively attempting to cross the floodplain at the 

refuge in new pathways, including seasonally shifting 

primary discharge through the North Island Slough. 

Lateral migration of the river has been discouraged 

to date by land interests along the river—including 

those of the refuge—to protect existing roads, agricultural land, and the railroad bed and trestle on the 

north end of the refuge. Control of river migration has 

been attempted by channeling and armoring channel 

banks with riprap and other materials. Eventually, 

more channel stabilization would be needed to keep the 

Bitterroot River channel “in place” because hydraulic 

dynamics from future high-flow events would continue 

to destabilize the current river channel configuration 

and destroy or damage existing physical structures. 

It is not only practical but preferable to balance the 

Bitterroot River’s natural fluctuations with restoration of native refuge conditions and land use interests. 

Riverbank erosion has occurred all along the refuge, 

and several levees have been breached by the river. 

This erosion has led to some loss of riparian habitats, 

a community type that provides some of the most 

productive wildlife habitat in the State and is home 

to a wide variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians (MFWP 2005). Nevertheless, this type 

of flooding and erosion enriches the soil and creates 

the conditions necessary for expanding and sustaining riparian habitats across the refuge’s floodplain. 

The levees impounding Ponds 12 and 13 have been 

partially eroded by the Bitterroot River’s side channel movements into the refuge through North Island 

Slough. The best use of these areas would be to remove the structures and allow the river to flood and 

recede. Current climate change models predict lower 

precipitation and lower river levels, and these historic 

flooding events may rarely take place. However, if 

natural flow patterns were restored—even to some 

degree—there would be opportunities to restore native habitats, such as riverfront and gallery forest, 

providing areas for target bird species (table 8). As 

necessary, the refuge will closely monitor and treat 

newly exposed soils as the river recedes. Although 

necessary for cottonwood and willow regeneration, 

newly exposed soil and channels could also create 

ideal conditions for the downstream movement and 

spread of existing and new invasive species. An active monitoring and treatment program would prevent this invasion and encourage native vegetation 

to outcompete less desirable species. 

A section of trail in the WVA is being threatened 

with erosion caused by the river’s migration and flooding. The riverbank alongside the paved section of the 

WVA trail has eroded at least 100 feet in since 2008. It 

would be very difficult to prevent further movement 

of the river without significant cost and possible damage to other refuge resources. However, the Service 

will evaluate viable options for slowing the erosion in 

the WVA. The decision on whether to pursue any option will be based on cost, effectiveness, and impacts 

on resources, including the river system. The Service 

will also evaluate relocating established trails if they 

were to become completely eroded and impassible. 

New trail designs will only be considered if the new 

trail will not be eroded by the river’s movements or 

impede river movements. 

FlooDPlAin oBjECTivE 2 

Reconnect floodplain habitats with the Bitterroot River 

to allow natural overbank and backwater flooding into 

and out of the floodplain during high flow events to 

support and expand the health, diversity, and extent 

of the riparian woodlands that could provide breeding, nesting, feeding, or migration habitat for target 

species (table 8) (over the next 15 years). 

Strategies 

■■ Construct wide spillways in or remove artificial 

levees, roads, and ditches that prohibit overbank 

and backwater flooding of the Bitterroot River and 

disrupt natural sheet flow into the central floodplain of the refuge. 

■■ Work with engineers and hydrologists, contracting as necessary, to determine and design the best 

methods available to remove structures, level ditching, and islands that are impeding natural overbank 

and backwater flooding on the refuge, including 

Ponds 11–13. An intra-Service consultation will be 

conducted on final project designs affecting areas 

next to the river. 

■■ Improve high water flow west of Ponds 6–10 into 

and through historical slough and swale channels 

by removing obstructions, levees, and dams in and 

across these drainages. File for changes to existing water rights as directed by the Service’s water 

resources division. 

■■ Monitor and treat invasive species as necessary, 

particularly on newly exposed soils. 

■■ Monitor the abundance and distribution of target 

species to determine the success of management 

techniques and use adaptive management to ensure 

the refuge is using the most effective methods and 

proven technologies. 

Rationale 

The diversity and productivity of the Bitterroot River 

Valley at and near Lee Metcalf Refuge was created 

and sustained by a diverse floodplain surface that was 

seasonally inundated each spring from both flooding 

of the Bitterroot River and drainage or seepage from 

surrounding mountain slopes. Occasional overbank and 

more regular backwater flooding from the river into 

its floodplain at the refuge historically helped create 

and sustain communities and basic ecological functions 

and values of the site. These flooding processes on the 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 81 

refuge are now restricted by levees along the river, 

levees and dams on constructed wetland impoundments, roads, the railroad bed, and dams or other obstructions on tributary channels. 

To restore the floodplain system at the Lee Metcalf 

Refuge, restoring the capability of the Bitterroot River 

to overflow its banks and to back water up tributaries and into other floodplain channels is desirable. The 

seasonal “pulsed” flooding regime provided uninhibited 

movement of water, nutrients, sediments, and animals 

between the river and the floodplain and supported life 

cycle events and needs of both plant and animal communities. Periodic long-term floods are also important 

floodplain processes that help maintain community 

dynamics and productivity. For example, overbank 

flooding deposits silts and nutrients in floodplains that 

enhance soil development and productivity. Overbank 

flooding also creates scouring and deposition surfaces 

critical for germination and regeneration of riparian 

woodland species, especially cottonwood (Heitmeyer et 

al. 2010). Backwater flooding provides foraging habitat 

for pre-spawning native fish and rearing habitat for 

larval and juvenile fishes. Annual backwater flooding 

recharges water regimes in depressions and shallow 

floodplain wetlands that serve as productive breeding habitat for amphibians, reptiles, waterbirds, and 

certain mammals. Subsequent drying of floodplains 

concentrates aquatic prey for fledgling waterbirds. 

Collectively, the body of scientific evidence suggests 

that restoring the hydrologic connectivity between 

the Bitterroot River and its floodplain at Lee Metcalf 

Refuge is desirable (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

The variations in topography and soil created a 

mosaic of elevations and site-specific hydrology that 

supported many vegetation and wildlife communities 

on the Lee Metcalf Refuge. Unfortunately, the topography and flow of water across the floodplain has been 

altered, initially from land conversion, physical developments, and diversion of water for irrigation and then 

from construction of water-control infrastructure by 

the Service in an attempt to create more permanent 

wetland areas (ponds) for breeding waterfowl. The 

physical developments on and around the refuge have 

been detrimental to sustaining the natural functions 

and processes that made this area so rich and diverse. 

Restoration of the physical and biological diversity 

and productivity of the refuge will require at least 

some restoration of natural topography, especially 

reconnecting waterflow pathways or corridors in the 

floodplain. Restoration of topography and waterflow 

pathways is important to allow water, nutrients, and 

animals to move through the system in more natural 

patterns. Additionally, restoring water pathways can 

improve both flooding and drainage capabilities to more 

closely emulate natural hydroperiods that sustained 

native plant communities (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

The Service will work with engineers and hydrologists to determine the location, design, and steps 

needed to effectively restore natural waterflow without damaging other refuge resources or neighboring 

lands. Some of the options include completely removing levees, breaching them, or constructing a spillway 

to allow water to pass through a specific area. 

One of the areas proposed for restoration is the old 

residence site on the west-central side of the refuge. 

This area has several levees that were created to form 

shallow water ponds. These ponds were abandoned due 

to an inability to deliver water or because of flooding 

of the residence due to subsurface waterflows. 

There are many levees or berms that are not part 

of any impoundment. The vegetation on these levees is 

often a combination of nonnative grasses and invasive 

species. Keeping these levees and berms could not only 

inhibit river movements, but it may contribute to the 

spread of nonnative grasslands and invasive species. 

Removing these structures, or placing spillways in 

them, will allow natural backwater flooding and sheet 

flow to occur, but monitoring backwater areas for invasives will be required. Restored processes would 

encourage maintenance and propagation of native 

habitats of the riverfront and gallery forest. 

Ponds 11–13 on the north side of the refuge are 

difficult to manage. These impoundments have fallen 

into disrepair due to non-operational water control 

structures and, more importantly, erosion of the impoundment dikes and levees by the Bitterroot River. 

Maintaining these ponds will be very costly and not 

very effective in providing habitat for a variety of 

target migratory floodplain species. The refuge will 

work with an engineer and hydrologist to transition 

this area—which currently contains artificial islands, 

level ditching, and cattail monocultures—into riparian 

woodlands, persistent aquatic vegetation, and uplands 

to benefit a variety of wildlife species. Initial steps will 

be to survey topography and design sustainable side 

channels of the Bitterroot River. Grading and revegetation will follow. 

It will be important that the refuge closely monitor and treat newly exposed soils that would provide 

ideal conditions for the spread of existing and new 

invasive species. The refuge will have to implement 

an active treatment and restoration program to prevent this invasion and encourage native vegetation to 

outcompete less desirable species. 

noRTH BuRnT FoRK CREEK oBjECTivE 

(inCluDing FRAnCoiS SlougH) 

Within the refuge, restore unimpeded flow from North 

Burnt Fork Creek with flow pathways into the Bitterroot River to reduce creek water temperatures, 

improve water and nutrient flow, create habitat conditions conducive to native cold-water species and 
82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

restore riparian woodland habitat that will support 

target species (within 8 years). 

Strategies 

■■ Based on historical channel information (photos, 

topographical features), establish the North Burnt 

Fork Creek entrance into the Bitterroot River 

where it is sustainable and conducive for native 

salmonids. 

■■ Work with an engineer and hydrologist to determine the best route for North Burnt Fork Creek to 

return to the river, considering the requirements 

of bull trout. Strategically remove water control 

structures and other obstructions in the tributary 

and floodplain channels to allow fish and other 

aquatic animals to use this riparian corridor. An 

intra-Service consultation will be conducted once 

this site-specific design is completed. 

■■ Through partnerships, encourage restoration and 

stream connectivity off the refuge to reestablish 

natural fish passage and flow pathways in the creek 

to its upper reaches. 

■■ Monitor and treat invasive species, particularly on 

newly exposed soils. 

■■ Monitor the changes in water quality to determine 

the success of management techniques, and use 

adaptive management to ensure the refuge is using 

the most effective methods and proven technologies (including invasive species). 

■■ Restore newly exposed banks to riparian habitat. 

■■ Monitor the trends in abundance and distribution 

of target species to evaluate the effectiveness of 

these proposed actions. 

Rationale 

North Burnt Fork Creek is a mountain and terrace 

derived tributary to the Bitterroot River. This stream 

channel has been altered both off and on the refuge 

through installation of culverts, bridge crossings, and 

artificial channels and from using the creek to transport water. The refuge has installed water control 

structures to provide fishing opportunities and has 

impounded water for waterfowl. Undesirable species, 

such as cattail and reed canarygrass, formed monocultures along the stream, crowding out and preventing 

the regeneration of native riparian vegetation such 

as cottonwood, willow, and dogwood. 

Strategic removal of water control structures in 

the WVA and other areas along the creek will deepen 

and narrow the streambed. This reconnection will 

encourage riparian ecological processes to become 

reestablished. 

Newly exposed soil will provide optimal conditions 

for invasive species encroachment or monocultures 

of cattails. The refuge will need to treat cattails and 

other undesirable vegetation, including invasive species, using various techniques such as prescribed fire 

and other effective mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments. These methods will also be used to 

prepare areas for native plant restoration, as needed. 

To further encourage riparian habitat restoration, 

the refuge will plant native vegetation, such as willow 

and cottonwood, on restored sites. It will be important 

to monitor the stream’s response to the removal of 

structures and other management actions. Monitoring 

water chemistry (temperature, dissolved oxygen, total 

dissolved solids), streamside vegetation, and target 

species response will help to determine the success 

of management techniques. 

THREE MilE CREEK oBjECTivE 

Reestablish a channel to the Bitterroot River that mimics the historical flow pattern of Three Mile Creek to 

create habitat conditions supporting native cold-water 

species (cooler water temperature, riffles, deep pools) 

and the restoration of riparian habitat. This objective 

will complement the Bitterroot River side channel 

restoration proposed for Ponds 11–13. 

Strategies 

■■ Develop contracts as necessary with engineers 

and hydrologists to determine and design the best 

methods available to remove structures, level 

ditching, and islands. Through partnerships, attempt to restore river and stream connectivity 

off refuge to reestablish natural fish passages and 

flow pathways in the creek. An intra-Service consultation will be conducted once this site-specific 

design is completed. File for changes to existing 

water rights as directed by the Service’s water 

resources division. 

■■ Plant and encourage native vegetation (for example, 

cottonwood or willow) on restored sites to prevent 

invasive species encroachment as Ponds 11–13 (see 

Floodplain Objective 2) dry up and overbank and 

backwater flow patterns reestablish. 

■■ Treat cattails and other undesirable vegetation (including invasive species) using various techniques 

including disking, prescribed fire, chemical application and other effective mechanical, biological, and 

chemical treatments to control undesirable plants 

or prepare areas for native plant restoration. 

■■ Monitor changes in water quality, including conducting a macroinvertebrate analysis, to determine the 

success of management techniques, and use adaptive management to ensure the refuge is using the 

most effective methods and proven technologies. 

■■ Monitor the trends in abundance and distribution 

of target species to evaluate the effectiveness of 

these proposed actions. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 83 

Rationale 

Three Mile Creek is another mountain and terrace 

derived tributary to the Bitterroot River. Much like 

North Burnt Fork Creek, this stream channel has been 

altered both off and on the refuge by the installation 

of culverts, bridge crossings, irrigation diversions, and 

spill. This creek contributes a high sediment and nutrient load to the Bitterroot River compared to other 

tributaries in the Bitterroot watershed (McDowell 

and Rokosch 2005). 

In 1984, three sediment catch pools were built 

just south of Pond 11 to prevent sediment from entering and filling in Pond 11. The pools were filled to 

capacity in only 1 year. Then in 1989, as a solution to 

the sedimentation, Otter Pond was built. The refuge 

portion of Three Mile Creek was channeled into a bypass directly to the river. Water from Otter Pond was 

then siphoned under Three Mile Creek to feed Ponds 

11–13. Undesirable species, such as reed canarygrass, 

formed monocultures along the stream, crowding out 

and preventing establishment of native riparian vegetation such as shrubs and sedges. 

Currently, the river’s mainstem is directed northward (figure 17), just west of this confluence, and the 

sediment from Three Mile Creek has created a willowfilled island and beaver ponds within what is now considered part of North Island Slough. Restoring Three 

Mile Creek to its historical channel will encourage riparian ecological processes to become reestablished. 

Additionally, overbank flooding capabilities will improve and more closely emulate natural hydrological regimes that sustained native plant communities. 

Newly exposed soil would provide optimal conditions for invasive species encroachment. The refuge will need to treat cattails and other undesirable 

vegetation, including invasive species, using various 

techniques including prescribed fire and other effective mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments, 

where appropriate. These methods will also be used 

to prepare areas for native plant restoration. 

To further encourage riparian habitat restoration, 

the refuge will plant native vegetation, such as hawthorn and dogwood, on restored sites. It will be important to monitor the response of the stream to the 

removal of structures and other management actions. 

Monitoring water chemistry (dissolved oxygen, total 

dissolved solids, and temperature) and streamside 

vegetation will help to determine the success of management techniques and determine if another method 

would be more effective. 

The Service will restore unimpeded flow from North 

Burnt Fork Creek and Three Mile Creek into the 

Bitterroot River. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

RivERFRonT FoREST HABiTAT oBjECTivE 

Restore regenerating and sustaining mechanisms for 

riverfront forest communities alongside the Bitterroot River that will provide nesting and migration 

habitat for target species such as willow flycatcher 

and Lewis’s woodpecker. 

Strategies 

■■ Develop a riverfront forest inventory map and compare it with areas where riverfront forest occurred 

historically. Use this information to determine the 

most effective and strategic areas for restoration. 

■■ Remove levees, berms, and roads to allow for natural 

overbank and backwater flooding (see Floodplain 

Objective 2). These occasional flood events would 

scour surfaces, deposit sands, and create regeneration sites to restore and sustain riverfront forest 

vegetation, including cottonwood, along the margins of the Bitterroot River. 

■■ Use prescribed fire and grazing during dry periods 

to sustain occurrence of grasses and forbs. 

■■ Construct temporary deer exclosures, as needed, 

to protect newly planted tree areas and regeneration sites. 

■■ Monitor and treat invasive species and promote 

and restore vegetation native to riverfront forest 

to provide quality habitat for target species. 

■■ Monitor the abundance and distribution of target 

species to determine the success of management 

techniques, and use adaptive management to ensure the refuge is using the most effective methods 

and proven technologies. 
84 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

gAllERy FoREST HABiTAT oBjECTivE 

Restore regenerating and sustaining mechanisms for 

gallery forest communities on higher floodplain elevations (natural levees and benches) in areas with sandyloam soils, on natural levees, and on other floodplain 

ridges that have 2- to 5-year flood occurrence intervals 

in order to sustain and expand nesting and migration 

habitat for target species such as Lewis’s woodpecker, 

willow flycatcher, and hoary bat. 

Strategies 

■■ Develop a gallery forest inventory map to identify 

its current extent and historical range, particularly 

along the west side of Ponds 8 and 10. Use this 

information to determine the most effective and 

strategic areas for restoration. 

■■ Reduce the size of Ponds 8 and 10 to allow for expansion of gallery forest on the west side of these 

impoundments, thereby reducing the amount of 

water diverted to these ponds. Use prescribed 

fire, grazing, and chemical applications to manage 

cattail encroachment, and sustain the occurrence 

of grasses and forbs. 

■■ Plant cottonwood and ponderosa pine to expand 

gallery forest areas, focusing on areas with appropriate soils. 

■■ Allow for continued natural regeneration of the shrubland component in the gallery forest (hawthorn, 

alder, wood’s rose, and dogwood) while applying 

and evaluating proven techniques for promoting 

the shrubland component within the gallery forest. 

■■ Construct deer exclosures to protect newly planted 

areas and regeneration sites, as needed. 

■■ To protect restoration sites, monitor and treat invasive species using prescribed fire, chemical applications, and mechanical techniques. 

■■ Seed grasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass and 

Idaho fescue under and between the trees and 

shrubs to reestablish ground cover and outcompete noxious and invasive plants. 

■■ Survey and monitor the population and response 

of forest target species before and after enhancement and restoration treatments. 

■■ Sustain wet meadow communities on Slocum loam 

soils with 2–5 year flood frequencies. 

Restoring and expanding gallery and riverfront forest 

would enhance habitat for species including brown 

creeper and hoary bat. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

Rationale for Riverfront and gallery Forest 

objectives 

Historically the Bitterroot River Valley, which includes 

the Lee Metcalf Refuge, supported a wide diversity 

of animal species associated with the interspersed 

riparian forest, wetland, and grassland habitats. The 

riparian forest is made up of riverfront forest and gallery forest (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

Riverfront forest includes early succession tree 

species such as black cottonwood and sandbar willow 

that are present on newly deposited and scoured gravelly-sand, sand, and fine sandy loams near the active 

channel of the Bitterroot River and in sand-outcrop 

sites next to floodplain drainages. These sites have 

high water tables for most of the year and are inundated for short periods during high spring river flows 

almost annually. Regularly scoured soils provide bare 

soil sites for seed deposition and subsequent germination and growth of willow and cottonwood (Cooper et 

al. 1999, Heitmeyer et al. 2010) 

Gallery forest is dominated by cottonwood and 

ponderosa pine and is present on higher floodplain 

elevations along natural levees and point bar terraces 

next to minor floodplain tributaries. Gallery forest areas often have woody shrubs such as alder, hawthorn, 

dogwood, and Wood’s rose in the understory and mixed 

grass species such as bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho 

fescue under and between the trees and shrubs. The 

gallery forests were flooded occasionally by overbank 

or backwater floods from the river and for short durations in the spring (Burkhardt 1996, Fischer and 

Bradley 1987, Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

Most wildlife species in these forests were seasonal 

visitors that used resources provided by spring and 

early summer pulses of water into the system. Riparian woodlands in the Bitterroot Valley were sustained 

by fertile floodplain soils and seasonal inundation for 

generally short periods at about 2- to 5-year intervals. 

Occasional disturbance mechanisms provided suitable 

substrates for regenerating tree species and shrubs. 

Riparian woodlands in Montana generally are in poor 

condition if the shrub components are not present, most 

commonly due to overgrazing (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

Collectively, many landscape and hydrological 

changes in the Bitterroot Valley since Euro-American settlement have dramatically altered the physical nature, hydrology, and vegetation communities 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 85 

of the refuge. Before Euro-American settlement, the 

relatively dry climate of the valley and the migration 

of the Bitterroot River created a diverse mix of communities including riverfront and gallery forest next 

to the Bitterroot River and floodplain drainages. 

In response to the altered ecological processes, there 

are now reduced areas of riverfront and gallery forest. 

Restoration and expansion of the riparian woodlands 

will be a long-term project that will surpass the life of 

this plan. Ideally, and over time, using prescribed fire, 

planting native plants (plugs of dominant tree species 

and shrubs), treating and controlling invasive species, 

and restoring hydrological regimes will allow for the 

restoration of these habitats to support target species. 

The refuge does not have a complete forest inventory map. Developing this map will help the refuge 

determine the extent of this native forest and where it 

occurred historically; in turn, this will help determine 

the most effective and strategic restoration areas. 

However, there are some areas that need immediate 

attention along the river. Removal of levees and roads 

will allow overbank and backwater flooding into historical forest areas. This action will scour the surface of 

the soil and deposit fine sediments, creating conditions 

to promote cottonwood regeneration—a main vegetative component of the riparian woodlands. Where appropriate, the refuge will implement prescriptive fire 

and grazing in forest areas to allow scarifying of pine 

cones, which promotes germination of ponderosa pine, 

another component of riparian woodlands. 

Other focus areas will be Ponds 8 and 10. The HGMderived map of vegetation before Euro-American 

settlement shows this area to be a mixture of gallery and riverfront forest (figure 15). Creating these 

ponds reduced the amount of native forest habitat. 

Past water level management has also created very 

large monocultures of cattails that have reduced the 

amount of open water available to the waterbirds 

these ponds were intended to support. Returning 

gallery and riverfront forest to these historical sites 

will begin to restore a unique and important habitat 

to this part of the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley, 

providing new areas for identified forest target species. The Service will draw down water in Ponds 8 

and 10, as needed, to allow for this expansion. The 

ponds will still be managed for open water, but the 

water table will be lowered and the amount of cattail 

surrounding these ponds will be reduced to allow for 

forest expansion. Reducing cattail is most effective 

using a variety of methods including prescribed fire, 

grazing, and chemical applications. 

It will be important that the refuge closely monitor and treat newly exposed soils. This newly exposed 

soil would create ideal conditions for the spread of 

existing and new invasive species. The refuge will 

have to implement an active treatment and restoration program to prevent this invasion and encourage 

native vegetation to outcompete less desirable species. 

Additionally, erecting deer exclosures or other plant 

protectors will help protect tree and shrub plantings 

from being overbrowsed and killed by deer. 

4.3 goal for Wetland 

impoundment Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife 

Where appropriate, manage wetland impoundments to create a diversity of habitats for target waterfowl, shorebirds, and other associated 

native wetland-dependent species. 

TARgET WETlAnD HABiTAT SPECiES 

The Service has identified the habitat needs of a diverse group of target waterbird species, including 

ducks and shorebirds. Providing for the life history 

needs of these species will provide the natural wetland diversity and conditions needed not only for these 

target species, but also for an even greater variety of 

wetland-associated wildlife. Monitoring will focus on 

these target species to determine their response to 

wetland management actions. 

In the Bitterroot Valley, the Lee Metcalf Refuge 

is an important refuge for migratory birds during the 

spring and fall. Waterfowl breeding and brood rearing 

occurs on Lee Metcalf Refuge with a great variety of 

waterfowl using the refuge for these life history requirements; however, the refuge is not a major production refuge. The most important habitat management efforts will focus on providing optimal habitat 

for foraging and resting during migration. Lowering 

the water levels will serve to increase food availability 

by concentrating foods in smaller areas and at water 

depths within the foraging range of target wildlife. 

The rate and timing of drawdowns have important 

influences on the production and composition of semipermanent wetland plants and invertebrates that 

provide protein-rich food resources (USFWS 1991) 

for each of these target bird species. 

WETlAnD iMPounDMEnT HABiTAT oBjECTivE 1 

Over the next 15 years, manage water levels on 628 

acres to emulate natural and seasonal water regimes 

including natural increases in waterflow in the spring 

followed by rotational drying in the summer and fall. 

Managed properly, these wetland impoundments, or 

ponds, should provide a variety of wetland conditions 

to meet the life cycle requirements of target wetlanddependent species (table 9). 
86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Table 9. Wetland impoundment target species and their habitat needs. 

Species Spring migration Forage depth Fall migration 

Birds 

American wigeon Mid-March to mid-April 5–8 inches Mid-November to mid-December 

Redhead	 Mid-March to mid-April 6–30 inches Mid-November to mid-December 

Marbled godwit Early May to early June Mudflats, 0–4 inches Early July to early September 

Long-billed dowitcher Mid May to mid-June Mudflats, 0–4 inches Early July to early September 

American bittern May to June	 Mudflats, 0–4 inches July to September 

Amphibians 

Species	 Habitat Breeding Active period 

Boreal toad	 Wide variety; survive best in April to mid-July April to October 

shallow ephemeral ponds to avoid 

American bullfrog predation 

Sources: Gratto-Trevor 2000, Lowther et al. 2009, Mowbray 1999, MFWP 2005, Montana Bird Distribution Committee 1996, refuge 

data, Takekawa 2000, Texas State Parks and Wildlife 2011, Woodin et al. 2002. 

Strategies 

■■ Maintain or replace the water management structures in Ponds 1–6, Ponds 8 and 10, and Otter Pond. 

The remaining wetland impoundment structures 

will be maintained as needed. 

■■ Water level management of all ponds will be changed 

to a more seasonal water regime that emulates natural increases in distribution and depth in spring, 

followed by occasional drying in summer and fall 

to encourage the restoration of wetland and shrub 

habitat. While drawing wetlands down, exposed 

shorelines will be monitored and treated to prevent 

invasive species and monotypic stands of cattails 

from becoming established. File for changes to 

existing water rights as directed by the Service’s 

water resources division. 

■■ Prevent invasive species encroachment into newly 

exposed soil using various mechanical, biological, 

and chemical treatments to control invasive species 

and prepare areas for native restoration. 

■■ Manage, or maintain, a hemi-marsh condition of 

the ponds to create a ratio of 50:50 open-water to 

emergent vegetation (such as bulrush and cattail), 

providing optimal breeding and brood rearing habitat for diving ducks and dense emergent vegetation 

over water 2–8 inches deep for bitterns. 

■■ Manage or maintain dry ground with tall grasses 

and mixed herbaceous cover for dabbling ducks. 

■■ Emulate long-term patterns of drier conditions in 

floodplain wetlands in most years including periodic complete drying in some years and occasional 

prolonged flooding in a few years. 

■■ To determine the water-level targets needed to 

provide adequate food, cover, and nesting substrate 

for target waterbird species, install staff gauges in 

all wetland impoundments where they are missing. 

■■ Determine the feasibility and methods for restoring 

the historical flow of the side channel of the Bitterroot River and Three Mile Creek through Ponds 

11–13 to restore riparian habitat (see Floodplain 

Goal) and reestablish unimpeded flow to the river. 

■■ Monitor the trends in abundance and distribution 

of target species to evaluate the effectiveness of 

these proposed actions. 

Rationale 

Wetland impoundments on the refuge were constructed 

and developed to provide open-water habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. However, past 

management has not consistently emulated seasonal 

or long-term dynamics of water levels that naturally 

occur in wetlands. Instead, water regimes in some 

ponds have consisted of drawdown in the spring to 

provide mudflats for shorebirds, followed by flooding 

the ponds for nesting waterfowl. The ponds would 

then stay full during the summer until early fall with 

drawdown again for shorebirds, followed by flooding 

for migratory waterfowl and to enhance waterfowl 

hunting opportunities. This water regime occurs only 

on some ponds while others—notably Pond 6, Pond 8, 

Pond 10, and Otter Pond—are usually full year-round. 

These permanently flooded wetlands have experienced algal blooms, encroachment of cattails, and low 

productivity and nutrients. Overall, the refuge’s past 

water regime has not provided the optimal habitat for 

target wetland species. 

Researchers from the University of Montana have 

been investigating the contamination of mercury on 

the refuge and elsewhere in Montana. This study and 

similar investigations by Service staff have discovered 

concentrations of methylmercury in largemouth bass 

(within the wetland impoundments) and in osprey 

chick tissue samples. It is theorized that there has 

been bioaccumulation of methylmercury as a result 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 87 

of stagnant water, and mercury concentration in fish 

on the refuge has been high (Langner et al. 2011). It 

is possible that this methylmercury may also be contributing to the decline of osprey production over the 

years (figure 19) and has prompted concern of contamination in osprey eggs, making some nonviable (Heiko 

Langner, personal communication, professor of biological sciences, University of Montana, November 2010 

and February 2011). The precise mechanism of forming methylmercury is still unclear as the synthesis of 

methylmercury in aquatic systems is influenced by a 

wide variety of environmental factors. While there is 

no simple relationship, it appears that enhanced rates 

of methylmercury production are linked in particular 

with low pH, low salinity, and the presence of decomposable organic matter in reducing environments. Both 

methylation rates and the stability of methylmercury 

in sediments appear to be enhanced under anaerobic 

conditions (Ullrich et al. 2001), a condition that can 

occur when water is stagnant. 

To provide optimal habitat, increase nutrient uptake 

and plant productivity, and decrease methylization 

of mercury, the Service will manage Ponds 1–6, Pond 

8, Pond 10, and Otter Pond for a more seasonal and 

dynamic water regime by increasing water levels in 

spring and slow drying in summer and fall. Rotation of 

ponds with drawdowns will depend on annual habitat 

objectives and responses of target wildlife to water 

regimes. To manage and move water more effectively, 

the refuge will need to replace old, dilapidated water 

management structures as well as structures that are 

not effective due to size. Some of the existing structures are extremely unsafe and require more than one 

person to operate. Replacement of these structures will 

provide more cost effective and safe operations. It will 

also be important for the refuge to manage cattails and 

prevent their further encroachment into open water. 

Cattail is very difficult to control, and management 

will require a variety of methods such as prescribed 

fire, grazing, and chemical application. It will be important that the refuge closely monitor water levels 

and quality to evaluate the effectiveness of any water 

regime. Documenting the response of target species 

will also help evaluate the effectiveness of this management program while using adaptive management 

to ensure that the refuge is using the most effective 

methods and proven technologies. 

WETlAnD iMPounDMEnT HABiTAT oBjECTivE 2 

Where appropriate, reduce the area of more permanently flooded wetland impoundments and persistent 

emergent vegetation to restore native plant communities, such as gallery forest, while improving the diversity and productivity of the remaining impoundments 

for the benefit of target waterbird species (over the 

next 10 years). 

Strategies 

■■ Remove levees, ditches, and water control structures from abandoned wetland impoundments to 

facilitate the restoration and expansion of the gallery forest (Ponds 7, 7a, 7b, and 9) and native grassland (Pair Ponds and Potato Cellar Pond) habitat. 

■■ Reduce Pond 8 and Pond 10 in size to allow for the 

restoration of gallery forest habitat on the west 

side of these impoundments. 

■■ Treat exposed shorelines to prevent invasive species and monotypic stands of cattails from becoming established before restoration. Use a variety 

of management techniques such as prescribed 

fire, chemical application, livestock grazing, and 

mechanical means. 

■■ Monitor the trends in abundance and distribution 

of target species to evaluate the effectiveness of 

these proposed actions. 

Rationale 

Refuge lands around and within Ponds 8 and 10 were 

once a mixture of riverfront and gallery forest, but 

today this habitat is less extensive here and in the 

Bitterroot Valley. Creating these ponds reduced the 

amount of forest habitat and created open water. Over 

time, the shallow margins of these ponds have become 

covered with cattail growth, creating a management 

challenge and reducing habitat for most waterbirds. 

Managing these permanently flooded ponds for open 

water is not the highest and best use of this habitat 

type due in part to a lack of nutrient cycling, a reduction in early successional submergent vegetation, and 

the spread of monotypic cattail stands. These stands 

are difficult to control and provide less than optimal 

habitat for target wildlife species. 

The best use of this area is to restore and expand 

the gallery and riverfront forest in these historical 

sites, thereby enhancing the habitat needed by native forest target species such as brown creeper and 

hoary bat. The Service will draw down water in Ponds 

8 and 10 and Otter Pond to allow for this expansion. 

The ponds will still be managed for open water, but 

the amount of cattail surrounding these ponds will be 

reduced to allow for forest expansion and restoration. 

Some of the most effective methods for reducing cattails are prescribed fire, grazing, and chemical applications; it is important to use the right treatment at the 

right time to be effective and prevent further spread. 

In addition to reducing the ponds in size, the refuge 

will replace the water control structures on Ponds 8 

and 10 to allow more effective, productive water level 

management on the remaining wetland area. 

There are several old and abandoned ditches and 

levees throughout the refuge from former attempts 

to impound water. These attempts have failed due to 

lack of water availability and the inability of the soil 
88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

to hold water. These levees, ditches, and water control structures will be removed to facilitate the restoration of gallery forest in Ponds 7, 7a, 7b, and 9 and 

native uplands in Pair Ponds and Potato Cellar Pond. 

gRAvEl PiTS oBjECTivE 

Use the gravel pits—created when gravel is harvested 

east of the Bitterroot River—to provide nursery habitat for amphibians such as the boreal toad, a State 

species of concern, and the Columbia spotted frog. 

Strategies 

■■ Remove vegetation and soil from the artificial gravel 

pits to restore the desired habitat conditions for 

native amphibians, as appropriate. If necessary, 

harvest gravel October through March, avoiding 

disturbance and displacement of any amphibians 

during breeding season. 

■■ Manage these old gravel pits as ephemeral pools 

to discourage the American bullfrog, an invasive 

predator of amphibians and other desirable native species. 

■■ Survey amphibian populations and monitor the response of amphibians to determine the success of 

management techniques. Adapt management techniques to ensure the refuge is using the most effective methods, research, and proven technologies. 

Rationale 

Since the 1990s boreal toads have been declining 

throughout the Rocky Mountains. In Montana, the 

species status is uncertain, but it has been listed by 

the State as a species of concern. There are relatively 

few known breeding populations. 

Throughout its life cycle, the boreal toad uses a 

wide variety of habitats including streams, wet meadows, beaver pools, marshes, and lakes. They prefer 

shallow areas and edges with mud bottoms. These 

gravel pits have become shallow, disturbed gravel 

ephemeral pools—desirable breeding habitat for these 

toads. In 2001, researchers on the refuge found 20,469 

eggs from a single female in a refuge gravel pit. This 

was the largest clutch ever reported for this species 

(Maxwell et al. 2002). 

It is suspected that breeding boreal toads are limited to just a few areas on the refuge, like the gravel 

pits, due to American bullfrog predation, an invasive 

species that has been introduced throughout the western United States. Introduced in Montana sometime 

before 1968, the bullfrogs have been documented all 

along the Bitterroot River and extensively throughout 

the refuge. This species is so widespread throughout 

the Bitterroot Valley, it is almost impossible to control 

through treatments other than removing their desired 

habitat, which affects native species. Extremely territorial, they are voracious predators that feed on 

young birds, fish, snakes, crayfish, invertebrates, and 

other amphibians. This feeding behavior allows them 

to displace native species easily (Werner et al. 2004). 

They have been implicated in extirpations of amphibians and declines in waterfowl production (State of 

Montana 2011). Any suitable pond habitats available 

for native amphibians are typically occupied solely by 

American bullfrogs. 

The American bullfrog is highly aquatic and spends 

much of its life in warmer permanent water. As the 

gravel pits are fairly shallow and ephemeral in nature, 

they experience dry periods. This hydrology is not conducive to the life cycle of the American bullfrog. The 

refuge will continue to manage these old gravel pits 

as ephemeral pools to discourage American bullfrogs. 

This will serve to maintain, if not promote, boreal toad 

populations. Columbia frogs have similar habitat needs 

as the boreal toad; however, they prefer emergent and 

aquatic vegetation. Removing too much of this vegetation for boreal toad larval habitat may impact the 

other native frogs that use these gravel pits. 

4.4 goal for grassland and 

Shrubland Habitat and 

Associated Wildlife 

Create the conditions that will allow for the 

restoration, maintenance, and distribution 

of native grassland and shrubland species 

(such as rabbitbrush, needle and thread grass, 

Junegrass, and hairy golden aster) to provide 

healthy lands for a diverse group of target 

native resident and migratory wildlife species and to educate visitors about the historical plant and animal diversity of the valley. 

The bobolink is a target species for the grassland and 

shrubland areas. 

Steve Maslowski / USFWS 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 89 

TARgET gRASSlAnD AnD SHRuBlAnD SPECiES 

The Service has identified the habitat needs of a diverse group of target upland (grassland and shrubland) species (table 10). Providing for the life history needs of these species will provide the natural 

upland diversity and conditions needed not only for 

these targeted species but an even greater variety of 

upland-associated wildlife. Monitoring will be focused 

on these target species to determine their response 

to upland management actions. 

gRASSlAnD AnD SHRuBlAnD HABiTAT 

oBjECTivE 

Reduce the presence of invasive species to facilitate 

the restoration, maintenance, and distribution of native grasslands and shrublands in higher floodplain 

elevations and terraces and on alluvial fans (over the 

next 10 years). 

Strategies 

■■ Use Service staff and equipment—possibly in 

combination with cooperative farming—to plant 

annual grain crops (including glyphosate-tolerant 

crops) to eliminate invasive species, including the 

seedbed, and to prepare an area for restoration to 

native plant species (over 5–10 years). 

■■ As appropriate, keep some fields fallow using repeated disking or chemical applications to continually treat and reduce invasive species. Some fields 

may also be planted to winter wheat to reduce erosion from wind and runoff. 

■■ Use small tame grassland sites to determine the 

best methods to restore native plants and shrubs 

on the refuge both with and without irrigation. 

■■ Continue to implement and evaluate tested techniques for reducing cheatgrass. 

Table 10. Target species for the grassland and shrubland areas and their habitat needs. 

Nesting or Vegetation Litter and/or Habitat Vegetation cover Area requirements breeding Migration height residual cover (after 19912

) 

Western Meadowlark1 

Open, treeless 

areas with widely 

dispersed shrubs 

Varies— 

shortgrass 

prairie to mixed 

and tallgrass 

prairie 

Nest sites in grass clumps 

or next to prickly pear 

Abundance is 

positively correlated 

with litter depth 

5–32 acres depending 

on vegetation height; 

more abundant on 

interior plots >656 

feet from edge 

X X 

Bobolink1 

Mixture of grasses 

and broad-leaved 

forbs 

2–6 inches Nests beneath the shade 

of forbs; no nests found 

where grass is only 

concealment 

Density is higher 

in areas with low 

total vegetation 

cover but with 

high litter cover 

(hayfields >8 years 

old) 

2–4 acres depending 

on habitat quality; 

on fields >74 acres, 

there are more than 

twice the number of 

males than on fields 

<25 acres 

X X 

Grasshopper Sparrow1 

Idle grasslands with 

clumped vegetation 

interspersed with 

bare ground. 

Intermediate, 

>4 inches 

Bird numbers are 

positively correlated 

with percent grass cover 

(the more cover, then 

the more birds) 

Moderately deep 

litter and sparse 

cover of woody 

vegetation 

Average size is <5 

acres but prefers 20–74 

acres; more abundant 

on interior plots >656 

feet from edge 

X 

Brewer’s Sparrow1 

Considered a sagebrush-dependent 

species; moderate 

shrub cover 

2–5 feet >10% average shrub cover; 

abundance decreases 

as shrub cover falls 

below 10% and over 

50%; nests on shrubs 

9–75 inches in height 

No information Usually 1–5 acres X 

1 These species do not currently nest on the refuge in great numbers, but with restoration of these desirable habitat qualities, it may 

allow them to become reestablished. 2 Refuge data. 

Sources: Dechant et al. 2002a, 2002b; Martin et al. 1995; MFWP 2005; Montana Bird Distribution Committee 1996; Texas State Parks 

and Wildlife 2011; Walker 2004. 

Abbreviation: X = recorded use on the refuge. 
90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

■■ Use fire, grazing, seeding, and other proven techniques to facilitate the spread and distribution of 

remnant native species into areas surrounding existing native grassland and shrubland sites. 

■■ Systematically convert tame grassland areas to 

native species of grass, forbs, and shrubs using 

direct seeding, irrigation (where possible), prescribed fire, and other mechanical, chemical, and 

biological methods. 

■■ Restore intermittent and seasonal water regimes 

to higher elevation sites within the floodplain 

and restore patterns of sheet flow surface water 

movement across the sites by removing unnecessary roads (figure 24), ditches, levees, and other 

infrastructure. 

■■ Based on soil type, convert higher banks of current impounded wetlands (that is, Pair Ponds and 

southwest corner of Field S–1) to native grasses, 

sedges, and shrubs by removing levees and water 

control structures and restoring seasonal water regimes. Seed tame grassland fields with nonnative 

grasses (not noxious) to outcompete the noxious 

and invasive weeds. Once these are established, 

interseed native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

■■ Due to a lack of irrigation and moisture, use native 

seed that can be germinated with minimal moisture. 

■■ Where possible, harvest native seed from plants 

found on the refuge. 

■■ Based on historical frequencies and the habitat 

requirements of target species, provide occasional 

disturbances from fire, mowing, or grazing to recycle nutrients and regenerate grass, shrub, and 

forb species. 

■■ As saline soils require a different seed mix and 

management, determine where these soils exist 

and map them in Refuge Lands Geographic Information System (RLGIS). 

■■ Monitor trends in abundance and distribution to 

evaluate the effectiveness of these proposed actions. 

Rationale 

Soil maps reveal that most uplands on the refuge were 

historically covered with grasses and some scattered 

shrubs. Some areas experienced occasional flooding and 

had more wet grassland communities interspersed with 

herbaceous plants such as smartweed and sedges. By 

contrast, higher floodplain terraces, slopes, and alluvial 

fans included mixed wet and upland-type grasses and 

shrubs such as rabbit brush, sage, needle and thread, 

and Junegrass (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). These uplands 

were altered by farming and agricultural practices. 

Very little, if any, native grassland and shrubland 

was intact when the refuge was established. Some of 

these agricultural and tame grass fields are heavily 

infested with invasive species and provide minimal 

habitat value to upland wildlife, such as grassland birds. 

Since refuge establishment, the uplands have continued to undergo various management techniques, and 

there has been no long-term management approach 

due to a lack of management plans. Since the 1870s 

(when this area was homesteaded), the soils in these 

uplands have been altered and disturbed by farming 

and agricultural practices; they have also been affected 

by the change in system hydrology due to irrigation 

practices, impoundments, roads, and levees (Graham 

2009). While the refuge retired these tame grasslands 

and rested them for many years, invasive plants such 

as spotted knapweed, cheatgrass, and Canada thistle 

have become widespread in these areas. This has reduced the tame grasses that can provide some habitat 

value for grassland nesting birds. 

There are many challenges to restoring the uplands. 

Restoration will be costly and time consuming. To begin restoration, the refuge will first focus on treating 

and eliminating invasive species and testing restoration techniques in small patches of tame grassland 

sites. Since many of these areas do not have irrigation, it may be challenging to germinate some native 

grassland seed. Many of the upland field soils receive 

no moisture or shade from the drying sun. This has 

resulted in a hard soil cap that is almost impossible for 

native vegetation to take root in and seed successfully. 

Grazing or disking may help to break up this soil cap 

to allow for seeding. 

Treatment and restoration will be accomplished 

through a variety of methods including chemical applications (using the Service’s approved chemicals 

only), cropping for multiple years before seeding with 

natives, mowing, grazing, prescribed fire, and direct 

planting. Effectively controlling invasive species may 

require using several of these methods (see section 4.5, 

“Goal for Invasive and Nonnative Species”). 

To reduce the invasive weed seedbed, formerly 

disked and farmed fields with considerable amounts 

of invasive species will be planted to small grains for 

several years. Using herbicide-treatable seed and applying herbicide will reduce the weed seedbed that 

has built up in these soils for years. The small grain 

crops will also provide an interim wildlife food source 

for a number of migratory birds and resident wildlife. Some fields will also be kept fallow and disked at 

strategic times when invasive plants begin to grow. 

This farming will stimulate the weeds to grow, and 

then they will be mowed, and in some cases disked, 

before seeding. Winter wheat could be used on these 

fallow fields to reduce erosion from wind and runoff. 

These fields will be disked again in the spring. Once 

the resprouting of invasive plants is reduced (after 4–7 

years), restoration to native plants will begin and soil 

disturbance will cease. Upland Fields I–1 through I–7 

could potentially be irrigated by a wheel line (figure 

17). However, the wheel line is expensive and time 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 91 

consuming to repair and operate. The refuge will use 

irrigation where it will be beneficial for the transition 

from small grains to native grasslands. Many of the 

former agricultural fields are dominated by cheatgrass 

and smooth brome. Upland Fields S–1 and S–2 are 

subirrigated units with a high water table that keeps 

the soil somewhat moist. These fields have more of a 

mixture of grasses but still have considerable invasive 

species. Canada and musk thistle are rapidly invading 

these fields in the south part of the refuge. 

Other potential treatment and restoration sites 

include formerly impounded areas and proposed restoration sites where the Service will remove levees, 

berms, and water control structures by the old residence site; Ponds 7, 7a, 7b, and 9; and Pair Ponds (see 

section 4.3, “Goal for Wetland Impoundment Habitat 

and Associated Wildlife,” and figure 17). 

Service equipment will be used to plant annual cover 

crops as part of a process to eliminate invasive species. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

4.5 goal for invasive and 

nonnative Species 

Prevent, reduce, and contain the invasion and 

spread of noxious, invasive, and harmful nonnative species within the refuge while working 

with partners to address off-refuge infestations 

within the surrounding landscape. 

nEW invASivE SPECiES oBjECTivE 

Within 5 years, establish a baseline inventory of all 

invasive plants including noxious weeds for the refuge 

to develop thresholds or triggers for management actions and priority management areas. Use early detection and rapid response to prevent, monitor, and treat 

all new invaders or small infestations (for example, 

blueweed, hoary alyssum, and Dalmatian toadflax) 

to prevent establishment and additional management 

burden for invasive species. 

Strategies 

■■ Recruit one biological science technician to coordinate the IPM program. 

■■ Continue to map known locations of early invaders and continue to update the database as areas 

are treated. 

■■ Train or certify employees and cooperators (including the Service’s strike team) in invasive species 

identification, mapping techniques, mechanical 

techniques (shovel, hand pulling, and netting), and 

chemical application. 

■■ Prioritize treatment in those areas where restoration is occurring and in heavy public use areas. 

■■ Through partnerships, determine the presence of 

known and new harmful wildlife and insect species 

and treat them as needed. Through partnerships, 

develop a program to treat and monitor off-refuge 

sources of early invaders. 

■■ Actively include volunteers, cooperators, and community support groups in new invader treatment 

and restoration programs. 

■■ Develop a partnership with MFWP, Ravalli County, 

and others to monitor aquatic invaders. 

■■ Use geographic information system (GIS) technologies to map treated sites and monitor and re-treat 

areas to prevent reintroduction and spread. 

ESTABliSHED invASivE SPECiES oBjECTivE 

Reduce infestations of Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, common tansy, houndstongue, reed canarygrass, 

cheatgrass, and musk thistle by at least 20–30 percent 

(measured by canopy cover) over 15 years. Reduce 

infestations of tall buttercup, yellowflag iris, leafy 

spurge, St. Johnswort, oxeye daisy, yellow toadflax, 

and common bugloss on the refuge by at least an average of 45–50 percent (measured by canopy cover) 

over 15 years. 

Strategies 

■■ Using RLGIS, continue to monitor invasive species 

distribution and abundance and use this information 

to prioritize treatment, monitor treatment sites for 

effectiveness, and re-treat as needed. 

■■ Use a combination of biological, mechanical, cultural, and Service-approved chemical techniques 

to reduce infestations of established invasive species. Map and monitor all treatment sites. 

■■ Continue to investigate viable options for controlling invasive species using minimal amounts 

of chemicals. 

■■ Train or certify employees and cooperators (including the Service’s strike team) in invasive species 

identification, mapping techniques, mechanical 

techniques (shovel, hand pulling), and chemical 

application. 
92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

■■ Monitor and re-treat areas to reduce patch sizes 

and to prevent reintroduction. 

■■ Continue to use partnerships to treat known invasive species areas, including off-refuge sources 

of invasive plants. 

■■ Expand capabilities to treat and restore identified 

priority areas to create contiguous blocks of native 

habitat for native wildlife species. 

■■ As soil is disturbed for restoration and management 

activities, treat these areas for invasive plants and 

restore them to desirable or native species. 

■■ Only purchase gravel for the refuge that is certified weed-free. 

■■ Review and update the IPM plan. 

■■ Through partnerships, attempt to prevent the reinvasion of treated areas from off-refuge sources. 

■■ Actively involve volunteers and community support groups in education and outreach to increase 

awareness and prevent establishment of invasives. 

■■ Work cooperatively with the Whitetail Golf Course, 

located within the refuge boundary, to address invasive species that can be transported to the refuge. 

Rationale for new and Established invasive 

Species 

Due to changes in the refuge’s landscape—including 

conversion of native habitat to agriculture (before 

refuge establishment) and the advancing of nonnative 

species across the landscape—the refuge is infested 

with at least 15 invasive plant species. These invasive 

species are so widespread that the refuge is challenged 

in fulfilling its wildlife conservation mission with respect to biological diversity and biological integrity. 

These invasive plants can displace native vegetation 

over large areas and form nearly monotypic stands in 

the absence of management—accordingly, they threaten 

native biodiversity (Bedunah 1992, Hutchison 1992). 

The control or elimination of invasive plants on Service lands will comply with State and Federal laws 

for invasive and noxious species, including all Service 

policies pertaining to chemical treatments. 

The treatment of weeds requires two different tactics. The first, Early Detection and Rapid Response, 

focuses on treating new invaders to prevent establishment, which will add to the existing management 

burden. New invaders are species that are present in 

small infestations or which have recently been documented on the refuge and are not widespread or well 

documented. The second tactic involves continual 

treatments to reduce the size of larger, established 

infestations. These areas will be targeted repeatedly 

in multiple-year treatment plans. All invasive species treatments will require monitoring to measure 

their effectiveness and allow adaptive management 

as necessary. 

Invasive plant management requires baseline 

information of size, canopy cover, location relative 

to priority wildlife habitat areas, and rate of spread 

to be able to determine the most cost-effective management strategies. An inventory will help prioritize 

management areas and strategies for eliminating new 

and isolated infestations, containing them, or reducing 

larger infestations. Using IPM techniques, the refuge 

will develop both short- and long-term plans to target 

and reduce the low, medium, and high ranking infestations of weeds. Montana Department of Agriculture 

ranks invasive noxious weeds on the degree of infestation and threat to the State. Using these rankings and 

the degree of threat to refuge lands, the refuge has 

developed high, medium, and low rankings for treatment. High ranking species are those that are just arriving on the refuge in very small infestations—that 

is, new invaders. Targeting these species before they 

become more established is critical. Medium ranking 

species are those that are more abundant and a bit 

more established than high ranking species. Finally, 

low ranking species are those that are well established 

and cover a lot of acreage, making their control and 

eradication more challenging, much more costly, and 

often less successful than smaller infestations. 

Controlling invasive species must start on the 

ground level with education and training because 

prevention is the most cost-effective management 

method. Employees, volunteers, and cooperators will 

be trained in species identification including how to 

identify new invaders. Each will be trained on how to 

treat invasive species and which technique (chemical, 

mechanical, biological, or cultural) is most effective for 

each species, including timing and duration. 

Employees travel all around the refuge, and thus 

they are highly likely to transport weeds; therefore, 

the refuge will make sure that all employees can 

identify weeds and at least one employee maintains 

a pesticide applicator’s license. Steps will be taken to 

reduce the probability of transporting weeds, such as 

washing equipment before transporting it to another 

location. Additionally, any dirt work that is performed 

will be immediately followed by reseeding of desired 

species and treatment of invasives. 

Infestations of invasive species from adjoining 

lands have increased in recent years. The refuge will 

continue to develop its partnership with the Ravalli 

County Weed District to provide education to adjoining landowners on weeds and their detrimental effects 

on habitat. A program will be developed to treat and 

monitor off-refuge sources of new invaders. 

As more established and larger infestations are 

targeted, such as those in upland fields, focus areas 

will be developed to maintain consistent treatment and 

monitoring over several years in one area to prevent 

reintroduction of invasive species. The refuge will 

recruit volunteers and youth groups for this effort. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 93 

Invasive species treatment is an important step in 

habitat restoration; however, once native plant species become established, they should resist reinvasion. 

4.6 goal for Research ■■

Pursue and maintain compatible research 

projects that will provide information on refuge 

resources and address refuge issues to assist 

management in making decisions based on 

the best available information and science. 

RESEARCH oBjECTivE 

Identify and support research projects that substantially benefit the refuge and species conservation and 

management (for example, floodplain restoration, target species studies, and public use). 

Strategies 

■■ Evaluate all current research projects to determine 

their value in addressing refuge management objectives and concerns. 

■■ Focus wildlife research on assessments of species– 

habitat relationships. 

■■ Identify, design, and conduct issue-driven research 

and work with universities to develop senior thesis 

projects, graduate projects, or other research proposals that will address identified issues or provide 

useful data for management actions and adaptive 

management. Continue to participate with other 

Service divisions and the State in researching wildlife diseases on the refuge. 

■■ Evaluate impacts on both ground and surface 

water quality from off-refuge water sources including supply ditches, creeks, and other public 

inputs (for example, subdivisions, septic systems, 

and underground tile). Continue to participate in 

the Montana Bureau of Mines and Department of 

Environmental Quality research on ground water 

quality impacts. 

■■ Work with partners, including universities, to research methylmercury contamination on the refuge 

and the potential correlation with the management 

of wetland impoundments and any impacts on the 

nesting osprey population and any other wildlife 

species. 

■■ Work with partners to provide opportunities to 

research the best methods and net effects of restoring refuge habitats, particularly gallery and 

riverfront forest, and reconnecting waterways to 

the Bitterroot River. 

■■ Complete a forest inventory (baseline) and upland 

inventory (baseline) before major restoration activities to better understand and monitor the response 

of those vegetative communities to restoration efforts and other management actions. 

■■ Investigate the relationship of how water moves 

through the refuge by recording data such as the 

arrival of irrigation water, ground water movements, water level management, and the fluctuating water levels of the Bitterroot River. 

Through partnerships, investigate the impacts and 

monitor changes to refuge habitats and wildlife 

as a result of climate change. Use these results to 

adapt refuge management programs to the changing environment. 

■■ Seek out grant opportunities to fully or partially 

fund research projects. 

■■ Use an adaptive management approach to incorporate ongoing research and monitoring results into 

management options and decisions. 

■■ Evaluate the impacts of herbivory on the survival 

and recruitment of current and restored shrubland 

and forested areas. 

Rationale 

Past research conducted on the refuge has been beneficial in understanding resources and making management decisions. However, no concerted effort has 

been made to design a research program based on the 

refuge’s most pressing issues or to provide missing 

data for effectively managing and restoring habitats. 

The habitat-based goals and objectives in this CCP will 

form the basis for establishing research and monitoring priorities for the refuge. The restoration proposals 

will provide a number of research opportunities to both 

develop restoration methods and study their effects. 

To ensure that research proposals address refuge 

issues and inform management decisions, research 

proposals will be evaluated to determine if they support refuge research objectives and needs. The refuge 

will also present research opportunities to other partners such as universities. Partnerships are critical for 

A bird on Lee Metcalf Refuge is banded to track its 

migration route. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 
94 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

achieving the research goal and objectives. Cooperative efforts—such as shared funding, lodging, vehicles, 

equipment, knowledge, and expertise—are needed to 

accomplish research projects. 

4.7 goal for Cultural 

Resources 

Provide opportunities for visitors to learn 

about the unique glacial, Native American, 

and Euro-American history of the Bitterroot 

Valley while maintaining and protecting the 

integrity of the refuge’s cultural and historical resources. 

CulTuRAl RESouRCES oBjECTivE 1 

(PRoTECTion) 

Through partnerships, systematically develop a comprehensive cultural resource inventory for the refuge, 

giving priority to proposed habitat restoration sites, 

and preserve and protect all known cultural resources 

while ensuring future activities comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Strategies 

■■ Work with the zone archeologist, contractors, local tribes, the State Historic Preservation Office, 

universities, and other partners to start developing a comprehensive cultural resource inventory. 

■■ Use the Montana statewide cultural resource inventory list to determine sensitive sites before 

conducting activities (such as construction or excavation) that may disturb these sites. 

■■ Document discovered cultural resource sites and 

ensure their protection. 

■■ Continue to comply with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act before starting projects. 

■■ Collaborate with universities and anthropology students looking for projects and inventory opportunities. 

■■ Develop a partnership with the Native American 

studies program at the Salish Kootenai College to 

better understand the significance and cultural history of the refuge area to the Salish and other tribes. 

Rationale 

The Bitterroot Valley has a rich history and a dynamic 

culture. Ideally, a comprehensive inventory will help 

better describe that history on the refuge and ensure 

the protection of cultural resources. However, these 

types of inventories are time consuming. Throughout 

the life of this 15-year CCP, refuge staff will work 

with partners and the regional archaeologist to begin 

documenting cultural sites, focusing first on any areas proposed for restoration or other developments. 

Before Euro-American settlement, the Salish 

people called this valley home for several centuries, 

and literature shows that there were several Salish 

campsites on the refuge. Within decades of the passage 

of Lewis and Clark through the Bitterroot Valley in 

1805 and 1806, other Euro-Americans followed. The 

first Euro-American settlers were fur traders who 

built a fort and later Jesuit priests who built a mission. The area surrounding the mission became the 

oldest community in Montana: what is now the town 

of Stevensville. As more Euro-Americans settled in 

the valley, the land and waters that had provided the 

Salish people with their traditional supplies and foods, 

such as the bitterroot plant, were converted to grazing and agriculture. In 1891, the United States Government relocated the Salish people to a reservation 

in the Jocko Valley. 

The arrival of Euro-American settlers forever 

changed the landscape and the uses of this valley from 

traditional harvesting of native plants and wildlife to 

intensive agriculture. One of the earliest homesteads 

in the valley was the Whaley Homestead, located 

on the refuge and listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places. This homestead was established 

by Indian Agent Peter Whaley in 1885 and survives 

as an outstanding example of frontier architecture. 

Weatherboard siding conceals a massive, complicated 

understructure of square-hewn logs. The Service will 

continue to weatherproof and seal this structure to prevent physical deterioration from climate and animals. 

Federal laws and policies mandate the identification 

and protection of cultural resources on Federal lands. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

requires Federal agencies to consider the effects on 

cultural resources before conducting any Federal action. Without a complete inventory, the refuge’s identification of all cultural resources is incomplete. Until 

the inventory is completed, the staff will continue to 

work with the regional archaeologist and State Historic Preservation Office on a case-by-case basis to 

evaluate projects with the potential to cause impacts. 

CulTuRAl RESouRCES oBjECTivE 2 

(inTERPRETATion) 

Through partnerships, develop a multimedia education and interpretation program that provides visitors 

with information about the unique history and culture 

of the Bitterroot Valley and the refuge. Topics will include the Salish, Pend d’Oreille, and Nez Perce tribes; 

Lewis and Clark expedition; Euro-American settlement; and the Whaley Homestead. These displays and 

programs will also highlight the effects—both positive 

and negative—of these peoples, events, and land uses 

on the resources and ecology of this area. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 95 

Volunteers help restore the Whaley Homestead, which is 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

Strategies

■■ Work with tribal, State, and other partners to create professionally planned and produced displays 

at kiosks and at the expanded visitor center that 

interpret the unique culture and early history of 

the refuge and the Bitterroot River Valley, including the traditional uses of native plants. 

■■ Partner with volunteers and other organizations to 

restore and interpret the Whaley Homestead site. 

Once restored, consider creating a visitor contact 

area and history displays, including period furniture. 

■■ Working with Salish Cultural Committee, incorporate traditional Native American place names and 

the history of place names in interpretive signage, 

as appropriate. 

■■ Work with refuge partners to determine what degree of interpretation and accompanying restoration is needed for the Whaley Homestead. 

■■ Develop a set of education kits highlighting the 

history of the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley. 

■■ Continue to identify and interpret historical and 

nationally designated trails that pass through the 

refuge including the Nez Perce (National Historic 

Trail) and Ice Age (National Geologic Trail). 

Rationale 

Cultural resources interpretation communicates important messages about the area’s history, context, 

and resources to diverse audiences. A tremendous 

opportunity exists to work with partners, including 

the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes culture 

committee and other State and Federal agencies, to 

develop a comprehensive interpretive program that 

adequately describes the significance and history of 

this valley and the refuge. Thousands of Native Americans once lived throughout the valley, although many 

of their traditional sites have been lost to development. 

The refuge contained many of the resources that will 

have been needed to live and survive, including the 

Bitterroot River and native plants; however, no known 

traditional sites have been identified on the refuge. 

The refuge and the surrounding Bitterroot Valley 

also have a rich history of Euro-American settlement, 

including the earliest town in Montana, Stevensville. 

Several major historical and cultural sites occurred 

or occur on or within 5 miles of the refuge: Salish camps, 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, St. Mary’s Mission, Fort Owen, Whaley Homestead, and Nez Perce 

National Historic Trail. The buildings of St. Mary’s 

Mission, Fort Owen, and the Whaley Homestead are 

all on the National Register of Historic Places. Additional signage and interpretation programs will need 

to be developed to interpret these sites. 

Very little interpretation of the Whaley Homestead 

has been completed because of its current condition. 

The structure is not safe enough to allow visitors to 

regularly walk through the building, despite the resources and time the refuge and other partners have 

dedicated to maintaining it. A National Register of 

Historic Places sign does provide some history of the 

site. The interior has been updated by the occupants 

over the years but does not match the period of the 

late 1800s. To properly interpret this site while protecting the structure and visitors, the refuge will need to 

determine what level of interpretation is appropriate 

and then work with partners to restore and interpret 

this historical homestead based on these guidelines. 

To date many refuge partners have expressed enthusiasm and willingness to help restore the site (in part 

by providing period furniture). Such efforts could ultimately allow visitors to enter this home and interpret 

the history of early settlers. Nevertheless, these efforts will be costly, and the Service must ensure that 

this historical structure remains protected. 

The overarching interpretive theme for the Whaley 

Homestead will be land use and its effects on wildlife. 

Topics will include hydrological changes, agricultural 

practices, grassland conversion, lumber and forest 

ecology, and native plant usage, all of which have and 

will continue to affect refuge resources. 

4.8 goal for visitor Services 

Provide visitors of all abilities with opportunities to participate in and enjoy quality, 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, 

environmental education, and interpretation programs that foster an awareness and 

appreciation of the importance of protecting 

the natural and cultural resources of the refuge, the Bitterroot Valley, and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 
96 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

HunTing oBjECTivE 

Continue to provide and improve the quality of compatible waterfowl and deer hunting opportunities, facilities, and access points to provide for the safety and 

enjoyment of refuge hunters of all abilities and work 

with the State to determine if additional opportunities 

for hunting white-tailed deer hunting opportunities 

could be provided. 

Strategies 

■■ Continue to provide a quality white-tailed deer 

(archery only) hunt on designated lands according 

to State regulations. Continue to provide a quality waterfowl hunt from designated blinds on the 

southeast part of the refuge (figure 23), according 

to State regulations. 

■■ Work with the State to determine the viability of 

allowing hunters to use muzzleloaders and shotguns to harvest white-tailed deer (depending on the 

deer population) within this archery-only hunting 

district (currently Hunting District 260). Consider 

rotating the areas where firearms are permitted 

depending on management objectives. Limit the 

number of hunters permitted to use firearms. 

■■ Continue to work with local hunters to rebuild, 

prepare, and maintain waterfowl hunting blinds. 

Upgrade the current blinds that are available to 

hunters with disabilities. 

■■ Allow archery hunters with disabilities to access 

refuge roads near the Whitetail Golf Course (within 

the refuge boundary). 

■■ Produce a large print version of the hunting and 

fishing brochure. 

■■ Provide an annual “tear sheet” outlining the specific refuge regulations for all hunting programs. 

■■ Post a sign at the beginning of the Kenai Nature 

Trail to make trail users aware of their potential 

proximity to archery hunters. 

■■ Provide spent-shell deposit sites near hunting areas. 

■■ Continue to monitor hunter satisfaction and harvest information. 

■■ Manage submergent aquatic and upland vegetation within waterfowl hunt areas to improve the 

hunt quality. 

■■ Enforce waterfowl hunt regulations, including 

shoot times and access. 

■■ Continue to collaborate with the State to provide 

hunter education programs to youth. 

■■ Provide a limited number of waterfowl decoys for 

checkout from the refuge headquarters. 

Rationale 

White-tailed deer and waterfowl hunting were permitted soon after the refuge was established. Today, 

hunting is one of the most popular compatible wildlifedependent activities offered on the refuge. As practiced 

on Lee Metcalf Refuge, hunting does not pose a threat 

to the wildlife populations, and in some instances it is 

necessary for sound wildlife management. The refuge 

works with the State to carefully regulate its hunting 

program and maintain equilibrium between population levels and wildlife habitat. 

On the refuge there is limited regeneration of native trees and shrubs, which are important components for migratory bird habitat. White-tailed deer 

browse heavily and may be the cause of this limited 

regeneration and plant diversity. Although the refuge 

is open to hunting, it lies within Hunting District 260, 

an archery-only hunting area. Archery hunting does 

remove some of these deer; however, the challenges 

associated with this type of hunting (for example, animals must be in close range) affect the success rate 

of hunters. Adding a limited firearm season, during 

which shotguns and muzzleloaders could be used, will 

provide opportunities for non-archery hunters; it may 

also improve harvest rates and better disperse the 

deer during the long archery season (currently over 4 

months). The refuge will work with the State and collect data on white-tailed deer numbers to help determine the need for expanding this hunting opportunity. 

The refuge maintains 14 designated waterfowl hunting blinds, two of which are reserved for hunters with 

disabilities. The labor and cost associated with maintaining the blinds will continue to be offset by volunteer assistance, particularly from waterfowl hunters. 

FiSHing oBjECTivE 1 

Following State and Federal regulations, continue to 

provide opportunities for anglers of all abilities to fish 

within the WVA, including the associated banks of the 

Bitterroot River and Francois Slough. 

Strategies 

■■ Continue to permit fishing on Francois Slough after the riparian habitat is restored. 

■■ Maintain the accessible fishing (and wildlife observation) platform in the WVA. 

■■ Prohibit boats anywhere on the refuge (except 

the Bitterroot River). No boats can be launched 

on the refuge. 

■■ Prohibit boaters from accessing the refuge uplands 

from the Bitterroot River. 

■■ Continue to provide updated fishing regulations in 

a combined hunting and fishing brochure, following 

Service graphic standards. 

■■ Restore instream and riparian habitat on North 

Burnt Fork Creek to improve the quality of the 

creek’s cold-water fishery. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 97 

Rationale 

Compatible and accessible recreational fishing opportunities are available at Francois Slough and the Bitterroot River, both within the designated WVA. The 

remainder of the refuge is closed to fishing, except 

for special events. 

Most anglers come to the refuge not only to fish but 

also to appreciate the wildlife and beautiful scenery of 

the Bitterroot Valley. Fishing, like hunting, can serve 

as the foundation for an individual’s appreciation of 

conservation efforts and environmental ethics. Once 

people begin to appreciate and care about the wildlife 

they enjoy and experience firsthand, they take this 

appreciation and awareness back to their own communities and backyards. 

Currently some anglers use the fishing platform 

to access Francois Slough and its largely nonnative 

fishery. The restoration proposed for Francois Slough 

(associated with North Burnt Fork Creek) will restore 

it to a natural stream that could improve the quality 

of the habitat for native fish. The existing accessible 

fishing platform could still be used by anglers to access this restored stream. 

Thousands of anglers and boaters float the Bitterroot River. In many areas, the refuge property 

includes the entire existing channel of the Bitterroot 

River along with the uplands west of the river. Recent 

land surveys indicate that lands through and west of 

the Bitterroot River are part of the refuge. The refuge will seek to open the areas west of the river for 

public uses, including fishing. 

FiSHing oBjECTivE 2 

Provide an opportunity for children of all abilities to 

learn about the techniques and enjoyment of catching fish. 

Strategies 

■■ Work with partners to host an annual accessible 

fishing event and others, if possible. Consider 

holding these events within areas closed to public 

fishing (to increase fishing success) if they do not 

violate the policy requirements of appropriate use 

and compatibility or inhibit restoration efforts. 

■■ As part of the environmental education program, 

provide students at these events with educational 

materials on the impacts of nonnative fish—particularly largemouth bass, which dominates many 

refuge impoundments. 

■■ As appropriate, provide an opportunity for MFWP 

to transfer captured largemouth bass to existing 

State closed-basin, warm-water fisheries. 

■■ At events, deliver presentations on the refuge, 

its purposes and resources, and the values of the 

Refuge System. 

Rationale 

The Service’s wildlife recreation policy promotes the 

enjoyment and techniques of fishing, particularly among 

children and their families. The refuge has an opportunity to work with partners, including the State, to 

provide opportunities for students to learn about the 

enjoyment and proper methods and ethics for catching fish while fostering a desire to continue fishing on 

refuges and other State waters. This initiative has an 

even broader purpose of teaching children about the 

outdoors so they may be able to appreciate it. 

The greatest opportunities to catch fish on the refuge—particularly largemouth bass—are in Ponds 8 and 

10. These ponds are closed to all other public fishing, 

so allowing any public events requires a compatibility 

determination (appendix C). Also, since largemouth 

bass are not native to this area, students will be provided information on the impacts of nonnative fish on 

native species and their habitats. The State would assist 

with this education and may be permitted to transfer 

these captured nonnative fish to other State warmwater fisheries. These State waters already contain 

populations of largemouth bass. The State uses these 

closed basin nonnative fisheries to take pressure off 

more sensitive fishing areas that may contain threatened cold-water species, such as bull trout. 

WilDliFE oBSERvATion AnD PHoTogRAPHy 

oBjECTivE 

Considering the migration of the Bitterroot River, 

maintain and create additional facilities and programs 

for wildlife observation and photography for visitors 

of all abilities. These additional opportunities will provide visitors with a new and exciting perspective that 

will enhance the visitor’s appreciation and connection 

to the wildlife and the habitats of the refuge and the 

Bitterroot Valley. 

Strategies for Wildlife observation 

■■ Continue to maintain and improve all current facilities within the WVA such as the shelter, fishing 

platform, and kiosk. 

■■ By 2016, investigate options for slowing the erosion 

of the portion of the WVA next to the Bitterroot 

River. All options will be evaluated based on cost, 

effectiveness, and impacts on the environment, 

including the river system. Work with other jurisdictions and regulatory agencies to reduce upstream impacts on floodplain dynamics that may 

be causing this accelerated erosion. 

■■ Continue to maintain the walking trails within the 

WVA, considering the movements and flooding of 

the Bitterroot River in any decisions or designs. 

■■ Maintain those facilities (two trails and a viewing 

platform) that are accessible to visitor with disabilities. Consider the movements and flooding of 
98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

the Bitterroot River in any rehabilitation proposals and designs. 

■■ Improve the WVA entrance for wheelchair use. 

■■ Continue to provide spotting scopes, binoculars, 

and bird books for wildlife observers at the expanded visitor center. 

■■ Add signage to ensure that visitors remain on designated trails. 

■■ Keep the Kenai Nature Trail along its current 

route. However, visitors will be allowed to walk 

on the upper bench of a small portion of the trail 

to provide a more level walking surface (figure 25). 

■■ Add a seasonal walking loop around the current 

Service road around Pond 8 (figure 23). This trail 

will be opened seasonally for foot traffic, as appropriate, to protect waterfowl and other waterbirds 

using this pond. In the winter, users will be permitted to use cross country skis and snowshoes when 

adequate snow is available. 

■■ Replace the stationary spotting scopes located 

along existing trails and add an additional spotting 

scope within the WVA. 

■■ Treat invasive species along designated trails. 

■■ Add interpretation to new and existing trails, including information on the plant and wildlife species that visitors may encounter. 

■■ Work with the county to develop Wildfowl Lane— 

the county road that travels through the refuge—as 

an auto tour route with pulloffs and accompanying 

interpretation. 

■■ Update and reprint the refuge’s current wildlife 

species list, including a large print version that 

meets the Service’s graphic standards. 

■■ Add recommendations for wildlife viewing etiquette 

to the general brochure and wildlife list. 

■■ Consider installing a remote camera on a nest area; 

this image could be streamed not only in the visitor contact area but also on the refuge’s Web site. 

■■ Provide wildlife observation information through 

the internet via the refuge’s homepage, blog, and 

social media sites. 

Strategies for Photography 

■■ Continue to maintain two stationary photography 

blinds. 

■■ Require a special use permit (approved by the 

refuge manager) for commercial photography 

proposals that benefit the refuge and provide the 

photographer access or privileges not afforded to 

the general public. Commercial photography proposals not benefitting the refuge or Refuge System 

will not be allowed. 

■■ Require a special use permit (approved by the refuge manager) for commercial filming. 

■■ All permitted commercial photography and film 

will be made available for Service use (excluding 

that which is provided to other parties for commercial uses). 

■■ Through partnerships, work with photographers 

to build the refuge’s photo library. 

■■ Make two portable photo blinds available for use 

in areas currently open to the public. 

■■ Through partnerships, conduct an annual wildlife 

photography workshop highlighting how to photograph wildlife while causing minimal disturbance. 

■■ Upgrade waterfowl hunting Blind 2 to provide 

a photo blind for photographers, including those 

with disabilities. 

■■ Work with photography schools to build the refuge’s 

photo library and assist with the annual photography workshops while providing wildlife photography opportunities to their students. 

Rationale 

Most visitors to the refuge come to view and photograph wildlife and the beautiful scenery of the Bitterroot Valley. Wildlife observation has been found 

compatible on the refuge. Wildlife observation often 

serves as the foundation for an individual’s environmental ethics. Once people begin to appreciate and 

care about the wildlife they enjoy and experience 

firsthand, they take this appreciation and awareness 

back to their own communities and backyards. 

Currently most visitors view wildlife from Wildfowl 

Lane, a county road that travels through the refuge. 

However, this is not an official tour route and offers no 

interpretation. Working with the county to turn Wildfowl Lane into an auto tour route, if appropriate, may 

take some effort, particularly for any improvements 

such as pulloffs and accompanying interpretation. 

The proposed walking loop (trail) around Pond 8 

will be 1.25 miles in length and provide visitors with 

another opportunity to independently explore the 

refuge and view and photograph wildlife. This trail 

will extend the Kenai Nature Trail westward using 

the Pond 8 dike road; it will then loop south, past a 

former residence site, and then connect to Wildfowl 

Lane (figure 23). This trail will be located close to an 

existing heron rookery and waterfowl habitat. To protect these species, the trail will be closed seasonally. 

These and other proposed improvements to the photography and wildlife viewing areas within the refuge 

will enhance the visitors’ experiences, provide better 

opportunities for viewing and photographing wildlife, 

and help foster their connection to the area’s unique 

habitat and wildlife. This connection may result in a 

greater understanding and appreciation of the refuge 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 99 

The Kenai Nature Trail ends at a trail shelter where 

visitors can sit and view wildlife and the surrounding 

landscape. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

and its resources including the wildlife species found 

within the Bitterroot River Valley. 

The Service will investigate if there are any viable 

options (based on cost, effectiveness, and impacts) for 

slowing the erosion of the WVA. This will require the 

Service to work with an engineer and other partners 

to evaluate not only site-specific options, but to determine if the erosion can be lessened by other means. 

The Kenai Trail’s current path will remain unchanged. However, giving visitors the option of choosing to remain on the upper bench in a small portion 

of the trail (figure 25) will provide a more level, less 

steep walking surface option. 

By working with partners, including commercial 

photographers, the refuge will continue to build a 

photo library that could be used in publications and 

education and outreach tools, including interpretive 

displays and the refuge’s Web site. There is almost 

always some disturbance to wildlife in areas open to 

the public, particularly when visitors approach too 

closely or don’t follow refuge regulations (for example, 

by traveling off designated trails or removing vegetation for a photo). To reduce these impacts, visitors 

will be provided refuge-specific materials (brochures, 

podcasts, and education programs) to facilitate wildlife friendly behaviors that minimize disturbance. This 

will not only reduce the impacts on refuge wildlife and 

their habitats but improve the overall quality of opportunities for all visitors. 

EnviRonMEnTAl EDuCATion oBjECTivE 

Continue and expand environmental education programs and activities on and off the refuge for at least 

1,500 adults and 4,000 students of all abilities. These 

programs will focus on the values and importance of 

the natural, historical, and cultural resources of the 

refuge and the Bitterroot Valley, including the refuge’s 

efforts to maintain, enhance, and restore native plant 

and wildlife communities on the refuge. 

Strategies 

■■ Recruit a visitor services specialist to develop and 

present programs. 

■■ Develop programs and materials that could be 

used year-round and encourage teachers and students to explore the refuge beyond the popular 

spring season. 

■■ Through partnerships, continue to organize and 

provide at least 15 on- and off-refuge annual and 

special events for adults and students. 

■■ Provide at least five offsite school presentations 

annually. 

■■ Conduct teacher workshops annually to better orient and equip teachers to independently explore 

and learn about the refuge resources. 

■■ Establish and widely publicize field trip planning 

procedures for teachers. 

■■ Use current and new education kits to provide 

at least five offsite school presentations annually. 

■■ Continue to allow teachers and students to independently explore the refuge’s public use areas, 

determining if any participants require special 

assistance due physical limitations. Provide an 

orientation on where and how to best explore the 

refuge, and provide teachers with background information before their arrival. 

■■ Develop exploration backpacks that can be checked 

out and used by students; these backpacks will include suggested projects, species they would see, 

along with some field supplies such as invertebrate 

sampling nets, water testing kits, and binoculars. 

■■ Working with local teachers, continue to maintain, 

develop, and provide multimedia educational kits 

related to refuge resources and make them available to local teachers and students for use in onsite 

visits or in their classrooms. 

The refuge will continue to coordinate the State Junior 

Duck Stamp Program. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 
100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

The refuge’s visitor contact area will be expanded to 

provide additional opportunities for programs and the 

interpretation of refuge management and resources. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

■■ Develop an education program that focuses on climate change in the Bitterroot Valley. 

■■ Work with local teachers to develop a refuge-specific 

curriculum that meets State standards. 

■■ Develop an education kit that explains the history 

and value of the restoration efforts proposed under 

this alternative. 

■■ Continue to serve as the coordinator for the State 

Junior Duck Stamp Program. 

■■ Expand opportunities to collaborate with universities to provide outdoor classrooms for students 

wanting to learn about the refuge, its management 

programs, its current issues, and the values of the 

Refuge System. 

■■ Develop a partnership with local universities to 

provide opportunities for students to conduct research and monitoring projects that are beneficial 

to the refuge, and provide an opportunity for students work with refuge staff. 

■■ Add a classroom and associated supplies to the 

expanded visitor center for environmental education programs. 

■■ Organize or participate in five additional annual environmental education events on and off the refuge. 

■■ Pursue partnerships and grants to acquire additional 

resources for environmental education programs. 

■■ Expand the refuge’s online presence (social media, 

blog, Web site) to include interactive educational 

opportunities and help teachers plan field visits. 

■■ Provide training opportunities for added staff and 

volunteers to improve their capabilities and knowledge in developing and presenting environmental 

education programs. 

■■ Meeting Service graphic standards, use both the 

refuge’s Web site and a tearsheet to list all the 

educational resources available through the refuge 

and the Service, and make this available to schools 

and other interested groups. 

■■ Continue to collaborate with the State to provide 

hunter education training. 

■■ Provide assistance to students interested in completing school science projects related to the natural 

resources found on the refuge, including mentoring 

and project development. 

■■ Collaborate with the State, universities, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and other 

entities to create focused activities (environmental 

education and other visitor uses) for environmental 

education and visitor service programming, including special events. 

■■ Participate in events sponsored by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe, including the River 

Honoring event for students. Provide information 

on refuge resources and the Bitterroot River Valley, where the Salish Tribe had lived for centuries. 

Rationale 

Environmental education is a learning process that 

increases people’s knowledge and awareness about the 

environment and associated challenges; develops the 

necessary skills and expertise to address the challenges; 

and fosters attitudes, motivation, and commitments to 

make informed decisions and take responsible action 

(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization 1978). Through environmental education, the Service can help develop a citizenry with the 

awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and drive to 

work cooperatively toward the conservation of environmental resources. Environmental education within 

the Refuge System incorporates onsite, offsite, and 

distance-learning materials, activities, programs, and 

products. These educational tools describe the refuge’s 

purposes, physical attributes, ecosystem dynamics, and 

conservation strategies as well as the Refuge System 

mission. They also provide some history and perspective on this area before Euro-American settlement, 

including the native vegetation, natural waterways, 

and the unique culture and importance of this area to 

Native American people. 

Since today’s children are tomorrow’s land stewards, it is essential to help them become aware of the 

natural world and how they can protect and restore it. 

Today, most students learn about their natural world 

online, through books, or highly structured programs. 

These methods do provide educational benefits, but 

it is also effective simply to allow students to explore 

on their own. Refuge programs must not be so rigid 

that children cannot learn by using their own imaginations and senses. 

Environmental education is one of six wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the Improvement 

Act as a priority public use for the Refuge System, and 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 101 

it has been emphasized and supported on Lee Metcalf 

Refuge for many years. Given the refuge’s proximity 

to some of the more urban areas in Montana, including Missoula, there is a tremendous opportunity to do 

even more, including promoting the refuge as a conservation learning center where adults and children can 

learn about refuge resources, the unique history and 

importance of the Bitterroot Valley, and the values of 

the Refuge System. The refuge has focused most of its 

efforts on schools and groups that travel to the refuge, 

but with additional staff, greater opportunities will 

exist to travel offsite and reach a broader audience. 

Providing teacher workshops and materials for 

independently exploring the refuge will make even 

more teachers and students feel welcome while learning why the refuge is here, how it benefits them, and 

why it should be protected for future generations to 

enjoy and appreciate. 

inTERPRETATion oBjECTivE 

Improve, maintain, and create additional interpretive 

opportunities for the public that focus on refuge purposes; the natural, cultural, and historical resources 

of the refuge and Bitterroot Valley; and management 

programs and challenges, including future habitat 

restoration projects. These enhanced facilities and 

universally accessible programs will encourage visitors to independently explore and learn more about 

not only the values of this refuge, but also about how 

they can be part of protecting and restoring native 

and productive habitats to this refuge, the Bitterroot 

Valley, and other lands within the Refuge System. 

Strategies 

■■ Recruit a full-time permanent General Schedule 

(GS)–7 (could be upgraded to 9) visitor services 

specialist to work with volunteers, manage the 

visitor center, and develop and present programs. 

■■ Identify interpretive themes for the refuge and 

use them to develop professionally planned and 

The refuge’s amphitheater is a good venue for 

environmental education and interpretation programs. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

produced interpretive panels and brochures; these 

themes will be used in future interpretive programs 

to consistently highlight the most important and 

unique aspects of the refuge, its history and purposes, current management and challenges, and 

proposed habitat restoration projects. 

■■ Develop a theme and message for the visitor center 

that focuses on floodplain restoration, wetland impoundment management, native wildlife, migratory 

birds, the refuge’s cultural and natural resources, 

and the role of the Refuge System. 

■■ Update interpretive panels to provide a variety 

of information including rules and regulations, the 

natural and cultural resources of the refuge and 

the Bitterroot Valley, habitat restoration projects, 

and the value of the Refuge System. Design panels 

to have a consistent appearance and to allow refuge staff to easily update them with dynamic and 

timely information. 

■■ Continue to maintain and update the current four 

kiosks, including three with interpretive panels. 

Locate an additional interpretive panel along the 

river trail within the WVA that explains the migration of the Bitterroot River. 

■■ Ensure that all current and future refuge brochures 

meet Service graphic standards and provide upto-date information that is useful for interpretive 

programs and better orients visitors. 

■■ Train volunteers to provide interpretive programs 

on the natural, historical, and cultural resources of 

the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley. 

■■ Make online resources (podcasts, Web site, blog, 

social media) available that interpret refuge resources along the public roads and trails. 

■■ Restore native habitat around entrance areas and 

kiosks and provide identification and interpretation of this native vegetation. 

■■ Provide interpretation along the Kenai Nature Trail, 

within the WVA, and along the auto tour route. 

■■ Participate in events highlighting the history of the 

Lewis and Clark expedition in the Bitterroot Valley. 

■■ Through partnerships, develop a new refuge video 

highlighting the history and resources of the refuge. 

■■ Construct a kiosk at the parking lot on the north 

end of the refuge, used by refuge hunters, that provides regulations as well as information on refuge 

purposes and resources. 

Rationale 

Interpretation is the identification and communication 

of important messages about natural and cultural resources to diverse audiences. Interpretation is designed 

to reveal relationships about the nature, origin, and 

purpose of a resource, landscape, or site in a way that 
102 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

forges connections between the interests of the audience and meanings inherent in the resource (National 

Association for Interpretation 2011). Interpretation is 

a resource management tool that can be designed to 

develop understanding, and through understanding 

comes appreciation, and through appreciation comes 

protection of our natural resources. 

Interpretation is one of six wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses identified in the Improvement Act 

as a priority public use for the Refuge System. The 

refuge already contains some facilities and displays 

that interpret refuge resources, provide regulations, 

and orient visitors. The refuge has documented over 

143,000 visitors annually traveling through the refuge and predicts that number will increase over the 

next 15 years. Tremendous opportunity exists to further educate these and future visitors about the importance of maintaining, restoring, and enjoying the 

natural and cultural resources of the refuge and the 

Refuge System. 

SignAgE oBjECTivE 

Maintain an effective network of signs that meet the 

Service’s standards and notify the public of refuge 

boundaries, public use areas, and closed areas by annually reposting, replacing, or maintaining 20 percent 

of the refuge signs. 

Strategies 

■■ Determine the opportunity to add directional 

signage along Interstate 90 and improve it along 

Highway 93. 

■■ Develop an entrance sign on or near the shelter 

in the WVA to notify river floaters that they are 

entering the refuge. 

■■ Add and maintain more consistent boundary signage—particularly along the west side of the refuge 

(and the river)—so the public is aware that they 

are entering the refuge. 

■■ Ensure that electronic directional devices, Web 

sites, and other printed materials correctly identify 

the location and information for refuge. 

■■ Ensure that signage has a similar appearance, 

meets Service graphic standards, and provides a 

consistent message or theme. 

■■ Mark the west boundary of the refuge with signage and open or maintain closure for public use. 

■■ Post a sign at the beginning of the Kenai Nature 

Trail to make visitors aware of appropriate uses of 

the trail and their potential proximity to archery 

hunters. 

■■ Establish the refuge’s primary point of entry as 

the east entrance, which will be closest to the expanded visitor center. 

■■ Develop an entrance sign for the northeast corner of the refuge within easy view of the Eastside 

Highway. 

■■ Place a directional sign at the east and south entrances identifying the distance to the visitor center. 

■■ In areas open to public use, such as the WVA, 

exchange “unauthorized entry” signs for “refuge 

boundary” signs. 

■■ Develop new panels for the two entrance kiosks 

including an orientation panel with regulations, a 

Refuge System panel, and a system for displaying 

changing information including current events. 

■■ Develop new panels for the kiosk in the WVA to 

include an orientation panel, a panel with a map 

and information about this part of the refuge, and 

a system for displaying changing information. 

■■ Develop a 2-foot by 3-foot orientation panel at 

refuge headquarters to provide information for 

after-hours visitors. 

■■ Move the single-paneled kiosk from behind the 

visitor center out to the front of the building for 

after-hours visitors. 

■■ Develop a sign that guides visitors to the WVA 

from the visitor center, and provide a directional 

sign to the visitor center at the road where the 

Whitetail Golf Course begins. 

■■ Work with the community of Stevensville to install 

interpretative and regulation signage at the Bitterroot River boat launch. 

■■ Add a Service logo to the side of the headquarters 

building that faces the parking area. 

■■ Update publications to show the same hours of operation that are posted at the visitor center. 

■■ Post the law enforcement officer’s phone number at kiosks and instruct visitors to call 911 for 

emergencies. 

■■ Post a sign in the WVA and at the Poker Joe access point to alert river floaters and other visitors 

that they are entering the refuge. 

Rationale 

Overall, the refuge boundaries are well signed, and 

directional signage orients visitors. However, opportunities exist to improve boundary, directional, and 

informational signage for the refuge’s 143,000 visitors. Maintaining and replacing these signs is timeconsuming but critical for orienting visitors, welcoming 

visitors, protecting refuge habitats, and preventing 

trespass. The refuge is surrounded by private, State, 

and some USDA Forest Service land. There are issues with trespassing that could be resolved with 

additional boundary signage and outreach. Most trespass occurs on the western boundary, particularly by 

boaters who leave their boats, unaware that they are 

entering the refuge. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 103 

4.9 goal for Partnerships 

Maintain and cultivate partnerships that help 

achieve the vision and supporting goals and 

objectives of the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

support other initiatives designed to protect 

and restore habitats for Federal trust species 

within the Bitterroot River Valley. 

PARTnERSHiP oBjECTivE 

Foster a strong and effective working relationship 

with existing partners and new partners for the purpose of protecting cultural and historical resources, 

developing and providing visitor services programs, 

and managing and restoring the refuge’s habitats for 

target species. The refuge may participate in other 

partnerships that support refuge and Service initiatives including providing additional habitat for Federal trust species within the Bitterroot River Valley. 

Strategies 

■■ Continue to work with conservation organizations, communities, schools, State and Federal 

agencies, and tribes to collaborate on projects of 

mutual interest. 

■■ Pursue and foster a refuge advocacy group that 

will actively support the priorities for refuge management and programs including the goals and 

objectives described in this and other stepdown 

planning documents. 

■■ Work with partners to restore the connectivity of 

North Burnt Fork Creek for native fish species 

and riparian habitat. 

■■ Continue to participate in the interagency weed 

group to address invasive and nonnative species 

on and near the refuge. 

■■ Expand efforts to recruit and support volunteers for 

the refuge’s visitor services and biological programs. 

■■ Continue to work with partners to restore and 

preserve the Whaley Homestead. 

■■ Work with universities to incorporate various disciplines into refuge programs to address issues 

concerning visitor services and refuge resources. 

■■ Continue to participate in valley-wide efforts to 

protect habitat and wildlife corridors on private 

lands surrounding the refuge. 

■■ Work with the Whitetail Golf Course, located within 

the refuge boundary, to address wildlife habitat 

and impacts on adjoining refuge lands and waters. 

■■ Work with Montana Rail Link to address impacts 

from riprap, the railroad trestle, and the rail bed. 

■■ Receive assistance from the Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes and other tribes with a cultural 

connection to the Bitterroot Valley in developing 

programs and displays highlighting their histories 

and uses of natural resources. 

Rationale 

Partnerships are vital to achieving the Service’s mission, 

including the vision for Lee Metcalf Refuge. Many of the 

refuge’s wildlife, habitat, and public use programs and 

habitat projects could not continue without the funding 

and support from refuge partners, including volunteers. 

The Service must emphasize working cooperatively 

with others; develop a more integrated approach to 

problem-solving and share resources to get the job 

done; and make choices and find efficiencies in both resource and business management practices. This focus 

reinvigorates the refuge’s current intergovernmental 

coordination efforts. Numerous Federal, State, tribal, 

and local agencies and private citizens could be considered partners for the refuge. However, more could 

be done to inform and educate the partners about the 

refuge’s value and goals. In the same vein, the Service 

is willing to help other agencies with issues, such as 

invasive plant control and specific wildlife conservation issues. Much of this coordination could be accomplished through regular meetings and by developing 

personal relationships with individuals within other 

agencies and surrounding communities. 

4.10 goal for operations and 

Facilities 

Prioritize wildlife first and emphasize the 

protection of trust resources in the utilization 

of staff, volunteers, funding, and facilities. 

STAFF oBjECTivE 

Recruit additional staff and volunteers needed to fully 

carry out the proposed actions in this CCP, including 

actions concerning public use, habitat management, 

inventory and monitoring, and research. 

Strategies 

■■ Retain the current permanent, full-time refuge positions: refuge manager, outdoor recreation planner, 

law enforcement officer, administrative assistant, 

and maintenance worker. 

■■ Continue to provide office space and support for 

zone and state-wide support staff, including a fire 

management officer, range (fire) technician, business team staff member, regional maintenance team 

member, and IPM strike team leader and team. 

■■ Recruit a GS–7 (could upgrade to 9) visitor services 

specialist to manage the visitor center, develop 

and conduct programs, and recruit and supervise 

volunteer staff. 
104 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

■■ Recruit a GS–9 (could upgrade to 11) deputy refuge manager. 

■■ Recruit a GS–5 (could upgrade to 7) biological science technician. 

■■ Recruit one GS–5 career seasonal biological science technician. 

■■ Continue to work with Montana universities to 

develop a volunteer program by providing college 

credits in exchange for volunteer work experience. 

■■ Actively recruit additional volunteers to assist with 

expanded visitor services programs and habitat 

management and restoration projects. 

Rationale 

Lee Metcalf Refuge supports several other State and 

regional Service programs, including fire, regional 

maintenance team, business team, and invasive species programs. Although 14 full-time and seasonal 

Service employees are stationed at Lee Metcalf, only 

5 are specifically assigned to conduct refuge programs. 

The State and regional resource employees do provide 

some support for the refuge’s maintenance and habitat 

projects, but their regional duties take precedence. 

To accomplish the goals and objectives described 

in this CCP, additional staff, partnerships, and volunteers will be needed. One of the most significant needs 

is in the refuge’s visitor services program. Currently 

the refuge has over 143,000 visitors annually. The refuge has one outdoor recreation planner who is able to 

provide onsite programs, but there is a tremendous 

opportunity to do more outreach, interpretation, and 

education with students and adults, both on- and offrefuge. The vision for the refuge is to serve as an ambassador for not only the refuge but also the Refuge 

System. To accomplish this goal, additional staff will 

be needed to develop and provide programs, work 

with local schools and communities, and develop partnerships that could expand the refuge’s capabilities 

and outreach. 

Some of the objectives and strategies described under the goals for habitat management can be achieved 

with current staff (for example, improved water level 

management). However, there are other actions—particularly the restoration of riparian forests, grasslands, 

and shrublands; the effective control of invasive species; and long-term monitoring—that will require additional staff to design and implement these actions. 

Current staff at the refuge consists of five permanent full-time employees including a refuge manager, 

outdoor recreation planner, law enforcement officer, 

maintenance worker, and an administrative assistant. 

There are also five zone and regional Service employees who are based out of this office, but they are not 

assigned to exclusively support refuge programs. 

Table 11 shows the current staff and proposed additional staff required to fully implement the CCP. 

The refuge’s headquarters will be expanded to include a 

larger visitor center, more office space, and a classroom. 

 USFWS Danley / Bob 

If all requested projects and positions were funded, 

the refuge would be able to carry out all aspects of 

this CCP, which would provide the most benefit to 

wildlife, improve facilities, and significantly enhance 

public use programs. In the interim, projects that have 

adequate funding and staffing will receive priority for 

accomplishment. Staffing is requested for the 15-year 

life of this CCP. 

FACiliTiES, EquiPMEnT, AnD SuPPliES 

oBjECTivE 

Maintain and acquire the facilities, equipment, and 

supplies needed to support all current and proposed 

biological, visitor services, and maintenance programs 

in this CCP including support for added staff. 

Strategies 

■■ Expand the current visitor contact area into a visitor center including added space for professionally planned and produced displays, office space, 

a restroom available during closed hours, and a 

combined environmental education classroom and 

conference room. 

■■ Relocate the pole barn closer to the maintenance area. 

■■ Purchase or build a seed storage bin for storing 

native seed. 

■■ Construct a duplex to provide housing for seasonal, 

transitional, and detailed staff. 

■■ Through partnerships, rehabilitate and maintain 

the historical Whaley Homestead. 

■■ Incorporate green technology and power sources 

into all new construction and rehabilitation. 

■■ Purchase an excavator to complete proposed restoration projects. 

■■ Add a wash bay and containment area for washing equipment and vehicles to reduce the spread 

of invasive species. 
CHAPTER 4—Management Direction 105 

Table 11. Current and proposed staff for lee Metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

Program Current positions Proposed additional staff 

Management GS–485–12 refuge manager GS–485–9 (could upgrade to 11) deputy refuge manager 

Biology None GS–404–5 (could upgrade to 7) biological science technician 

GS–404–5 career seasonal biological science technician 

Administration GS–0303–7 None 

Law enforcement GS–0025–7 (could upgrade to 9) None 

Maintenance WG–4749–08 maintenance worker None 

Visitor services GS–025–11 outdoor recreation planner GS–025–7 (could upgrade to 9) visitor services specialist 

Abbreviations: GS = General Schedule, WG = Wage Grade. 

■■ Eliminate 3.3 miles of the current Service-only 

access road system (figure 24). The roads will be 

systematically eliminated or modified through a 

priority system dependent on the objectives of the 

proposed restoration program. 

Rationale 

A large portion of refuge facilities, equipment, and 

supplies are adequate to support the current refuge 

operations; however, most facilities are fully utilized 

and some are in need of modifications to support even 

current programs, particularly the public use facilities. 

The refuge hosts over 143,000 visitors annually. Currently, about 6,000 visitors are greeted in the small 

visitor contact area, which is inadequate for supporting large groups of refuge visitors and for housing 

an effective interpretive program. Expanding this 

area to include a combined environmental education 

classroom and conference room will allow the refuge 

to develop more effective and dynamic interpretation and education programs for adults and children. 

This expansion will also include additional offices for 

proposed added staff. 

The bunkhouse remains full throughout the field 

season, supporting refuge and regional programs based 

out of the refuge. Additional seasonal and transitional 

staff housing is needed. Availability of this housing will 

be critical to recruitment of seasonal staff, because 

rental housing is very limited and costly in the surrounding rural communities. This need will be even 

more critical if the refuge does not receive support for 

permanent staff, as more seasonal employees would 

be required. 

Acquiring the necessary equipment and supplies to 

support these restoration and maintenance programs 

will also be essential to completing and maintaining 

the projects described in this proposed action. 

Refuge vehicles and equipment can be a source of 

transport for seeds and plant materials from invasive 

species. This can allow these plants to spread into other 

areas of the refuge. Installing a wash station where 

each piece of equipment could be cleaned after use in 

the field or before being transported to other areas 

could help prevent some of this spread. 

4.11 Stepdown Management 

Plans 

The CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides 

general concepts and specific objectives for habitat, 

wildlife, public use, cultural resources, partnerships, 

and operations over the next 15 years. The purpose 

of the stepdown management plans is to provide details to Service staff for carrying out specific actions 

and strategies authorized by the CCP. Table 12 lists 

the stepdown plans needed for the refuge, status, and 

next revision date. Refuge staff will conduct an intraService consultation through ecological services once 

the stepdown water management plan is completed. 

4.12 Research, Monitoring, 

and Evaluation 

Appendix C contains the compatibility determination for research that supports refuge objectives and 

programs. Furthermore, the Service proposes to 

most efficiently deal with the uncertainty surrounding restoration and habitat management with adaptive resource management (figure 26; Kendall 2001, 

Lancia et al. 1996, Walters and Holling 1990). This approach provides a framework within which objective 

decisions can be made and the uncertainty surrounding those decisions reduced at the time that they are 

made. The key components of an adaptive resource 

management plan follow: 

■■ clearly defined management goals and objectives 

■■ a set of management actions with associated uncertainty as to their outcomes 

■■ a suite of models representing various alternative 

working hypotheses describing the response of 

species or communities of interest 
106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Table 12. Stepdown management plans for lee Metcalf national Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

Plan Completed plan (year approved) New or revised plan (completion year) 

Disease contingency plan — 2015 

Chronic wasting disease 2005 2015 

Avian influenza 2006 2015 

Fire management 2001 2013 

Habitat management plan — 2014 

Inventory and monitoring plan — 2014 

Integrated pest management — 2015 

Wildlife inventory 1991 2018 

Refuge safety — 2013 

Occupant emergency 1995 2014 

Spill prevention — 2013 

Water management 2002 2014 

Visitor services — 2016 

■■ monitoring and assessment of the response of target organisms 

■■ use of monitoring and assessment information to 

direct future decision-making through the selection of a best model 

The first three components—goals, actions, and models—are largely defined before initiation of an adaptive resource management plan. The latter two components, monitoring and directed decision-making, 

compose a repetitive process whereby each year the 

predictive ability of models is tested against what 

was observed during monitoring. This may result in 

Figure 26. Adaptive management process. 

a new best model, greater support for the existing 

best model, or new models constructed from emerging hypotheses. In this way, management can evolve 

as more information about the refuge is gained and 

uncertainty is reduced. 

Development of adaptive resource management 

plans for habitat management will allow refuge staff 

to “learn by doing” and adapt to a changing climate 

while focusing on management objectives. Knowledge 

gained from assessing management actions is as integral to the process as the management actions themselves. This emphasis on gaining knowledge about 

the refuge creates a situation whereby the staff can 

refine its habitat management with feedback between 

management and assessment. 

4.13 Plan Amendment and 

Revision 

The Service will annually review the final CCP to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur 

if and when significant information became available 

such as a change in ecological conditions. Substantial 

revisions to the CCP and the stepdown management 

plans will be subject to public review and compliance 

with NEPA (which includes a categorical exclusion). 

At a minimum, the Service will evaluate the plan every 5 years and revise it after 15 years. 
Glossary
 

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas and 

activities for people of different abilities, especially 

those with physical impairments. 

adaptive resource management—The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring 

to gain information and experience necessary to 

assess and modify management activities. It is a 

process that uses feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation of management actions to 

support or modify objectives and strategies at all 

planning levels. It is also a process in which policy 

decisions are implemented within a framework of 

scientifically driven experiments to test predictions 

and assumptions inherent in management plans. 

Analysis of results helps managers determine 

whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Administration Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. 

alluvial fan—A sedimentary deposit where a fastflowing stream has flown into a flatter plain. 

alternative—A reasonable way to solve an identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 

1500.2); one of several different means of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and contributing to the Refuge System mission (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

amphibian—A class of cold-blooded vertebrates that 

includes frogs, toads, and salamanders. 

anastomosis—Reconnection of two streams that formerly had been separated. 

annual—A plant that flowers and dies within 1 year 

of germination. 

baseline—A set of critical observations, data, or information used for comparison or a control. 

biological control—The use of organisms or viruses 

to control invasive plants or other pests. 

biological diversity, also biodiversity—The variety of 

life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and 

the communities and ecosystems in which they occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1.12B). The National 

Wildlife Refuge System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and ecological processes. 

breeding habitat—Habitat used by migratory birds or 

other animals during the breeding season. 

canopy—A layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory 

vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure 

(also canopy cover) is an estimate of the amount of 

overhead vegetative cover. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

cfs—Cubic feet per second. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—The codification of 

the general and permanent rules published in the 

Federal Register by the executive departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government. Each volume 

of the CFR is updated once each calendar year. 

compatibility determination—See compatible use. 

compatible use—A wildlife-dependent recreational use 

or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the director of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge (Draft Service Manual 603 FW 

3.6). A compatibility determination supports the 

selection of compatible uses and identified stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute 

to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to meet other relevant mandates (Draft 

Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

conservation—Management of natural resources to 

prevent loss or waste. Management actions may 

include preservation, restoration, and enhancement. 

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present vegetation of an area. 

cultural resources—The remains of sites, structures, 

or objects used by people in the past. 

dense nesting cover—Composition of grasses and forbs 

that allows for a dense stand of vegetation that 

protects nesting birds from the view of predators, 

usually consisting of one to two species of wheatgrass, alfalfa, and sweetclover. 

disturbance—Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural (for example, 
108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

fire) or human-caused events (for example, timber 

harvest). 

drawdown—The act of manipulating water levels in 

an impoundment to allow for the natural dryingout cycle of a wetland. 

duck, dabbling—Duck that mainly feeds on vegetable 

matter by upending on the water surface, or by 

grazing, and only rarely dives. 

duck, diving—Duck that mainly feeds by diving 

through the water. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

ecosystem—A dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated 

nonliving environment; a biological community, 

together with its environment, functioning as a 

unit. For administrative purposes, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service has designated 53 ecosystems 

covering the United States and its possessions. 

These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and their sizes and ecological 

complexity vary. 

ecotype—A subspecies or race that is especially adapted 

to a particular set of environmental conditions. 

EIS—Environmental impact statement. 

Elderhostel—A not-for-profit organization established 

in 1975 that allows senior citizens to travel and 

take educational programs in the United States 

around the world. 

emergent—A plant rooted in shallow water and having most of the vegetative growth above water. 

Examples include cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, Federal—A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

endangered species, State—A plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular State within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations of 

these species are at critically low levels, or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 

environmental assessment (EA)—A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses 

the purpose and need for an action and alternatives 

to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and 

analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding 

of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area. 

Federal trust resource—A trust is something managed 

by one entity for another who holds the ownership. 

The Service holds in trust many natural resources 

for the people of the United States of America as a 

result of Federal acts and treaties. Examples are 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, 

migratory birds protected by international treaties, and native plant or wildlife species found on 

a national wildlife refuge. 

Federal trust species—All species where the Federal 

Government has primary jurisdiction including 

federally endangered or threatened species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. 

fee title—Acquisition of most or all of the rights to a 

tract of land. 

Federal land—Public land owned by the Federal Government, including lands such as national forests, 

national parks, and national wildlife refuges. 

flora—All the plant species of an area. 

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

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season. 

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original habitat that are interspersed with a variety of 

other habitat types; the process of reducing the 

size and connectivity of habitat patches, making 

movement of individuals or genetic information 

between parcels difficult or impossible. 

fire management plan—Wildland fire management 

(wildfire and prescribed) and related activities 

within the context of approved land and resource 

management plans. 

full-time equivalent—One or more job positions with 

tours of duty that, when combined, equate to one 

person employed for the standard government 

work-year. 

gallery forest (as it relates to the Bitterroot River floodplain)—The forested area found on the higher floodplains along natural levees and point bar terraces 

next to minor floodplain tributaries. It is more closely 

associated with backwater and overbank flooding. 

When flooding occurs, it is for short duration. This 

forest is dominated by mature black cottonwood and 

ponderosa pine along with an understory of large 

woody shrubs such as thin-leaved alder, river hawthorn, red osier dogwood, and Wood’s rose. There 

may also be mixed grasses between the trees and 

shrubs (Heitmeyer et al. 2010). 

geographic information system (GIS)—A computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating spatial data; a set of computer hardware and software 

for analyzing and displaying spatially referenced 

features (such as points, lines, and polygons) with 

nongeographic attributes such as species and age. 

GIS—See geographic information system. 

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units (Draft 

Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). 
 

GLOSSARY 109 

GS—General Schedule (pay rate schedule for certain 

Federal positions). 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives and grows. 

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

classification system based on the concept of distinct plant associations. 

head cuts—abrupt changes in streambed elevation. 

hemi-marsh—The emergent phase of a seasonal or 

semipermanent wetland where the ratio of openwater area to emergent vegetation cover is about 

50:50, and vegetation and open-water areas are 

highly interspersed. 

hydrogeomorphic methodology (HGM)—An interdisciplinary science that focuses on the interaction and 

linkage of hydrologic processes with landforms or 

earth materials and the interaction of geomorphic 

processes with surface and subsurface water in 

temporal and spatial dimensions. 

hydroperiod—Period of time during which soils, waterbodies, and sites are wet. 

impoundment—A body of water created by collection 

and confinement within a series of levees or dikes, 

creating separate management units although not 

always independent of one another. 

Improvement Act—See National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

indigenous—Originating or occurring naturally in a 

particular place. 

integrated pest management (IPM)—Methods of managing undesirable species such as invasive plants; includes education, prevention, physical or mechanical 

methods of control, biological control, responsible 

chemical use, and cultural methods. 

interseed—Mechanical seeding of one or several plant 

species into existing stands of established vegetation. 

introduced species—A species present in an area due 

to intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem as a 

result of human activity. 

invasive species—A species that is nonnative to the 

ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health. 

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted. 

IPM—See integrated pest management. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision; for example, a Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, a threat 

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

concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource 

condition (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

level ditching—Ditches developed to improve water 

distribution, provide open water for waterfowl, 

furnish nesting islands, and encourage aquatic vegetation for waterfowl and furbearers. The material 

removed and piled along the ditch edge provides 

nesting and loafing sites for waterfowl. The production of waterfowl from level ditching is dependent 

upon the suitability of the wetland. 

management alternative—See alternative. 

management plan—Plan that guides future land management practices on a tract of land. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically 

from one region or climate to another for feeding 

or breeding. 

migratory bird—Bird species that follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, 

and songbirds are all migratory birds. 

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason 

for being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an environmental impact or to make an impact less severe. 

monitoring—The process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time. 

national wildlife refuge—A designated area of land, 

water, or an interest in land or water within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not include coordination areas; a complete listing of all 

units of the Refuge System is in the current “Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)— 

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of 

fish and wildlife, including species threatened with 

extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; 

areas for the protection and conservation of fish 

and wildlife that are threatened with extinction; 

wildlife ranges; game ranges; wildlife management 

areas; and waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Improvement Act)—Sets the mission and the 

administrative policy for all refuges in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; defines a unifying mission 

for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy 

and appropriateness of the six priority public uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining 

appropriateness and compatibility; establish the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior 

for managing and protecting the Refuge System; 

requires a comprehensive conservation plan for 

each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended 

portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 
110 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

native species—A species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or currently 

occurs in that ecosystem. 

neotropical migrant—A bird species that breeds north 

of the United States and Mexican border and winters primarily south of this border. 

nest success—The chance that a nest will hatch at 

least one egg. 

nongovernmental organization—Any group that is not 

composed of Federal, State, tribal, county, city, 

town, local, or other governmental entities. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan—The 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

signed in 1986, recognizes that the recovery and 

perpetuation of waterfowl populations depends 

on restoring wetlands and associated ecosystems 

throughout the United States and Canada. It established cooperative international efforts and 

joint ventures comprised of individuals; corporations; conservation organizations; and local, State, 

Provincial, and Federal agencies drawn together 

by common conservation objectives. 

noxious weed—Any plant or plant product that can 

directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to 

crops (including nursery stock or plant products), 

livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, 

irrigation, navigation, natural resources of the 

United States, public health, or the environment. 

objective—An objective is a concise target statement 

of what will be achieved, how much will be achieved, 

when and where it will be achieved, and who is 

responsible for the work; derived from goals and 

provides the basis for determining management 

strategies. Objectives should be attainable and 

time-specific and should be stated quantitatively to 

the extent possible. If objectives cannot be stated 

quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively 

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

obligate—Necessary for survival. 

palustrine—Relating to a system of inland, nontidal 

wetlands characterized by the presence of trees, 

shrubs, and emergent vegetation (vegetation that 

is rooted below water but grows above the surface). Palustrine wetlands range from permanently 

saturated or flooded land to land that is wet only 

seasonally. 

Partners in Flight program—Western Hemisphere program designed to conserve Neotropical migratory 

birds and officially endorsed by numerous Federal 

and State agencies and nongovernmental organizations; also known as the Neotropical Migratory 

Bird Conservation Program. 

partnership—Contract or agreement entered into 

by two or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations or agencies in which each agrees to 

furnish a part of the capital or some in-kind service, 

such as labor, for a mutually beneficial enterprise. 

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

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental conditions. 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life 

span of more than 2 years. 

planning team—Team that prepares the comprehensive conservation plan. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team 

generally consists of a planning team leader; refuge manager and staff biologist; staff specialists 

or other representatives of Service programs, 

ecosystems or regional offices; and State partner 

wildlife agencies, as appropriate. 

planning team leader—Typically a professional planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable 

of the requirements of National Environmental 

Policy Act and who has planning experience. The 

planning team leader manages the refuge planning 

process and ensures compliance with applicable 

regulatory and policy requirements. 

planning unit—Single refuge, an ecologically or administratively related refuge complex, or distinct 

unit of a refuge. The planning unit also may include 

lands currently outside refuge boundaries. 

plant community—An assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition; occurs in particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the 

site such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a general 

kind of climax plant community, such as ponderosa 

pine or bunchgrass. 

preferred alternative—The selected final alternative 

that becomes the final plan. It can be the proposed 

action, the no-action alternative, another alternative, or a combination of actions or alternatives 

discussed in the draft comprehensive conservation plan and National Environmental Policy Act 

document. 

prescribed fire—A wildland fire originating from a 

planned ignition to meet specific objectives identified in a written and approved prescribed fire plan 

for which NEPA requirements (where applicable) 

have been met before ignition. 

pristine—Typical of original conditions. 

private land—Land that is owned by a private individual, a group of individuals, or a nongovernmental organization. 

private landowner—Any individual, group of individuals, 

or nongovernmental organization that owns land. 

private organization—Any nongovernmental organization. 

priority public use—One of six uses authorized by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 to have priority if found to be compatible 

with a refuge’s purposes. This includes hunting, 
 

GLOSSARY 111 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. 

proposed action—The alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

(contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, addresses the significant issues, and 

is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management). 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government agencies; Native American tribes; and foreign nations. 

It may include anyone outside the core planning 

team. It includes those who may or may not have 

expressed an interest in Service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions 

may affect them. 

public involvement or scoping—A process that offers 

affected and interested individuals and organizations an opportunity to become informed about, 

and to express their opinions on, Service actions 

and policies. In the process, these views are studied 

thoroughly, and thoughtful consideration of public views is given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management. 

purpose of the refuge—The purpose of a refuge is 

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

Executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum 

establishing authorization or expanding a refuge, 

refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

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

vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on meat taken 

by hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses). 

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System. 

refuge use—Any activity on a refuge, except administrative or law enforcement activity, carried out 

by or under the direction of an authorized Service 

employee. 

resident species or wildlife—A species inhabiting a 

given locality throughout the year; nonmigratory 

species. 

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands. 

restoration—Management emphasis designed to move 

ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, such 

as healthy upland habitats and aquatic systems. 

riparian corridor—An area or habitat that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent plant 

communities and their associated soils that have 

free water at or near the surface; an area whose 

components are directly or indirectly attributed to 

the influence of water; of or relating to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes the 

land immediately adjoining and directly influenced 

by streams. For example, riparian vegetation includes all plant life growing on the land adjoining 

a stream and directly influenced by the stream. 

riverfront forest (as it relates to the Bitterroot River 

floodplain)—The forested area next to the Bitterroot River that includes early successional species 

such as black cottonwood and sandbar willow. This 

early-successional vegetation is present on newly 

deposited and scoured gravelly-sand, sand, and fine 

silty loams near the active channel of the Bitterroot River and in outcrop sites next to floodplain 

drainages. This area is characterized by little, if 

any, understory. These sites have high water tables 

for most of the year and are inundated for short 

periods during high spring riverflows (Heitmeyer 

et al. 2010). 

runoff—Water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural 

or landscape irrigation that flows over the land 

surface into a waterbody. 

scoping—The process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers. 

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

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and shrubs 

planted around cropland or buildings to block or 

slow down the wind. 

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

such as a plover or snipe, that frequent the seashore or mud flat areas. 

special use permit—A permit for special authorization 

from the refuge manager required for any refuge 

service, facility, privilege, or product of the soil 

provided at refuge expense and not usually available to the general public through authorizations 

in Title 50 CFR or other public regulations (Refuge 

Manual 5 RM 17.6). 

species of concern—Those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the definition of special 

status species, that are of management interest 

by virtue of being Federal trust species such as 

migratory birds, important game species, or significant keystone species; species that have documented or apparent populations declines, small or 

restricted populations, or dependence on restricted 

or vulnerable habitats. Species that (1) are documented or have apparent population declines, (2) 

are small or restricted populations, or (3) depend 

on restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

stand—Any homogenous area of vegetation with more 

or less uniform soils, landform, and vegetation. 

Typically used to refer to forested areas. 

stepdown management plan—A plan that provides the 

details necessary to implement management strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation 

plan (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 
112 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

strategy—A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to meet 

unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely beneath the water surface, except for flowering parts 

in some species. 

tame grasses—Nonnative species of grasses that are 

introduced to a site. 

temporal—Of or relating to time. 

threatened species, Federal—Species listed under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 

that are likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of their range. 

threatened species, State—A plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered in a particular State 

within the near future if factors contributing to 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue. 

tile drainage—In agricultural, a method of draining 

the soil subsurface to reduce moisture. 

trust resource—See Federal trust resource. 

trust species—See Federal trust species. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS)—The 

principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of 

the American people. The Service manages the 

93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System 

that comprises more than 530 national wildlife 

refuges and thousands of waterfowl production 

areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries 

and 78 ecological service field stations. The agency 

enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory 

bird populations, restores national significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such 

as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species 

Act, and helps foreign governments with their 

conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal 

aid program that distributes millions of dollars in 

excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to 

State wildlife agencies. 

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

U.S. Geological Survey—A Federal agency whose mission is to provide reliable scientific information to 

describe and understand the earth; minimize loss 

of life and property from natural disasters; manage 

water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; 

and enhance and protect our quality of life. 

ungulate—A hoofed mammal. 

vision statement—A concise statement of the desired 

future condition of the planning unit, based primarily on the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, 

specific refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water; includes egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, 

and bitterns. 

waterbird—Birds dependent upon aquatic habitats to 

complete portions of their life cycles (for example, 

breeding). 

waterfowl—A category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans. 

watershed—Geographic area within which water drains 

into a particular river, stream or body of water. A 

watershed includes both the land and the body of 

water into which the land drains. 

wetland—Land transitional between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems where the water table is usually 

at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water. 

WG—Wage Grade Schedule (pay rate schedule for 

certain Federal positions). 

wildfire—Unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such 

as a fire caused by lightning, volcanoes, unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires) and escaped 

prescribed fires. 

wildland fire—A general term describing any nonstructure fire that occurs in the wild. There are two 

types of wildland fire, wildfire and prescribed fire. 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, 

or interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that 

these are the six priority general public uses of 

the Refuge System. 

wildlife management—Practice of manipulating wildlife populations either directly through regulating 

the numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or indirectly by providing favorable habitat conditions 

and alleviating limiting factors. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not usually touching, generally forming 25–60 percent cover. 
Appendix A 

Public Involvement 

A.1 Public Involvement 

Activities 

This appendix describes how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) conducted public involvement 

activities and considered the resulting information 

for developing the comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) for the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. 

The appendix contains the following sections: 

■■ A.1 Public Involvement Activities 

■■ A.2 Public Mailing List 

■■ A.3 Public Comments on the Draft Plan 

A notice of intent to prepare a CCP was published 

in the Federal Register on September 30, 2009. The 

Service compiled a mailing list of more than 270 names 

during preplanning. The list included private citizens; 

local, regional, and State government representatives 

and legislators; other Federal agencies; and interested 

organizations. 

PublIc ScoPIng

 Public scoping was announced through news releases 

and a mailed planning update; it provided information 

on the history of the refuge, an overview of the CCP 

process, and invitations to two public scoping meetings. The planning update included a form for providing written comments. Emails were also accepted at 

the refuge’s email address: leemetcalf@fws.gov. 

Two public meetings were held in the communities 

of Stevensville and Missoula, Montana on September 

29 and October 1, 2009, respectively. There were 12 

attendees, primarily local citizens and staff from Senator Max Baucus’s local office. Following a presentation about the refuge and an overview of the CCP 

and National Environmental Policy Act 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 November 13, 

2009; 20 emails and letters were received in addition 

to the verbal comments recorded at the public scoping 

meeting. All comments were shared with the planning 

team and considered throughout the planning process. 

In addition to 200 private individuals, the following 

organizations and agencies were given the opportunity to provide comments about this planning process. 

RevIew of the DRAft PlAn 

The draft CCP and final environmental assessment 

(EA) was released to the public on March 28, 2012, 

though a notice of availability published in the Federal 

Register (volume 77, number 60, pages 18852–18853). 

Copies of either the draft CCP and EA or a planning 

update were mailed to over 180 individuals or organizations on the planning mailing list. In addition, over 

35 copies were distributed to visitors who came to the 

refuge headquarters requesting the document. The 

document was also available on the refuge Web site. 

The public was offered 34 days to review this document and provide comments. On April 9, 2012, the Service held a public meeting attended by 44 participants 

at the refuge headquarters in Stevensville, Montana. 

Before this meeting, the Service’s External Affairs 

Office issued a news release, and planning updates 

were mailed providing details on where and when this 

meeting would be held. It was also announced through 

the refuge’s Web site. During this 2-hour meeting a 

presentation was given on the draft plan, followed by 

an opportunity for participants to ask questions and 

offer comments. In addition to the oral comments recorded at the meeting, 13 emails and 20 letters were 

received. All comments needed to be received or postmarked by April 30, 2012. 

The planning team reviewed all the individual comments and met together as a team to discuss the responses to these comments and the proposed changes. 

These substantive comments and the Service responses 

are summarized in section A.3. 

A.2 Public Mailing list 

The Service sent planning updates to all individuals 

and organizations on the mailing list. In addition, many 

hard copies of the draft CCP and EA were distributed 

using the mailing list, additional requests, and through 

the refuge headquarters. 

feDeRAl offIcIAlS 

U.S. Representative Dennis Rehberg, Washington, DC 

U.S. Senator Jon Tester, Washington, DC 

U.S. Senator Max Baucus, Washington, DC 
114 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

feDeRAl AgencIeS 

Bitterroot National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 

Hamilton, Montana 

Lewis and Clark National Trail, National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska 

National Park Service, Denver, Colorado 

Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Missoula, 

Montana 

USDA Forest Service, Bitterroot National Forest, 

Stevensville, Montana 

USDA Forest Service, Regional Office and Lolo National Forest, Missoula, Montana 

tRIbAl offIcIAlS 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Council, 

Pablo, Montana 

Nez Perce Tribal Executive Council, Lapwai, Idaho 

StAte offIcIAlS 

Governor Brian Schweitzer, Helena, Montana 

Representative Ray Hawk, Florence, Montana 

Representative Gary MacLaren, Victor, Montana 

Representative Bob Lake, Hamilton, Montana 

Senator Rick Laible, Darby, Montana 

Senator Jim Shockley, Victor, Montana 

StAte AgencIeS 

Travelers Rest State Park, Lolo, Montana 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Helena, Montana 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Missoula, Montana 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Hamilton, Montana 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana 

Montana Historical Society, Helena, Montana 

Montana State Historic Preservation Office, Helena, 

Montana 

Ravalli County Extension Office, Hamilton, Montana 

Ravalli County Weed District, Stevensville, Montana 

locAl goveRnMent 

Mayor of Stevensville, Stevensville, Montana 

Ravalli County Commissioners, Hamilton, Montana 

oRgAnIzAtIonS 

American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia 

American Bird Conservancy, Kalispell, Montana 

American Legion Post #94, Stevensville, Montana 

Audubon Society, Helena, Montana 

Audubon Society, Hamilton, Montana 

Audubon Society, Missoula, Montana 

Audubon Society, Washington, DC 

Bitterroot Water Forum, Hamilton, Montana 

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC 

Ducks Unlimited, Clancy, Montana 

Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, Tennessee 

Family of Peter Whaley, Missoula, Montana 

Five Valleys Audubon Society, Missoula, Montana 

Friends of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, 

Stevensville, Montana 

Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, 

California 

Isaak Walton League, Gaithersburg, Maryland 

Missoula Convention & Visitors Bureau, Missoula, 

Montana 

Montana Conservation Science Institute, Missoula, 

Montana 

Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana 

Montana Natural Heritage Program, Missoula, Montana 

Montana Natural History Center, Missoula, Montana 

Montana Preservation Alliance, Helena, Montana 

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, 

West Virginia 

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, Virginia and 

Helena, Montana 

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC 

The Nature Conservancy, Helena, Montana 

Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association, Hamilton, Montana 

Ravenworks Ecology, Stevensville, Montana 

Sierra Club, San Francisco, California 

Stevensville Historical Museum, Stevensville, Montana 

Stevensville Main Street Association, Stevensville, 

Montana 

The Teller, Corvallis, Montana 

Watershed Education Network, Missoula, Montana 

The Humane Society, Washington, DC 

The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC 

Trout Unlimited, Missoula, Montana 

The Wildlife Society, Townsend, Montana 

unIveRSItIeS AnD SchoolS 

Colorado State University Libraries, Fort Collins, 

Colorado 

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 

University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 

Stevensville Public Schools, Stevensville, Montana 

MeDIA 

Billings Gazette Online, Billings, Montana 

The Billings Outpost, Billings, Montana 

Bitterroot Star, Stevensville, Montana 

Great Falls Tribune, Great Falls, Montana 

The Missoulian, Missoula, Montana 

Montana Public Radio, Missoula, Montana 

Ravalli Republic, Hamilton, Montana 

Stoneydale Press, Stevensville, Montana 

Yellowstone Public Radio, Billings, Montana 

InDIvIDuAlS 

200 private individuals 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 115 

A.3 Public comments on the 

Draft Plan 

In addition to the comments received at the public 

meeting, the refuge received 33 individuals letters or 

emails during the public review period for the draft 

CCP and EA. The Service read all comments and found 

the following comments to be substantive. 

The Service developed responses to each of these 

comments after grouping them in the following topics: 

■■ Kenai Nature Trail 

■■ Pond 8 trail 

■■ public access (roads and other trails) 

■■ dogs on the refuge 

■■ cultural and historical resources 

■■ hunting and fishing 

■■ law enforcement 

■■ visitor services—general comments 

■■ partnerships and community relations 

■■ operations and facilities 

■■ floodplain restoration 

■■ wetland impoundments 

■■ grassland and shrubland 

■■target species 

■■ wildlife 

■■ bull trout (threatened species) and other native 

salmonids 

■■ mercury contamination 

■■ invasive species 

■■ planning process 

■■ alternatives 

■■ general comments 

KenAI nAtuRe tRAIl 

Comment 1. a. On page 146 it states that the existing 

footprint of the Kenai Nature Trail would be moved 

east in select areas by 10–30 yards to lessen disturbance to waterbirds using the slough portion of Pond 

8. It would be helpful to show where the trail will be 

relocated. 

b. It is our judgment that the existing Kenai Trail 

by the slough portion of Pond 8 does not need to be 

moved to the east. This section has adequate distance 

and shrubbery to minimize the disturbance to waterfowl that use that slough. However, we do recommend 

that the portion of the trail that drops steeply down to 

the cattails be closed and that the trail be connected 

on the bench for the safety and ease of hiking for the 

participants. 

c. I have heard there is a proposal to close the Kenai 

(I hope I have spelled that correctly) Nature Trail. If 

this is true, I am adamantly opposed to the idea. It is 

the best Nature Trail in the Bitterroot and Missoula 

Valleys. There does not exist another trail that gives 

you access to look down on large ponds. 

d. Please do not close this trail. I use it regularly 

and look forward to being able to see the wildlife here 

that cannot be seen elsewhere. Closing this trail would 

be a sad loss to the community who enjoy the wildlife for with [Lee Metcalf Refuge] manages so well. 

If there are wildlife–human conflicts, then please try 

to address them in a manner that still allows enjoyment of the trail by foot traffic. 

e. Do not remove portions of this trail to the existing road way. It is the ‘ups and downs’ of the trail that 

make it interesting and provide variety. 

f. I would prefer that [the Kenai Nature Trail] be 

left as it is. It seems to meet the needs of those participants who frequent this area. 

g. Access to view birds while walking close to the 

bank is much better than it would be if the trail is 

moved to the east. The trail should be open all year 

for wildlife viewing. 

h. I am writing to oppose the abandonment of 

portions of the Kenai Nature Trail. Put portions of 

the trail on the existing two-track maintenance road 

as proposed, but leave the existing trail in place for 

those who prefer to walk on trails rather than maintenance roads. 

i. Although there is nothing in the writeup to suggest that the beginning half of the existing Kenai Trail 

will become subject to the conditions of the seasonal 

trail around Pond 8, it needs to be clarified that only 

the new trail around Pond 8 will be closed during 

nesting season. 

j. Page 120—Strategies for Wildlife Observation 

as appropriate, relocate portions of the Kenai Nature 

Trail to the adjacent upper road to provide a more 

level walking surface (average grade now is 3) and 

to reduce disturbance to waterfowl and other waterbirds, using the wetlands below the trail. The wetlands 

are nothing but a landscape of cattails with minimal 

water in the late spring if any water at all—two very 

poor excuses for relocating this portion of the trail. 

Response 1a–j. The proposed action (alternative B) 

did not recommend closing the Kenai Nature Trail 

or only allowing visitors to access it seasonally. We 

did propose to relocate two small sections of the trail 

to address disturbance to waterbirds that use the 

wetland impoundments along the trail and to create 

a more level walking surface. The final decision is to 

leave the Kenai Nature Trail unchanged but add an 

optional walking path to allow visitors to remain on 

the higher bench (figure 25 in the final CCP) where 

the trail drops down to the pond. Many visitors already cross on this upper bench, which is currently 
116 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

in a closed area. This will give visitors who might not 

be able to walk this steeper portion of the trail the option to remain on a more level walking surface without 

violating a closed area boundary. 

The refuge has and will continue to address the 

amount of cattails in wetlands that can be caused by 

keeping water levels static. The refuge has already 

begun drawing down and treating these large expanses 

of cattails to restore more open-water habitat. 

Comment 2. I personally like the portion of the trail 

from where it crosses the road and descends down to 

the slough, which it follows to the trail shelter; I appreciate not seeing houses and vehicles on Eastside 

Highway. 

Response 2. The draft CCP did not recommend any 

changes to this portion of the trail. 

Comment 3. The rationale for relocating the trail (p. 

120) is to reduce disturbance to waterfowl and other 

waterbirds using the wetlands below the trail. Are 

there scientific studies which address this? 

Response 3. No, no studies specific to this area are 

available, but refuge staff have consistently observed 

waterbirds being flushed along the portion of the trail 

that comes close to the wetlands. Despite this resource 

disturbance, no portion of the trail will be relocated. 

Comment 4. The growing usage of the Kenai Trail suggests needs: widen the trail, provide more level grade, 

boardwalks where appropriate, hedge row of bushes 

or trees to block view of homes to the east. 

Response 4. We appreciate your suggestions to improve 

this trail. There may be opportunities in the future to 

continue improving the trail to provide for the safety 

and enjoyment of visitors. 

Comment 5. Page 91 and 145—Visitor Contact Area and 

the Kenai Nature Trail—second paragraph 7th sentence. The remaining trail is a soil footpath. [This] is 

not true. The remaining trail is 85 gravel and 15 soil. 

Response 5. The trail is now described as a gravel and 

soil footpath in the final CCP. 

Comment 6. Page 145. Third paragraph—At the visitor contact area—Then the fourth paragraph—Kenai 

Nature trail is 1.1 miles long. It starts at the refuge 

headquarters—Why two different names for the same 

starting point? 

Response 6. The visitor contact area and headquarters 

are located in the same building. The visitor contact 

area is open to the public, and the headquarters is the 

part of the building where the refuge offices are located. 

Comment 7. Page 95—What is the number of visitation 

for the Kenai Nature Trail and why has the counter 

been removed? 

Response 7. The counter no longer works and was removed. Over 6,000 people come to the visitor contact 

area annually, and many of these visitors walk at least 

a portion of the Kenai Nature Trail. 

Comment 8. See Exhibit for a line diagram with distances to features along the trail. Note the two suggested segments of trail construction 1) Sta. 23 + 75 

construct a 180' by pass for visitors not wanting to 

negotiate the short (240,) steep section of the trail, 

2) construct a 700' loop on the west side of the trail, 

starting at Sta.31 +95 and returning to the trail at 

Sta. 36+20. This was originally planned as part of 

the Kenai Nature Trail but due to the now defunct 

pistol range was never built. This loop would be on 

the elevated ridge (probably part of a dike for a pond 

never completed) and give visitors a view of ponds to 

the west, without any disturbance to waterfowl. 

Response 8. The current path of the Kenai Nature 

Trail will not be altered, and no expansions of this 

trail are planned. 

Comment 9. Page 120—As appropriate, relocate portions of the Kenai Nature Trail to the adjacent upper 

road. In other words where the trail crosses the service 

road, near the Potato Cellar Pond, close the trail that 

drops down and parallels the marsh. The purpose of 

this segment was to give people the feeling that they 

were away from civilization for a while. Away from 

houses, power lines, Eastside Highway view and noises. 

Relocating this segment would also mean abandoning the 128 foot raised boardwalk. Forcing people to 

traverse a 12 foot wide service road is no longer a 

trail experience. 

Response 9. The draft CCP did not propose to close or 

relocate this portion of the trail. 

Comment 10. Page 146—there is very little disturbance 

to waterfowl, most of this area has brush and trees 

along the Pond 8 slough to screen the waterfowl from 

birders and photographers have walked this trail dozens of times and nine times out of ten any waterfowl 

that are on the slough do not flush. Also part of the 

handicap trail parallels the southern end of the Pond 

8 slough, with no vegetation for screening, so are you 

planning on moving that segment of the handicap 

trail back so disabled people no longer will have the 

opportunity to view waterfowl? 

Response 10. The draft CCP did not propose to alter 

the universally accessible trail. The Kenai Nature 

Trail route will not be changed except for the added 

segment where visitors can stay on the upper bench 

if they do not want to follow the steeper grade to the 

pond (figure 25 in the final CCP). 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 117 

PonD 8 tRAIl 

Comment 1. a. I support the development of the walking trail around Pond 8 (page 42) to allow access to 

more of the refuge. The document states “This trail 

may only be opened seasonally...”, but it did not explain which season(s). 

b. Open the new Pond 8 Trail beyond just the winter months. 

Response 1a–b. It is unknown what level of disturbance 

will occur on this new trail. While birds are nesting 

or concentrated during migration, the trail would be 

closed to provide sanctuary. Refuge management will 

determine which months this trail will be opened after monitoring waterbird response to this new use. 

Comment 2. Will the Kenai Trail relocation and Pond 

8 walking trail be included in the [stepdown] plans? 

Will more detailed information regarding the trails 

be available in the plans and will the public have the 

opportunity to provide comments on the proposed 

actions? 

Response 2. Yes, with appropriate resources a visitor 

services stepdown plan will be completed within 5 

years of CCP completion. This stepdown plan will be 

available for public review. 

Comment 3. a. The March 2012 planning update states: 

“A seasonal hiking trail would be added around Pond 

8” but that is simply untrue. What is being proposed 

is to allow the public to walk along refuge roads some 

times of the year. I can only conclude that the people 

who wrote the conservation plan don’t recognize the 

difference between a road and a trail. 

b. Page 121—Rationale—left column 3rd paragraph. The proposed trail around Pond 8, it’s not a 

trail—tell it like it is. Seasonally visitors would be 

allowed to walk on the dike road around the northern 

end of Pond 8, then south along a service road adjacent to the former residence site and then connect to 

Wildfowl Lane and thence east along Wildfowl Lane 

to the visitor contact area. Refuge manager will set 

the dates for visitors to have access to this road system and dates may vary from year to year. NOTE: 

Everywhere the reference to around Pond 8 is written 

it should be changed to read around the north side of 

Pond 8, as the road doesn’t circle Pond 8. 

Response 3a–b. The public will be able to walk this 

gravel Service road to access a previously inaccessible portion of the refuge. With the availability of this 

single-lane road, it is both fiscally and environmentally 

responsible to use the existing infrastructure for this 

new opportunity. The trail would ultimately make a 

wide loop around Ponds 8 and 6, although it would not 

be immediately next to Pond 8 along the entire length. 

Comment 4. If the Service road is developed in to a trail 

there would be no need to cross any wetlands. I would 

hope walking would be allowed most of the year, not 

just the winter months. 

Response 4. The trail is next to wetlands that are used 

by numerous waterbirds for migration and nesting, 

including a concentration of great blue herons. The 

seasonal closure of this trail will minimize disturbance 

to waterbirds, and when the trail is open, visitors will 

have an opportunity to visit an additional section of 

the refuge. 

Comment 5. It is not a good idea to have the last part 

of the trail [new Pond 8 trail] on the roadway. True, 

anyone can walk on the road now if they want but 

making it part of the trail is a very bad and dangerous idea. Perhaps the trail could go a certain distance 

around the pond and end. Then folks could just walk 

back the same way. 

Response 5. We appreciate your comment. This is one 

of the challenges in proposing to open this new area to 

the public. The refuge will consider your suggestion 

and also work with Ravalli County staff to determine 

the feasibility of creating a walking path next to the 

county road. 

Comment 6. a. Page 146—Paragraph 5—The Kenai 

Nature Trail would be extended westward using the 

Pond 8 dike road. By definition this is not an extension of the Kenai Nature Trail. Suggest it should read 

as follows—Where the Kenai Nature Trail (Sta. 39+27 

Exhibit B page 8) crosses the upper maintenance road, 

the segment of the maintenance road going south would 

be open seasonally for pedestrian walking. Description: Walking south for 335 feet from the Kenai Nature 

Trail to the junction with the Pond 8 dike road then 

westerly to the junction of the residence maintenance 

road and then south to Wildfowl lane and then east 

on Wildfowl Lane to the visitor contact area. 

b. The proposed trail around Pond 8 would be 1.25 

miles in length. This trail would extend the Kenai Nature Trail westward, then loop south and connect to 

the county road and then east along the county road 

to the visitor center. Side of Pond 8. This is not an extension of the Kenai Nature Trail; it is a spur off of 

the Kenai Nature Trail. The term around Pond 8 is 

misleading, as the proposed service road system only 

travels along the north side of Pond 8. 

c. Page 146—Third paragraph—The proposed 

extension of the Kenai Nature Trail may require the 

construction of a boardwalk in wet areas. First this 

is not an extension of the Kenai Nature Trail, secondly why go off the maintenance roads for a short 

distance and construct a true trail section? The cost 

of construction and maintenance doesn’t justify it. 

Third and last it is unlikely that the area would be 

wet in the winter when the area is open. 

Response 6a–c. In order to access this new trail from 

the east, visitors will need to use the Kenai Nature 
118 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

 

Trail; the proposed trail is a spur off the existing Kenai Nature Trail. The trail will remain on the current 

Service roads and not require a boardwalk to be constructed. The current descriptions are meant to note 

its location. 

Comment 7. Page 145 Last sentence—This spur to the 

Kenai Nature Trail would provide additional education opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography, environmental education and interpretation. 

Page 95. Most wildlife observers visit in the spring 

and summer when the greatest number of migratory birds inhabit the area. So how does a seasonal 

(winter) opening of this road for pedestrians meet the 

Statement in the last sentence of paragraph 5 above 

starting with—This spur to the Kenai Nature Trail? 

Response 7. The trail will be opened seasonally beyond 

the winter months to provide wildlife viewing and photography, education, and interpretation opportunities. 

Comment 8. We use different terms for the proposed 

Pond 8 Trail. Suggests we choose one. By definition 

this is not a trail, it’s more of a pedestrian walking 

area on refuge service roads and a county road. Suggests calling is Pond 8 dike road. 

Response 8. The new trail spur has not been officially 

named. Once it is opened, refuge staff will work with 

the public to select a new name for this seasonal trail. 

The current descriptions are meant to note its location. 

Comment 9. Suggest we add the description of the Pond 

8 trail: Beginning at the intersection of the Kenai Nature Trail and the service road approximately Sta. 

39+27—(see—Kenai Nature Trail map pg. 8) then 

south 335 feet to the intersection with the Pond 8 dike 

road, then west along the dike road to the intersection 

with the residence road, then south along this service 

road to the intersection with Wildfowl Lane, then east 

along Wildfowl Lane to the visitor contact area. All 

wording stating ‘around Pond 8”, should be changed 

to “around the north side of Pond 8 “. Around Pond 

8 gives the impression that the walking area on the 

service roads circles Pond 8. 

Response 9. Although the proposed location does encircle Pond 8, this is the general description of the 

area where the new trail will be located. 

PublIc AcceSS (RoADS AnD otheR tRAIlS) 

Comment 1. What is the possibility of opening more of 

the refuge to visitors, particularly those using nonmotorized means of travel? It seems as though hunters 

have access to much more of the refuge than wildlife 

observers/photographers and recreationists. 

Response 1. The refuge was established to manage 

for migratory birds and other wildlife. All national 

wildlife refuges are closed until portions are specifically opened for compatible public uses. Hunting use 

is seasonal and more limited in the number of participants compared with wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography, which account for most visitations and 

occur year-round. Archery hunting for deer also serves 

a management purpose to disperse and help control 

the deer population. Waterfowl hunting is limited to 

654 acres of the refuge, and hunters must be within 

10 feet of a Service hunting blind. The refuge does 

provide several trails for wildlife observation and 

photography, including blinds, and we will be adding 

1.25 miles of trail along Pond 8 to create more wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities in a new 

part of the refuge. 

Comment 2. Was any thought given to developing a 

hiking trail or walking path in the northern portion 

of the Refuge, by Ponds 11, 12, 13, and Otter? This 

area could be accessed utilizing the road which takes 

off from the Hunter Access Parking Area and kiosk 

located on the Eastside Highway. That way visitors 

would have access to the southern, central, and northern portions of the Refuge. 

Response 2. No, but based on other public comments, 

the Service will determine the feasibility of constructing a viewing platform in this or a different portion of 

the refuge that is accessible to vehicles. 

Comment 3. The Friends of Lee Metcalf Refuge, in 

association with the refuge staff, offered motorized 

tours of the refuge. This was a great way to see areas 

of the refuge normally off-limits to the public. What 

is the possibility of the refuge staff offering such tours 

to the public as part of the Visitor Services actions? 

The tours were greatly appreciated by the members 

of the Friends Group. 

Response 3. Thank you for your comment. The refuge 

will continue to provide staff-led programs in places 

where, and at times when, the refuge is not open to 

general public access. Typically these special programs 

will be planned during special celebrations such as 

National Wildlife Refuge Week or International Migratory Bird Day. Such events will be preplanned by 

the visitor services staff in the station’s annual work 

plan and publicized well in advance. In the past, such 

events have included special youth fishing events that 

are held in areas normally closed to the public; special 

guided nighttime events to provide opportunities for 

the public to listen for owls; and special guided programs for college and university students as part of 

the refuge’s environmental education programs. Any 

special interpretive or wildlife observation programs 

offered will be open to the general public and will not 

be conducted for a select group. 

Comment 4. a. Paved trail from the south viewing area 

needs to be in a condition to allow wheelchair access. 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 119 

Many families walk the trail pushing a stroller they 

also need a good surface. 

b. Repave portions of the trail in the wildlife viewing area—it is no longer accessible to wheelchairs. 

Although there is erosion occurring in this area, the 

trail will not be washed away for years. In the meantime, the trail should be repaired. 

c. The paved trail does not need to be replaced 

and smoothed out. There is no area on that trail that 

has holes to walk over. It is a trail that is very well 

smooth for people in wheelchairs going to the end and 

around and back. 

Response 4a–c. We agree that the trail needs to be 

maintained, and this issue will be addressed in future. 

Comment 5. Provide skiing and mountain biking on of 

the existing trails and roads on the refuge. 

Response 5. All of these activities are permitted on 

the county road. It would be difficult to accommodate 

both biking and walking on refuge trails; however, the 

refuge may permit snowshoeing and cross country skiing in support of wildlife observation and photography 

activities during the winter months when adequate 

snow cover is available. 

Comment 6. Identify plants along some of the refuge 

trails. 

Response 6. The refuge is currently working on this, 

and it was proposed in the draft CCP. 

Comment 7. a. The Lee Metcalf Refuge is a very important part of the social fabric of the Bitterroot Valley especially for older and handicapped individuals. There 

are limited areas on the Refuge that [are] accessible 

to these individuals and at least one of those areas is 

threatened by unnatural bank erosion caused by rock 

stabilization of banks upstream installed by private 

land owners. Floodplain Objective 1 states “Remove 

or replace hard points along Bitterroot River Channel unless they are protecting Non-service property or 

structures. The popular and well used handicapped 

access trail down to the river is a site that will be lost 

to erosion with no action. This area could be protected 

with a river friendly engineered log jam that would 

deflect the flow away from the bank, reduce water velocity and provide valuable fish habitat. I agree strongly 

with the plan about removal of rip rap but engineered 

log Jams have been used on many salmon streams 

in the Northwest to protect infrastructure, provide 

fish habitat and mimic natural river processes. This 

is a proven and ecologically friendly technique that 

mimics natural processes on rivers such as the Bitterroot which contain large amounts of woody debris 

and should be considered as a technique to protect important features on the refuge in an environmentally 

friendly manner. I believe that this technique would 

fit in well with the philosophy and goals of the CCP. 

b. Page 102—Floodplain Objective 1—Strategies—3rd 

paragraph 4th line: education to inform visitors with 

information about the benefits of this process and the 

Service’s plans to relocate facilities and eroded trails 

as appropriate. Where is there any benefit to losing any 

portion of the 188 acre WVA [wildlife viewing area]? 

Seems like a weak excuse for ignoring the situation. 

Response 7a–b. Due to the recent significant erosion 

of the wildlife viewing area and associated habitat, 

the Service will investigate this and other options for 

potentially slowing the erosion. The decision to move 

forward will be based on cost, effectiveness, and impacts on the environment and the river system. 

Comment 8. On page 20 of your draft plan you discuss 

working with the county to develop Wildfowl Lane. I 

hope you consider keeping the roadway safe and allowing for pedestrians and bicyclists as opposed to 

a major emphasis on motorized traffic. Slow speed 

limits and possibly signs noting multiple users may 

help in this regard. 

Response 8. Yes, we agree but this is a Ravalli County– 

maintained road. The Service has and will continue to 

work closely with the county to provide for the safety 

of visitors using this roadway to view wildlife. 

Comment 9. I am against making Wildfowl Lane into 

an auto tour route. There is plenty of traffic there as 

it is and keeps growing each year. Leave it alone. 

Response 9. In addition to providing interpretation of 

the resources along this road, the objective of designating this road as an auto tour route is to improve the 

safety of visitors who use it. Wildfowl Lane is used by 

approximately 143,000 visitors annually. These visitors pull off the road, stop in the middle of the road, 

and get out of their vehicles to view and photograph 

wildlife. These uses will likely increase as the communities around the refuge expand, regardless if the 

road is officially designated as an auto tour route. By 

working with Ravalli County staff to provide pulloffs 

and a walking or biking path, refuge staff will help 

increase the safety of visitors who use this road. In 

addition, providing interpretation of the refuge habitats that visitors can see from the road will improve 

their understanding and appreciation of the resource. 

Comment 10. Do not put new signs out on highway 90 

and 93. This is very unnecessary and will cost a lot 

of money. 

Response 10. The benefit of providing this additional 

signage is to better orient visitors who are new to the 

area. The feasibility of placing a sign on Interstate 90 

is very low. There is signage on highway 93 that the 

Service would like to improve to give better directions 

to the refuge. Additional details will be provided in 

the visitor services plan. 
120 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Comment 11. I would like to see more hiking trails in 

areas in the north end of the refuge. 

Response 11. After reviewing options for providing 

additional trails for visitors, the decision was made 

to provide a new walking trail around Pond 8 (the 

central portion of the refuge). 

Comment 12. Page 46—Improve access to the WVA by 

replacing the gate with bollards (large rocks) that allow wheelchairs to pass through. How would Sweet Pea 

Sanitation Service be able to access the toilets? In addition refuge ATVs, side by side Mule and other small 

vehicles would require either a front end loader or a 

backhoe to move the bollards. An alternative would 

be to widen the existing paved path on the south side 

of the hinge gate post. This might require kind of a 

railing as the ground slopes off along the edge. 

Response 12. The bollards can be removed as needed. 

The bollards the Service is proposing to use would 

not require this type of heavy equipment to move. 

However, the Service will consider other options for 

improving access for visitors who use wheelchairs. 

Comment 13. Middle column—No public roads (namely 

Wildfowl Lane) would be eliminated. Why is this sentence even in here? The refuge has no jurisdiction over 

the county road. 

Response 13. We added this statement so that the 

public would understand that the Service does not 

propose to reduce vehicle access by existing public 

roads (including Wildfowl Lane). 

Comment 14. a. Page 90—Wildlife Viewing Area—the 

WVA has three pedestrian trails that total about 2.0 

miles: Ponderosa Trail, Metcalf Trail and Slough Trail. 

Due to erosion by the Bitterroot River and deadfall 

the Cottonwood Trail is no longer maintained and 

impassable in a significant portion of the trail. 

b. Page 145—Wildlife Observation and Noncommercial Photography—right column—2nd paragraph—the 

WVA located in the southwest comer of the refuge, has 

four trail segments that total 2.5 miles. The majority 

of the Cottonwood Trail has been lost due to the erosion actions of the Bitterroot River and is no longer a 

viable trail. Paragraph should now read—The WVA, 

located in the southwest corner of the Refuge, has three 

trail segments that total 0 miles. 

Response 14a–b. This is true; the Cottonwood Trail is 

gone. However, in total 2.5 miles of the trail remain. 

Internally, the refuge does not use these separate trail 

names. They are referred to as the WVA trails. For 

consistency, the individual trail names have been removed from this final CCP and will now be referred 

to as the WVA trail system. 

DogS on the Refuge 

Comment 1. The problem with irresponsible dog owners is severely and negatively impacting the wildlife 

habitat. The sign at the bridge [in the WVA] is ignored. 

Response 1. We agree, and it is a continuing challenge 

for refuge management with current staffing. If this 

continues to be a significant issue, the Service will 

prohibit all dogs on refuge trails or minimize public 

access to areas that are being abused. 

cultuRAl AnD hIStoRIcAl ReSouRceS 

Comment 1. The Lewis and Clark National Historic 

Trail is listed as a special value in Section 2.5 of the 

draft CCP. We noted the statement on page 20 that 

the Refuge “contains portions of the Ice Age Trail, 

the Nez Perce Trail and the actual (not officially designated) Lewis and Clark Trail.” As stewards of the 

Trail charged with identifying the historic route, the 

NPS [National Park Service] is interested in learning 

more about this implied discrepancy in designation. 

The Trail is defined in the National Trails System 

Act as the outbound and inbound routes of the Expedition, extending from Wood River, Illinois, to the 

mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon. We recognize 

that the exact historic route of the Expedition in the 

area of the Refuge is open to interpretation. Current 

research that we’re aware of shows the Trail bracketing the eastern and western borders of the Refuge. 

This research indicates that the Expedition likely did 

travel in and very near the current Refuge boundaries. 

The NPS would welcome a discussion on the historic 

Trail location in the area. 

Response 1. The document has been modified to reflect 

your comments, and we welcome any future dialogue 

about the value of the refuge to this historic trail. 

huntIng AnD fIShIng 

Comment 1. Summary Page—“The Refuge”, hunting 

is mentioned as a wildlife dependent compatible public use. This concept should again be mentioned and 

carried through in all goal statements in the rest of 

the plan. Otherwise it gets lost in the rest of the text. 

Response 1. Congress has deemed hunting one of the 

six appropriate wildlife-dependent uses of refuges, and 

this use is supported in this document. Hunting was 

described as a wildlife-dependent public use throughout the draft CCP including the summary and chapters 

1, 3, 4, 5; the glossary; appendix A; and appendix D. 

Comment 2. Page 89, Visitor Services—Hunting and 

fishing. Text should make clear that these activities 

would continue and be major visitor uses. 

Response 2. Having objectives and strategies in the 

plan for both of these activities, including compatibility determinations, confirms the refuge’s commitment 

that these uses will continue. 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 121 

Comment 3. Page 109, general discussion of ponds—Will 

proposed pond management allow the same number of 

duck blinds in the future for hunting as was permitted in say 2010? What will be the proposed number of 

increase or decrease of blinds with the approved CCP? 

Response 3. The goal is to increase the quality of the 

hunt by maintaining the same number of blinds while 

replacing some of them and increasing the distance between them. There are other improvements including 

replacing kiosks, improving parking areas, ensuring 

more consistent water delivery, and improving wetland and upland habitat. 

Comment 4. I am not in favor of charging fees for use 

of hunting blinds because it is [a] restrictive measure 

and affects the youth and retired hunters with an unfair 

disadvantage. If waterfowlers have to pay a fee than 

birdwatchers and other users should also be taxed. 

Response 4. The draft CCP did not propose a user fee 

for using the waterfowl blinds. 

Comment 5. Development of furthering pheasant and 

waterfowl hunting opportunities on refuge for youth 

should be given high consideration. Managing populations by harvest is biologically essential. 

Response 5. Given the size of the refuge it is difficult 

to accommodate multiple uses, particularly when 

introducing firearms. The refuge is not opposed to 

providing additional hunting opportunities for youth, 

but refuge management will need to determine if it 

can be provided without compromising the safety of 

other visitors. 

Comment 6. My impression is that archery hunting for 

whitetail deer is not reducing the population enough. 

If a short season at the end of, or in lieu of, the last 

ten days of archery season were open to shotgun, slug 

only, the whitetail overpopulation problem could be 

reduced. 

Response 6. The CCP proposes that refuge staff work 

with the State to determine if a firearm hunting season is feasible. 

Comment 7. As a lifelong resident of Montana who spent 

20 years of my life in the Bitterroot Valley, I would 

really like to see hunting opportunities continued and 

expanded upon for the Lee Metcalf Wildlife Refuge. As 

more and more of the prime river bottom country in 

the Bitterroot posts No Hunting or Fishing signs, the 

places that we can take our kids to pass on the hunting 

and fishing tradition shrinks. As a place that is easily 

accessible and holds lots of game like the Lee Metcalf 

becomes more accessible and more opportunities are 

opened up, the more we get our kids involved in the 

outdoor sports, the better we are. 

Response 7. The refuge contributes significant time 

and resources to provide quality hunting opportunities 

including improving waterfowl hunting blinds, providing parking areas, and providing law enforcement. 

The Service will continue to determine if additional 

opportunities can be provided without decreasing the 

quality of the hunt or significantly impacting other 

users or wildlife. 

Comment 8. I’d prefer to see the hunting blinds separated out further and have more opportunities that 

require longer walks to access the blinds but have a 

reward of being farther from other hunters. 

Response 8. The refuge is currently replacing multiple 

blinds and relocating some of them to better distribute hunters. 

Comment 9. I am against using shot guns and muzzle 

loaders for deer hunting. I hope you do not plan on 

all hikers to wear hunter orange! You mention having too many deer and yet we rarely see very many 

when driving through (regardless of the time of day) 

compared to the late 90’s when we would consistently 

count 20 to 30 (even 40) when driving thru. 

Response 9. A significant consideration when determining with the State whether to pursue a limited firearm 

harvest will be the safety of visitors and neighboring 

landowners. If it cannot be done safely and it does not 

support management objectives, the Service would 

not pursue it. 

Comment 10. Can you open some of the ponds for bass 

fishing for the public during the fishing season? It’s 

stated that bass are becoming an invasive problem in 

the draft CCP. You have hunters in the refuge in the 

hunting season. 

Response 10. The area where the bass are located is 

also a waterbird nesting and migratory area (spring 

through fall). Allowing fishing along these ponds would 

disturb these birds. Fishing is permitted in the WVA 

and along the Bitterroot River. Future seasonal drying of these ponds will decrease bass numbers and 

increase more desirable subaquatic vegetation for 

waterfowl and other waterbirds. 

Comment 11. Page 144—Anticipated Impacts of Use— 

right column last sentence—Furthermore, despite the 

potential impacts of hunting, a goal of Lee Metcalf 

Refuge is to provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreation. Why is this statement not 

included under Wildlife Observation and Noncommercial Photography. Hunting seems to be the number 

one priority under current management. 

Response 11. We did not intend to highlight one wildlifedependent recreational opportunity over any others. 

All current compatible wildlife dependent recreational 

programs will continue, with many being improved 

or expanded. 
122 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

lAw enfoRceMent 

Comment 1. Trash is a growing problem. 

Response 1. We agree. This is always a challenge when 

areas are opened for public use. If these types of impacts are significant enough, they can affect the compatibility of that permitted activity with the purposes 

of the refuge. We will continue to educate visitors and 

patrol areas for littering. Some of this litter floats into 

the refuge through the canals and during flood events. 

We are fortunate to have a group of dedicated volunteers who assist with periodically collecting trash 

and educating visitors about the impacts of littering. 

Comment 2. Page 23—Refuge law enforcement officers have monitored diversions along this ditch in 

the past. Why has there been no enforcement of the 

ditch water rights? 

Response 2. Refuge staff currently inspect all three 

lateral ditches to clean them and monitor water use. 

The Service is currently in the process of piping these 

ditches to better manage the timing and application of 

the refuge-allocated share of water for wildlife management and irrigation. 

vISItoR SeRvIceS—geneRAl coMMentS 

Comment 1. Under Chapter 1 Introduction it states, 

the Refuge has 143,000 visitors each year. Where is the 

factual evidence for this number? On page 97 it states 

an estimated 143,000 visitors.” There is no check-in 

point along Wildfowl Lane. There is no way to determine who is a “visitor” on this road. 

Response 1. The refuge has a car counter on Wildfowl 

Lane, which travels through the refuge. Although we 

can’t say for certain if each motorist is there to visit 

the refuge, each passes through the refuge (refuge 

land lies under Wildfowl Lane) and is counted as a 

visitor. In addition volunteers keep a count of visitors 

who come to the visitor contact area. Hunter visits 

are also counted, and there is a people counter in the 

WVA. The visitors on the west side of the refuge or 

floating the Bitterroot River through the refuge are 

not counted. The number 143,000 is an average of total 

visits spanning the years 2005 through 2011. 

Comment 2. Page 127, rational, sixth line. The refuge 

hosts over 143,000 visitors annually. Currently, most 

visitors are greeted in the small visitor contact area— 

Misleading statement, this implies that the majority 

of the 143,000 visitors annually visit the small visitor center. According to your report on page 49 & 95, 

the number visiting the visit center is around 6,000 

annually. 

Response 2. This has been corrected in this final document. 

Comment 3. a. How can more traffic, more people, more 

encroachment, and more dogs not negatively impact 

this “sanctuary” as it has already done? 

b. First of all, the refuge is a wildlife refuge, not a 

people refuge. So when you talk about staffing up with 

three more positions aimed at people, I object. Wildfowl Lane is for the people, the headquarters complex 

is for the people and the various programs are for the 

people and that is, by and large, enough of that...Now 

let’s put together a plan—for the wildlife... 

Response 3a–b. We agree that refuges should be managed for wildlife first. That is why the Service has appropriate use and compatibility policies to ensure that 

any activity permitted on the refuge does not materially detract from the purposes for which it was established. Balancing the desires of visitors with the needs 

of wildlife is always a challenge for any refuge staff. On 

Lee Metcalf Refuge, the Service attempts to manage 

uses and other disturbances to wildlife through time 

and space, and a vast majority of the refuge is only 

open seasonally to protect migratory birds and other 

Federal trust species. We must provide for wildlife 

first, and only then, whenever compatible with this 

objective, can we also manage for wildlife-dependent 

public uses of the refuge. 

Comment 4. We recommend that a permanent group 

viewing blind that can accommodate up to 20 people 

be constructed that would overlook one of the ponds 

at the Refuge. This will add to the viewing pleasure 

for visitors without disturbing the wildlife. 

Response 4. The Service currently provides two wildlife 

viewing and photography blinds and will be providing 

two mobile blinds. In addition, waterfowl hunting Blind 

2 will be converted to a seasonal, universally accessible 

photography blind. A blind that could accommodate 

20 visitors would require a significant footprint along 

the refuge wetland impoundments. 

Comment 5. We do not share the vision for expansion 

of the visitor contact area. The Refuge is only 2,800 

acres and the expansion plans take up more space 

which only reduces the area left for wildlife. Any expansion of facilities should take place off the Refuge. 

Response 5. The expansion would be next to the current 

refuge facility in an area that is already designated as 

a headquarters site—a disturbed area. 

Comment 6. Page 90, Wildlife viewing area—1st sentences states 4 trails, but map on page 41 show only 

3 trails. 

Response 6. The trails on page 90 refer to the WVA. 

Comment 7. I like the expansion of educational programs into the schools. Great idea. 

Response 7. Thank you for your comment. 

Comment 8. Expansion of Visitor Center: Is it necessary? How many of the visitors counted actually enter the center? 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 123 

Response 8. Expanding the visitor center will allow 

the refuge to accommodate larger groups and provide 

additional areas for interpretation of refuge resources 

and management programs. Currently, 6,000 visitors 

enter the visitor contact area. Also, on many occasions 

this space is filled to capacity by visitors and groups. 

Comment 9. Do not enlarge the visitor center or bring 

in professionals to design it. This will cost a fortune 

and you have great displays as it is now. True, it is 

small, but it is friendly, homey, and reflects Stevensville’s small town way of life. 

Response 9. The visitor center expansion will accommodate larger groups, many of which only stop at the 

contact area, and provide additional area for interpretation of refuge resources and management direction. 

Any structure will retain the characteristics of the 

refuge and the community and will be a welcoming 

environment. 

Comment 10. We believe a continued strong emphasis 

on education is essential to the long term future of 

[Lee Metcalf Refuge]. We also believe managing for a 

diversity of habitats and species provides much greater 

educational value than managing only for waterfowl. 

Response 10. We agree and feel we have integrated 

these concepts into this CCP. 

Comment 11. a. It would be nice to have a viewing platform in the parking area on the south end that can be 

used for photography (Hollingsworth Area). 

b. Need additional platforms for viewing and photographing wildlife. 

c. Page 146—An 18 to 20 foot high observation tower 

built on the west side of Wildfowl Lane, would afford 

wildlife viewers the opportunity to view the waterfowl 

& waterbirds using the Hollingsworth Wetland Project. 

As it is now there is very little opportunity to view the 

birds. A feasible location would be about 0.2 of a mile 

north of the gate entrance to the duck hunter sign in. 

This location is flat and construction of a three car 

parking would require little effort. 

Response 11a–c. We will be investigating opportunities 

to provide a wildlife viewing platform (that is compatible with our primary purposes) without impacting the 

view and experience for other visitors. 

Comment 12. I hope you continue to allow adventure 

races or similar events that have been held in the past. 

These were held in areas that the public is not normally 

allowed, but no wildlife seemed to be disturbed during this event. I think they served an environmental 

education purpose. 

Response 12. Any activities such as these will need 

to be deemed appropriate and compatible if they are 

permitted to take place on the refuge. 

Comment 13. In general plan B wants to greatly increase 

visitor use of the refuge. I am wondering if bringing 

all those extra people to observe wildlife will simply 

cause the wildlife the retreat further back into the areas we cannot go. Therefore you would be defeating 

your purpose. Instead of a wildlife refuge it might 

become a “people park”. I am not against education 

and having more folks enjoy the refuge and all it has 

to offer—but this must be done with much discretion. 

Response 13. The refuge is constantly balancing its 

primary purpose of managing and protecting areas for 

wildlife while providing opportunities for the public to 

engage in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

There are large portions of the refuge that are not accessible to the public most of the year. The objective 

is to provide refuge areas, particularly when migratory birds are present. We appreciate your comment 

and will always use much discretion when expanding 

refuge access. 

Comment 14. Is it possible to allow ice skating on one 

of the ponds when cold enough (if it wouldn’t disturb 

the wildlife). 

Response 14. This is not considered a wildlife-dependent priority public use and could be very dangerous given the lack of suitable ice in the winter due to 

springs in the ponds. 

Comment 15. Please keep signs within the refuge very 

limited and discreet. You don’t want to lose the open, 

wild environment with distracting signs all over. Especially for photography. 

Response 15. We agree, and any added signs will be 

evaluated for their value to our visitors. 

Comment 16. Page 149—Commercial Filming, Audio 

Recording and Still Photography—Page 150—Justification—At the end of this paragraph add—The above 

restrictions do not apply to these activities within 

the boundaries of Wildfowl Lane and county ROW 

[right-of-way]. 

Response 16. The refuge owns the land under the 

county road bed and has the authority to enforce refuge regulations; however, this is difficult to enforce in 

right-of-way areas, including the county road. 

PARtneRShIPS AnD coMMunIty RelA tIonS 

Comment 1. The refuge is a community asset and as 

such the input of community representation should 

be sought on decision that will impact the refuge. I 

would hope that such a philosophy would be reflected 

in the plan. 

Response 1. We agree, and the CCP process incorporated public involvement including requesting comments such as those found in this appendix. 
124 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

 

Comment 2. Page 20, Special values—long list of developments on refuge. The former “Friends” partnership 

should be credited and referenced on the items they 

enabled. Without “Friends” assistance, likely the refuge would not have accomplished those items. Page 24, 

Visitor Services—again credit “Friends” partnership 

for making possible many of these facilities/services. 

Page 93, Kiosks—State these were made possible by 

the assistance of the former “Friends” partnership. 

Response 2. In the history of the refuge there have 

been innumerable contributions to the refuge including groups and individuals. It would be difficult to list 

all partners without risking excluding some. We do 

appreciate and recognize the contribution of all partners, past and present. 

Comment 3. a. I was bothered by the fact that your 

planning team skirted the issue of the huge cleavage 

the FWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] has created 

in the Stevensville and Bitterroot community by its 

handling of its relationship to the local public and 

friends group here. 

b. Under partnerships I encourage you to work 

with Friends of the Refuge groups, as opposed to the 

status quo of not working with them. 

c. The term Partnerships is mentioned at least 

30 times in the document, but nowhere is a Friends 

Organization mentioned Quote from The US. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Publication—Conserving the Future 

wildlife Refuges in the Next Generation—“Develop 

and nurture active, vibrant friends groups on every 

refuge’. So why is this not addressed in this CCP? 

Response 3a–c. The Service is not opposed to partnerships that support the goals, objectives, and priorities of 

refuge management. The Service has added language to 

the document that in the future the refuge staff would 

pursue and foster a refuge advocacy group that will 

support refuge management priorities including the 

achievement of the goals and objectives described in 

this and other refuge planning documents. 

Comment 4. A more concerted effort to recruit volunteers 

and non-profit wildlife groups will benefit the refuge. 

Volunteers from Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, 

Rocky Mountain Elk foundation etc. would gladly 

expand and improve recreational opportunity on the 

refuge without needing to fund additional staffing. 

Response 4. We have a large group of dedicated volunteers to work on many refuge programs; however, 

volunteers need direction and oversight by a Service 

employee. This can be very time consuming, although 

the overall benefits are substantial and outweigh the 

effort. By recruiting an additional visitor services staff 

person, the refuge would be able to recruit and train 

additional volunteers that could assist with implementing the programs described in this document, 

offsetting costs. 

Comment 5. Chapter 2 The Refuge—seem to me there 

should be explained the history of the [Ducks Unlimited] partnership that allowed for and accomplished 

the construction of many of the dams and levees for 

wetland creation. Likely without that partnership 

the FWS would not have had the funds to build these 

ponds, or at least not as many of them. This [Ducks 

Unlimited] partnership should also be mentioned 

again on page 21 bottom of page in “Wetland Impoundment” text. Suggest Metcalf get signs and put 

them up at prominent places. 

Response 5. The refuge has erected signs that acknowledge the contribution of partners including Ducks 

Unlimited; however, signs can create visual clutter. 

The Service appreciates the contributions of these 

organizations as well as their biological expertise and 

commitment to the refuge. Since the refuge was established in 1964, there have been dozens of partners 

that have completed work on the refuge. It would difficult to list them all in this in document without risking excluding an individual or group. 

oPeRAtIonS AnD f AcIlItIeS 

Comment 1. a. The refuge is proposing to increase staff 

by 3.5 individuals. I suggest that with consistency in 

management there would be no reason for that increase in staff. 

b. In general I am in favor of plans that don’t expand 

the staffing unless the refuge were to expand in size. 

Response 1a–b. One of the goals of completing a CCP 

is to provide consistency in management and build 

upon successful programs. There are new and expanding challenges to refuge management, including 

invasive species, contaminants, declining migratory 

bird species, infrastructure maintenance, and habitat 

restoration. Many of these issues have been ongoing 

and not adequately addressed. The refuge has actually lost staff members as these challenges increased. 

With a clearer direction and implementation of this 

plan, refuge habitats will improve, and the visitors 

will be provided quality programs. This direction will 

not change even if no staff members are added; however, some of the actions will require additional staff 

members to accomplish. 

Comment 2. a. Under Alternative B “Proposed Action” solutions put forth such as hiring an assistant 

manager, biological technician and visitor center 

coordinator, improve road, professional signs, and 

updated buildings. How do you justify more cost to 

the taxpayer who is already overburdened with ever 

expansive Federal bureaucracy while the taxpayer 

becomes poorer and poorer? 

b. With all the changes mentioned in Plan B, just 

where is the money coming from? The federal government is broke, economy is terrible. I suggest you come 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 125 

up with a plan that does only what is necessary at 

first with long goals as the money becomes available. 

Response 2a–b. Some of the objectives and strategies 

described in the final CCP can be accomplished using 

current resources—that is a benefit of this type of 

long-term planning. Even if the refuge doesn’t receive 

any additional resources, particularly in this economy, 

this plan helps the refuge staff ensure that they are 

using what resources they have on the highest priority habitats, species, programs, and issues. Additional 

funding, including staff, will be dependent on available 

funds and regional priorities for the Service as stated 

in beginning of this document: 

The CCP details program planning levels 

that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and thus are primarily 

for Service strategic planning purposes. The 

CCP does not constitute a commitment for 

staff increases, operation and maintenance 

increases, or funding for future land acquisition. 

Comment 3. With today’s emphasis’ on reduced Federal 

government funding, I don’t see Metcalf refuge getting the funds to implement Alternative B, let alone 

maintain existing management, Alternative A. This 

makes renewing the “Friends” partnership more compelling. Somewhere in the text of the plan, creating 

a Friends partnership should be a program objective 

and clearly spelled out. If it is in there, I did not see it. 

Response 3. See responses to comments 3a–3c under 

the section above entitled “Partnerships and Community Relations.” The Service has added language to the 

document stating that in the future, the refuge staff 

will pursue and foster a refuge advocacy group that 

will support refuge management priorities including 

the achievement of the goals and objectives described 

in this and other refuge planning documents. 

Comment 4. Further discussion justifying the need of a 

deputy refuge manager (admin position [at] GS–11) 

instead of a full-time wildlife biologist would help. 

Having a certified [wildlife biologist] on board could 

possibly negate the necessity of employing a biological science technician in addition to the seasonal 

biology technician and provide consistent effort in 

accomplishing refuge scientific conservation goals. 

Response 4. The intent is to recruit an assistant manager with a strong biological background to assist with 

both administrative and management activities along 

with the biological program. Much of the work, including controlling invasive species and monitoring, would 

be more appropriate for a science technician directed 

by this assistant and the manager. 

Comment 5. Bringing aboard a visitor services specialist to augment the duties of the current outdoor recreation planner seems a bit unnecessary in view of the 

refuge’s plan to involve more volunteers to perform 

this task. As you are aware, one of the main goals 

of government is fiscal responsibility and adding a 

full-time GS–7/9 to staff a reception area that is busy 

only about three–four months of the year may not be 

appropriate. 

Response 5. Staffing the information desk in the visitor contact area would be a very small part of the assigned work duties for a visitor services specialist. 

Typical assignments would include developing new 

programs for students, teachers, and adults; leading 

tours and presentations; assisting with special events; 

leading onsite and offsite environmental education 

programs for a variety of audiences; and recruiting, 

training, and supervising current and new volunteer 

staff. As described in this plan, there are many more 

opportunities to interact with and provide new, quality 

programs for the public, students, and the surrounding communities. 

Comment 6. Use the value of gravel from dikes to pay 

for the cost of removal (sell the gravel). 

Response 6. This is a good suggestion; however, the 

refuge would have to determine if this commercial use 

is feasible and compatible. Funding from the sale of 

refuge resources would be deposited into the government’s general fund, rather than into the refuge budget. 

Comment 7. I am a hunter education instructor that 

teaches at Lee Metcalf. I am very thank full to see that 

you want to continue to support our efforts in teaching youth how to be safe with firearms. From what I 

can see in the plan I see that the support will be continuing, however there has been some question as to 

whether or not we will be able to continue doing the 

live fire exercise for our field courses on the range by 

pond 8. I do not see anything in the plan that addresses 

the continued use of that range area or the removal of 

the range. We only use 22’s on the range and it only 

occurs twice a year once in the spring and once in the 

fall for only a few hours. I appreciate the use of the 

facilities for the hunter education courses and would 

like to ask that the continued use of the range be allowed for our live fire exercise. I would be more than 

willing to donate my time to remove unused structures 

within the range area and work on that area so it is 

not as visually unappealing and more aesthetically 

appealing to others who do not want to see that kind 

of thing on the refuge. 

Response 7. The refuge will continue to support and 

participate in hunter education programs; however, 

the firing range is to be closed within a year (a decision made outside the scope of this plan), so any fire 

range activities would have to take place off-refuge 

in the future. 
126 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Comment 8. Page 46—Roads & Trails—Action—Left 

column—Maintain 18.1 miles of existing roads, including 2.8 miles of public roads. (Wildfowl Lane) 

Why is this in here? The refuge doesn’t maintain the 

county road! 

Response 8. In this instance (alternative A) the word 

“maintain” meant that the refuge does not have any 

plans to reduce the number of miles of roads on the 

refuge. Perhaps the word “keep” would have been a 

better choice and less confusing. 

Comment 9. Page 91—Environmental Education— 

[states] there is an amphitheater and an outdoor 

pavilion. The previous manager named it the Environmental Education Shelter and a plaque at the site 

bears that name. Page 92—Schools—2nd paragraph 

[calls it an] outdoor education shelter. 

Response 9. In the final CCP the name “environmental education shelter” has been consistently used 

when referring to the structure behind the refuge 

headquarters. 

Comment 10. Page 127—Facilities, Equipment and 

Supplies Objective. Purchase an excavator to complete 

proposed restoration projects. To buy an American 

built excavator you are looking at a cost of $150 K 

to $185K. This doesn’t include all the fuel and maintenance cost, all these cost for a piece of equipment 

that would be used about six months out of the year 

at best. It would be more economical to contract with 

a local excavation contractor. 

Response 10. We don’t disagree with your comments. 

The refuge is currently renting and borrowing equipment as needed, but over time, purchasing this piece 

of equipment would be more economical. The refuge 

will first pursue opportunities to borrow or receive 

transferred equipment from other Service stations at 

no cost prior to purchasing any equipment. 

Comment 11. Page 145. Fifth Paragraph—second line— 

Blind 1 is located one-third of a mile from the visitor 

contact area on Pond 8. Path from trail to blind is 

150 feet. Sixth line—Blind 2 is located one-third of a 

mile from the visitor contact area. Blind 2 is located 

1.0 mile from the visitor contact area. Path from trail 

to blind is 970 feet. 

Response 11. These corrections were made in the final CCP. 

flooDPlAIn ReStoRAtIon 

Comment 1. The EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency] considers the protection, improvement, and 

restoration of riparian and wetlands areas to be a high 

priority, since wetlands and riparian areas increase 

landscape and species diversity, and are critical to the 

protection of designated water uses. We support the 

proposed actions that would promote a more naturally 

functioning aquatic ecosystem through reconnection 

of floodplain habitats with the Bitterroot River, and 

increasing opportunities for overbank and backwater 

flooding into and out of the floodplain. While the proposed actions would decrease lentic wetland habitats 

created by impounding water at the refuge, soil types 

and historical vegetation data suggest that several 

of the impoundments or ponds were once forested or 

consisted of native grasslands. The proposed actions 

would restore natural riparian habitats and expand 

cottonwood gallery and riverfront forest habitat for 

migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Response 1. We agree. Thank you for your comment. 

Comment 2. River and stream connectivity would be 

reestablished, fish passage improved, and native cold 

water fisheries would be enhanced through restoration 

of Francois Slough and North Burnt Fork Creek. 

Response 2. We agree, and these long-term benefits 

were part of the decision to propose this restoration 

project. 

Comment 3. Since the primary focus of the National 

Wildlife Refuge system was to create wetlands, the 

proposed action to encourage the expansion of the Bitterroot River floodplain by sacrificing ponds near the 

river is counter to that purpose. We would like for the 

Refuge to retain the current ponds, especially Ponds 

11 and 12. The ponds add diversity to the Refuge. By 

expanding the river riparian zone, the bird diversity 

will decrease, and the Refuge will be adding the same 

habitat that exists for miles upstream and downstream 

from the Refuge. 

Response 3. The primary focus of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to protect migratory birds and 

other Federal trust resources (wildlife that migrates 

and threatened and endangered species) and their 

habitats. There has never been any mandate or primary focus to create wetlands; nevertheless, this has 

happened on many refuges, including Lee Metcalf. 

The intent of creating these wetlands was to impound 

water for wildlife, particularly waterfowl, which has 

always been a priority species for the National Wildlife Refuge System. We have learned over time that 

impounding water at the sacrifice of native habitats 

was not the best and highest use of these lands, particularly refuges that are outside the Prairie Pothole 

Region of North Dakota, South Dakota, and eastern 

Montana. Historically there were few natural lentic 

(still, fresh-water) wetlands on Lee Metcalf Refuge and 

it has never been a major contributor to the continental population of waterfowl; nevertheless, over a third 

of the refuge is covered by wetland impoundments. 

Ponds 11, 12, and 13 were constructed near the migrating river channel. They are experiencing a high 

degree of erosion into the channel. By returning a 

portion of these impoundments to a stream channel, 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 127 

riparian areas (such as cottonwood forests) would be 

restored. These forests are some of the most productive habitat in Montana and are home to a wide variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. In 

addition, the Service is proposing to retain almost all 

of the remaining wetland impoundments found on the 

refuge. In the short term, the structures will be replaced for management of these impoundments until 

the Service receives the funding to work with an engineer and hydrologist to reconnect Three Mile Creek 

to the Bitterroot River through this area. There will 

be a decrease in waterbird use once the structures 

are removed, but there will be an increase in habitat 

diversity and restoration of biological integrity of the 

historical gallery and riverfront forest. 

Comment 4. This floodplain refuge which provides a diversity of habitats for a balanced species base should 

continue to be managed for them but don’t overlook 

the fact that waterfowl were a primary reason for this 

landscape to become preserved and this fact should 

not be compromised. 

Response 4. The plan does not overlook waterfowl. 

There is a goal and numerous objectives for managing wetland impoundments for waterbirds, including 

waterfowl. 

Comment 5. North Burnt Fork Creek on the Refuge: 

This segment of the creek has water control structures 

that need well-planned, consistent management. Water 

control structures result in temperatures and instream 

flow problems, unnatural water level fluctuations are 

likely to be slowing native riparian vegetation establishment, and are document as barriers [to] aquatic 

movement of fish and other species. 

Response 5. The CCP does propose to work with engineers to remove those barriers in North Burnt Fork 

Creek (including structures) that impede native fish 

movements. The long-term goal is to restore this stream 

section and associated riparian habitat. 

Comment 6. The plan talks about dropping the water 

levels on ponds to restore gallery forest. Do you know 

how many acres of the ponds will be converted back 

to this forest habitat? 

Response 6. At this time, we cannot say definitively 

where the water level would be, but it will be below 

the highest areas of that part of the floodplain. The 

first part of this process will be to survey the area and 

then determine the types of soil in this part of the impoundments to help evaluate where this restoration 

would be most successful. We would also use benthic 

maps to select the most appropriate areas to expose 

for planting and restoration. 

Comment 7. The preferred alternative described in 

the CCP Environmental Assessment recognizes the 

natural geomorphic and hydrologic processes of the 

Bitterroot River. Allowing these processes to function 

in a more natural manner within the Refuge will 

increase the likelihood of achieving long-term restoration of native habitats both along the river and in 

upland areas. Focusing on native habitat restoration 

will benefit a wide range of vertebrate species and in 

turn, attract diverse recreational interests. The NPS 

[National Park Service] supports this holistic, ecosystem-based approach and encourages adoption of 

the preferred alternative. 

Response 7. That is our long-term goal—well said. 

Comment 8. I am not in favor of trying to manipulate 

the river to prevent it from changing its channel. That 

is a necessary part of a healthy river system and the 

long term effects of excessive channeling and diking 

can be seen in many other areas in a lack of fish and 

river biomass. 

Response 8. We agree, and we are trying to facilitate 

the river’s more natural fluctuations within the refuge; however, this will be a slow process that will take 

careful planning and monitoring. 

Comment 9. I have read through much of the CCP for 

the Lee Metcalf Refuge and I am very impressed with 

the effort that has been made in this plan. I am focusing my comments on Section 5.2 and agree completely 

with the spirit of the strategies. I think this plan will 

greatly improve the ecological functions of the Refuge 

by restoring the natural river and flood plain functions. 

However, the Bitterroot River is highly manipulated 

both upstream and downstream of the Refuge and 

natural processes will never be completely restored so 

I believe that the Floodplain Objective 2 should take 

into consideration this reality. 

Response 9. We agree and have considered these factors as we developed these objectives and strategies. 

Comment 10. Page XIII—The first of at least 23 times 

that gallery forest is mentioned and never a definition of what a gallery forest is. Add it to the Glossary 

on page 129 with a definition. Also add Tame Grasses 

with a definition. 

Response 10. We have added definitions of these terms 

to the glossary. 

Comment 11. Page 30—Flood Plain Actions—transition Ponds 11, 12 and 13—or portions of these pools 

to riparian and gallery forest. From the Eastside 

Highway Pond 13 affords a spectacular view of marsh 

land, pool water and the Bitterroot Mountains. See 

reference in Exhibit—A page 7. 

Response 11. We agree that this is a good place for 

visitors to see the refuge from the road. The proposed 

restoration of this area will be visible and interpreted 

for visitors. Until this takes place, the Service will 
128 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

be replacing or maintaining the water management 

structures. 

Comment 12. At approximate Mile Marker 6.8 the refuge boundary Carsonite post are 139 feet west of the 

edge of Eastside Hwy 203. However the four strand 

barbwire fence is only 36 feet from the edge of the 

Eastside Hwy. This discrepancy runs north for approximately 1,100 feet. The Barbwire fence should be 

moved back to the correct boundary. This would also 

allow birders & photographers the opportunity to view 

the Bitterroot River. 

Response 12. The recent U.S. Bureau of Land Management survey better described the boundary along this 

and other areas of the refuge. Moving this and other 

fences (which are not exactly on the refuge boundary) 

would not improve wildlife habitat but could provide 

additional public access to visitors if the refuge opens 

this area to public use. Current trespass onto closed 

areas of the refuge from this road is a problem. The 

Montana Department of Transportation has an expanded right-of-way in this area with plans to improve 

the roadway. The refuge will evaluate placing a public viewing platform in this general area. The refuge 

will continue to work with the Montana Department 

of Transportation to provide quality wildlife viewing 

opportunities and appropriate and compatible access. 

Comment 13. Diversity drives wildlife volume as far 

as I’m concerned—and the refuge offers a lot of it to 

be sure. But management should be aiming more aggressively toward diversification and habitat improvement. Looking at figures 7 and 19, it is readily apparent 

that there is quite a bit of water available in the form 

of ponds, sloughs, creeks and even ditches. Wildlife 

thrives near water. I favor alternative C because, as I 

read it, it has the most aggressive approach to maintaining and improving that resource and others. When 

I hear you talk of letting swampy areas or ponds go 

back to forest or grassland, I cringe. The dikes and 

ponds should be aggressively replaced, maintained 

and controlled to maximize the wetland habitats. 

Response 13. We agree that habitat diversity is very 

important to wildlife, and this is why the Service has 

proposed to enhance the diversity of the refuge habitats by restoring and enhancing riparian habitat on 

the refuge. This habitat type covered larger areas 

of the refuge at one time and is very important to a 

whole variety of wildlife. In addition, the majority of 

the wetland impoundments will also be maintained 

and enhanced. 

Comment 14. You speak of favoring the improvement 

of gallery forests. I’ve been a professional forester, for 

just short of half a century and I don’t know what a 

gallery forest is. I have a good idea of what you are 

talking about but I could not find a definition any 

where in the text, perhaps I missed it, nor is it listed 

in the glossary. Be that as it may, those old forests 

were largely destroyed by the white man’s agricultural 

movement and they need to be replaced if you want 

to return to the old days with refuge management. I 

would really recommend a large scale tree and shrub 

planting effort. 

Response 14. We have added a definition of gallery and 

riverfront forest to the glossary. This plan does propose 

to expand this forest type, which may require planting to facilitate the natural regeneration processes. 

Comment 15. I’d like to see a significant timber stand 

installed all along the southeastern border of the refuge 

from the Wildfowl Lane on the south clear up to the 

Potato Cellar Pond in the north. Small stands of one 

to five acres could be scattered throughout the grasslands. Plans should include future intervals of addition and replacement to all of these stands to provide 

eventual diversification in age classes to maintain 

health of the stands. 

Response 15. This 15-year CCP proposes to begin restoring historically forested areas. This will be a slow 

process but should restore some of the natural diversity found in this part of the valley. Historically, the 

part of the refuge you describe was more grassland 

and sagebrush. 

Comment 16. The wildfire north of Johnny Houtchens 

old house destroyed a number of big willows and pines; 

these trees need to be replaced as well. 

Response 16. The big willows are a nonnative species 

(Salix alba) and are resprouting on their own. In the 

future, it is likely that native willow species, pines, 

and cottonwoods will be planted in the area as well as 

other native shrubs for species dependent on riparian vegetation. 

wetlAnD IMPounDMentS 

Comment 1. On page 109, it states that “Overall, it is 

suspected that the refuge’s past water regime has not 

provided the optimal habitat for target wetland species.” Suspected? Shouldn’t you have to prove this 

point rather than suspect it, particularly if you’re 

basing decision on it? And if it’s due to past mismanagement, as you say, why not suggest that we correct 

that mismanagement? 

Response 1. Historically, natural wetlands in this area 

were primarily seasonal in nature, filling with spring 

runoff and then slowly drying through the summer. 

It is well documented in the literature that seasonal 

drying is often desired for the management of productive wetlands (Eldridge 1990, Fredrickson 1991, 

Fredrickson and Reid 1988, Weller 1978) and that 

productivity often declines with static water level 

management (Kadlec 1962). Although providing important habitat, many of the wetlands have not been 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 129 

historically managed for optimal habitat conditions. 

Many of the wetlands do not provide quality habitat 

for wetland-dependent species. This has decreased 

the health and productivity of these wetlands and in 

some cases, created large monocultures of cattails, 

which has reduced open water habitat. The preferred 

alternative does provide new management options for 

improving the health of these wetlands. 

Comment 2. The CCP/EA indicates that algal blooms 

have diminished the clarity and quality of refuge 

waters. We note that recent studies have shown that 

even low nutrient levels can promote excessive algal 

and aquatic vegetative growths leading to undesirable 

conditions (i.e. nitrogen and phosphorus levels well 

below 1 mg/L can lead to undesirable conditions). Accordingly it may be of interest to know that the State 

of Montana is proposing to develop numeric criteria 

for nutrients in surface waters to better manage nutrient levels. 

Response 2. The refuge does receive runoff and drainage from surrounding agricultural lands. We agree 

that this influx of nutrients may be contributing to the 

algal blooms and other management challenges. The 

State is currently monitoring the quality of surface 

and subsurface water flows into the refuge. We would 

be interested in learning more about the work the 

State of Montana is doing to better manage this issue. 

Comment 3. We encourage the Refuge to manage for a 

gradual drying in the summer and fall so as to provide mud flats for the migrating shorebirds. 

Response 3. The preferred alternative for wetland impoundment management does recommend this type 

of management, which will create foraging habitat for 

shorebirds during drawdown cycles. 

Comment 4. I sense a shifting away from providing 

adequate waterfowl nesting habitats and replacing 

with more emphasis on shorebirds. A balance for both 

would be preferred. 

Response 4. The refuge has always tried to provide 

habitat for both groups of species. Through better 

water level management capabilities, the Service is 

proposing to provide even more productive feeding, 

nesting, and resting areas for these and other wetlanddependent Federal trust species. 

Comment 5. Alternating the drawdown of water on 

ponds currently in use has a positive effect on the 

variety of species enjoying the landscape. 

Response 5. We will alternate drawdown and secondary treatment in the future to improve the health and 

productivity of the wetland impoundments. 

Comment 6. Water levels in the ponds should be maintained at a level adequate for migratory birds to rest 

and feed. 

Response 6. Maintaining water at static levels often 

decreases wetland productivity (Kadlec 1962). Natural 

wetlands in the mountain west dry and flood seasonally. The refuge will attempt to mimic this wet and 

dry cycle in the wetland impoundments to improve 

their health and productivity for a variety of wetlanddependent wildlife. Some wetland impoundments will 

also be drawn down to provide opportunities to treat 

large expanses of cattails that can negatively impact 

habitat for waterfowl and other waterbird species. 

Comment 7. Several of the ponds managed by the refuge 

are occupied by non-native species (i.e. largemouth 

bass). The refuge is the primary source of these nonnative species that enter the Bitterroot River. 

Response 7. The refuge is aware of the nonnative bass 

population and that they do enter the Bitterroot River. 

The refuge is not managing these impoundments for 

bass. The restoration proposals and improved water 

level management of these impoundments should reduce the number of bass. 

Comment 8. The thermal effects of the pond network 

raises water temperatures at the local and potentially 

reach scales in the main stem Bitterroot River. Increases in water temperature, especially when climate 

change is occurring, are likely to favor non-native 

and invasive species. 

Response 8. The wetland impoundments are not natural 

wetlands nor are they the cold-water systems typically 

found in the Bitterroot Valley. These types of wetlands 

do favor more nonnative aquatic species. In this 15­

year plan we will begin to address this issue by first 

returning and restoring North Burnt Fork Creek and 

Three Mile Creek to their historical channels. Portions 

of Ponds 11, 12, and 13 will also be restored back to 

riparian habitat. Most of the remaining wetlands will 

continue to be managed for the benefit of migratory 

birds during the life of this CCP. 

Comment 9. I think cattails must be controlled by whatever means possible without hurting the wildlife. They 

have really taken over a lot of pond area. 

Response 9. We agree, and the refuge has already 

started to address this issue by drawing down some of 

the ponds and treating these areas, primarily through 

grazing and fire. This should restore more open-water 

habitat, but further management will be necessary to 

continue to reach a desirable mix of emergent vegetation and open water. 

Comment 10. page 27—Right column 2nd paragraph 

where is Pond D? Not shown on the map. Right column 

3rd paragraph the pool height of Ponds 8 & 10 would be 
130 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

lowered—how much lower? Again page 32,106,107, and 

pages 108 & 109 includes Otter Pond. Page 30—Wetland Impoundments—Actions 3rd paragraph where 

is Pond D? Last paragraph—Maintain Ponds 8 and 

10 at a lower elevation to allow for the reestablishment 

of gallery forest. Page 33—third paragraph—where 

is Pond D? last paragraph—maintain Ponds 8 & 10 

at a lower elevation to allow for the reestablishment 

of gallery forest. 

Response 10. Pond D is actually now known as Pond 7b, 

which is identified on the map. We have corrected this 

in the final CCP. If the railroad bed was to be decommissioned and a portion removed, restoration of the 

gallery forest would be more probable on Otter Pond. 

Until this occurs, restoration of gallery forest would 

be challenging and probably require the relocation 

of levees to expose the area needed for restoration. 

The language reflecting this position has been added 

to the final document. 

Comment 11. Page 43—Figure 7 Ponds and Upland 

Fields. Why was this map used to show the ponds 

when Figure 19 page 70 shows a more accurate map 

of the existing ponds? 

Response 11. These two figures serve different purposes. 

Figure 7 in the draft CCP is used to note the general 

location and shape of the ponds and fields along with 

the supporting management structures. Figure 19 in 

the draft CCP is an accurate depiction of the ponds 

and classes of vegetation. 

Comment 12. Potato Cellar Pond (Table 10)—Wetland 

impoundment target species and their habitat needs the 

Marbled Godwit, Long-billed Dowitcher and the 

American Bittern all require Mudflats, 0–4 inches of 

water, early July to early September. It would seem 

logical to maintain Potato Cellar Pond under these 

conditions, rather than returning it to native grasses. 

Response 12. The hydrology of this impoundment is 

very seasonal, and it doesn’t hold water very well. 

Comment 13. Page 30—Transition Ponds 11, 12 & 13 or 

portions of these ponds to riparian and gallery forest. 

Again, repeated on page 104. Pond 13 affords a great 

view of a pond/marsh land habitat with the bitterroot 

Mountains in the background Development of small 

parking area off the Eastside Highway would create 

a great Wildlife Viewing Area and with some signage 

promote the Lee Metcalf Refuge encouraging tourist 

to visit the refuge. See Exhibit A Page. 

Response 13. We agree that this may be a good place 

for visitors to observe the refuge if it can be accommodated safely with the Eastside Highway traffic. 

The proposed restoration of the area will be visible 

and interpreted for visitors. Until this takes place, 

the Service will be replacing the water management 

structures on this wetland impoundment to better 

manage and treat the large expanse of cattails that 

have covered much of the open water in this impoundment. This will benefit long-term gallery forest and 

stream channel restoration projects. 

Comment 14. Page 21, 960 acres and page 77, 958 acres, 

and page 93, 800 Acres 

Response 14. The first reference to wetlands on page 

21 was preceded by the word “approximately.” The 

acreage figure on page 93 of the draft CCP reflects 

those wetlands over which the refuge has adequate 

water level management capabilities. The acreage 

figure 958 is the most accurate and is used in the first 

reference in chapter 2 in the final CCP. 

gRASSlAnD AnD ShRublAnD 

Comment 1. Native Vegetation Restoration—Environmental Consequences—reduction in density of 

upland nesting waterfowl until native species are 

fully established—how many years? This seems like 

a drastic trade off with no guarantee that the refuge 

would have the manpower to implement this project. 

Response 1. The productivity of the dense nesting 

cover on the refuge has a lifespan (typically 15 years) 

and has deteriorated. It no longer provides adequate 

nesting habitat for grassland-dependent birds. The 

Service needs to take action to improve this habitat. 

The process to restore native species will be systematic and not occur all at once given the challenges of 

this type of restoration. The long-term objective is to 

restore large expanses of intact native grassland and 

shrubland habitat. This is a process that will extend 

far beyond the life of this CCP. 

Comment 2. [Conflicting upland habitat acreage figures] Page 18 Bottom of photo, 1,218 acres [and on] 

pages 17 [and] 75 [it says] 1,186 acres 

Response 2. The photograph caption has been corrected. 

Comment 3. page 72. Last paragraph [states that] “Certain upland areas were converted to warm or coolseason grasses for dense nesting cover for waterfowl 

and two predator exclusion fences were built around 

some fields and a levee.” The past refuge manager 

ordered these fences removed in 2009. 

Response 3. These fences were removed in 2010. This 

section has been modified in the final CCP to include 

that information. 

Comment 4. There is way too much open grassland. 

I’m not opposed to grassland; I just think, especially 

if you are not planning to farm it, that it needs to be 

broken up a bit. Fields like S–l, S–2 and S–1 through 

I–5 which is really all one big field, the field between 

the golf course and Wildfowl Lane and the fields north 

of Pond 5A should be broken up and diversified. Some 

years ago the refuge blasted a number of potholes into 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 131 

the landscape but I think this needs to be done much 

more extensively. You have quite a number of ditches 

and water sources available and these should be developed much more extensively. I’d love to see them 

routed through these grasslands and ponded up or 

spread out wherever possible. 

Response 4. The refuge has chisel plowed and disked 

fields I–5, I–6, and I–7 with a goal of reducing invasive 

plant seeds. The plan is to seed these to grain and eventually to native grassland in order to provide nesting 

and hiding cover for migratory birds. Many wetlanddependent birds use uplands for nesting and foraging. 

The blasting in the mid-1980s was not to create 

new potholes but to reopen existing impoundments 

that had grown in with cattails. When studying the 

aerial photos, one can see the refuge floodplain has 

scattered river channel remnants that still hold water. 

With an emphasis on restoration, there are no plans 

for creating more impoundments. The Pair Ponds created in 1988 in the higher grasslands never did hold 

water well because the soil conditions were not conducive to this use—emphasizing the need to let the 

soil types be a deciding factor on what is appropriate 

on that piece of land. 

Comment 5. Then shrubs and trees should be planted 

galore along these watercourses. I’m real glad to see 

the shrubs planted along Francois Slough although it 

would be nice to break up the eventual screen you’ve 

planted to provide glimpses of the water and habitat 

beyond. A good but very small example of how these 

meandering waterways should look can be seen, just 

east of the headquarters area. If these shrub and tree 

borders could be greatly expanded to provide cover 

and habitat throughout these grasslands, the bird 

population for one would explode. 

Response 5. The CCP proposes to increase channel 

and riparian habitat next to the Bitterroot River. In 

the past 2 years hundreds of native trees and shrubs 

have been planted, many along natural watercourses 

including Francois Slough. These plantings are a strategy for increasing gallery forest in places where the 

soil supports it. Through natural selection (deer, voles, 

and weather) we may very well end up with breaks in 

the screen of shrubs you describe. Removing levees 

along the Bitterroot River should also provide for 

more conducive regeneration conditions (scour and 

sedimentation) of willow and cottonwood in various 

parts of the refuge. 

tARget SPecIeS 

Comment 1. On pages 100–101 of the draft plan, the 

wood duck is listed as a target species for improving 

habitat needs on the [Lee Metcalf Refuge]. There is 

no mention under area requirements or nesting [and] 

breeding improvements, on the need to dispose of the 

60+ nesting boxes that were slated for removal in 2009. 

Response 1. The Service has identified the natural 

habitat needs of a diverse group of target floodplain 

species, including the wood duck, Lewis’s woodpecker, 

willow flycatcher, Vaux’s swift, brown creeper, and 

hoary bat. This group of species was chosen for its broad 

life history habitat needs. Providing habitat for this 

suite of species would provide the natural floodplain 

habitat diversity for an even broader suite of other 

floodplain-associated wildlife; however, monitoring 

would primarily focus on these target species to determine their response to floodplain management actions. If these species habitat needs are being provided 

and these species are present (and increasing) on the 

refuge, this would be a good indicator of the success 

of refuge management actions. Limiting monitoring 

programs to primarily these species would save time 

and resources. By choosing wood duck as a target 

species, the Service is signifying its long-term goal of 

providing trees of suitable size (rather than artificial 

structures) that could provide these natural nesting 

cavities. For wood ducks, that is trees that are typically greater than 24 inches diameter at breast height. 

Other species will benefit from this type of native forested habitat as well. 

Comment 2. Page 100—Target Species Selection Process Right column,7th sentence—The final list of 16 

species— see Table 9 page 101; Table 10 page 108 and 

Table 11 page 112 for the complete list of the 16 species. 

Response 2. Because these target species are related to 

different habitat types and goals, the tables are found 

in those sections that discuss that part of the refuge. 

wIlDlIfe 

Comment 1. This book goes on to talk about the vast 

bird populations, including the heron rookery west 

of the visitor center. It did not exist this year. Herons have left the refuge to nest elsewhere. Many bird 

populations have moved to private property for nesting and safety. Wildlife numbers are down, including 

geese which are usually more tolerant of people. This 

correlates with what photographers are telling us as 

wildlife sightings drop. The refuge no longer exists as 

portrayed in this book. The “refuge” is a recreational 

and dog park. 

Response 1. This is partially true; the heron rookery 

has fewer occupied nests this year. Nevertheless, the 

area next to this nesting site is currently not open to 

the public. It is not uncommon for these birds to select 

new sites, but they may return in subsequent years. 

The areas you are referring to are open to the public. 

When there are more people using these open sites, 

wildlife may retreat to more protected portions of the 

refuge; nevertheless, wildlife numbers fluctuate on all 

public lands. This CCP is proposing to improve the 

various habitats found on the refuge through managing wetland impoundments and uplands, expanding 
132 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

 

the treatment of invasive species, and other actions. 

The area affected by dogs off leash is a problem and 

reduces this area’s value to wildlife. The refuge is not 

a dog park, but we agree that there is an issue in this 

part of the refuge. We will be enforcing the leash regulation in the WVA. If visitors do not comply, dogs will 

no longer be permitted in this area. Another option 

for minimizing wildlife disturbance in the WVA is to 

require all visitors to remain on the trail. The Service 

will be looking at this option in the future. 

bull tRout (thReAteneD SPecIeS) AnD otheR 

nAtIve SAlMonIDS 

Comment 1. Bull trout and their critical habitat are 

affected by entrainment, fish passage, instream flows, 

water quality, and non-native species. As noted in the 

CCP the headwaters of Burnt Fork Creek harbors a 

substantial population of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout that are disconnected from the Bitterroot 

River. The lowermost barriers in North Burnt Fork 

Creek and other sources of habitat degradation are on 

the refuge. Similarly, though a smaller stream system and possibly more problematic in regards to an 

ecosystem approach to restorative actions, Threemile 

Creek contains native westslope cutthroat trout in the 

headwaters and poor habitat quality on the refuge. 

Response 1. We agree with these statements, and this 

background information is helpful in supporting our 

proposed restoration efforts of these historical fish 

passage channels. 

Comment 2. North Burnt Fork Creek is a conveyance 

channel for water from the “Supply Ditch”. This situation likely affects bull and cutthroat trout homing. 

The CCP needs to clearly state that intra-Service 

consultation will address the Endangered Species 

Act Section 7(a)1, and that all on-going “take” of bull 

trout will be addressed. 

Response 2. The refuge forwarded this comment to the 

Service’s Montana Ecological Services Field Office (a 

branch of the Service responsible for protecting and 

restoring the bull trout). Intra-Service consultation 

occurs when Service actions affect (adversely or beneficially) listed species or designated critical habitat. 

The refuge’s intra-Service consultation for this CCP 

evaluated the refuge actions proposed in this plan to 

determine if they may affect designated critical habitat for bull trout or other listed species that have the 

potential to inhabit the refuge (appendix D of the final 

CCP). The final determination was that the actions 

described in the CCP may affect, but are not likely to 

adversely affect, bull trout critical habitat. As noted 

in appendix D and this final CCP, the refuge will be 

consulting with the Montana Ecological Services Field 

Office in the future as restoration projects are being 

designed and implemented. 

Comment 3. Related to barrier and temperature issues is the issue of inaccessible cold water refugia 

on the refuge. An example is the headwaters of Barn 

Slough. Research continues to support the importance of barrier-free waterways and identification 

and management of potential refugia: “...coldwater 

salmonids migrate through waters during thermally 

stressful months of summer and most likely are able 

to do so by using features in the rivers that provide 

cold water spatially and temporally. The challenge is 

to ensure that these features are identified, protected, 

and restored. 

Response 3. We agree with these comments. Barn 

Slough is accessible to fish in North Burnt Fork Creek. 

Comment 4. There are several major aquatic habitat 

issues and concerns that are affected by management 

on the refuge and they need to be in the selected alternative. Most or all actions to address these issues can 

be implemented with existing staff, funds (including 

initiatives within the Service) and partnerships. 

Response 4. We are not exactly certain what actions 

you are referring to, but our proposals for reconnecting both Three Mile and North Burnt Fork Creek will 

cost additional funds to implement. We do agree that 

there are some initial steps that we can take without 

added staff and funding. We will continue to work 

with other partners to make these changes that support this long-term goal of reconnecting bull trout and 

cutthroat trout habitat from the Bitterroot River to 

the upper reaches of these tributaries. 

Comment 5. The CCP should highlight how the Service 

will lead the Bitterroot Valley toward ecosystem integrity (Section 1.2(c)1 in FWM 251, Part 052: Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife Conservation) 

and bull trout recovery (Endangered Species Act). 

Response 5. The refuge will continue to work with other 

partners in the valley to sustain and, as appropriate, 

restore the biological integrity of the refuge and the 

surrounding valley. The refuge worked with the Montana Ecological Services Field Office (a branch of the 

Service responsible for protecting and restoring bull 

trout) and other conservation partners in identifying 

projects in the CCP that would be beneficial to restoring bull trout habitat. There are several objectives and 

strategies in the plan that describe what the refuge 

will do to support this effort. 

Comment 6. The CCP enumerates an impressive list 

of the refuge’s partnerships. However, the CCP needs 

to emphasize a commitment to actively seek and foster partnerships that promote long-term ecosystem 

conservation and recovery. An example is that the 

refuge should assert their position as an active member of the irrigation district and as a water-user to 

address issues associated with the irrigation, water 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 133 

conservation, and aquatic organism passage. Other 

irrigation groups in the valley have recently made 

substantial progress toward improving native fish 

habitat and survival and improving instream flows 

that benefit numerous species, and doing so in a manner with low monetary costs to the irrigation district. 

Response 6. We agree, and the refuge has discussed 

water management in designated critical habitat for 

bull trout with the Service’s Montana Ecological Services Field Office (a branch of the Service responsible 

for protecting and restoring bull trout) and other 

partners in the valley who are working to restore bull 

trout. The refuge will continue to work with Ecological 

Services , irrigators, and other partners to encourage 

long-term solutions to ecosystem recovery. 

Comment 7. It is worth noting that Trout Unlimited, 

Montana Trout Unlimited and its local Bitterroot 

Chapter have begun investing significant restoration 

dollars into the Burnt Fork drainage. To date, we have 

completed a fish passage barrier study on North Burnt 

Fork, installed a mile of riparian fencing on the Ellison Cattle Company, protecting the North Burnt 

Fork from grazing impacts and talked to numerous 

landowners about future projects. We look forward to 

working with refuge staff on projects that will once 

again allow native and wild salmonids access to the 

Burnt Fork drainage. 

Response 7. We appreciate the efforts of Trout Unlimited and others on restoring this important tributary 

and designated critical habitat for bull trout. The CCP 

proposes to improve this important habitat for native 

salmonids, and we look forward to working together 

on these types of projects of mutual interest. 

Comment 8. To bolster the CCP, any selected alternative must appropriately address [the] Endangered 

Species Act and other regulation and policy, in particular those related to native aquatic habitat and 

species management. 

Response 8. We agree and feel the plan has done this. 

There are no listed species on the refuge, but there 

is designated critical habitat for bull trout on the refuge, and there is suitable habitat for birds, such as the 

yellow-billed cuckoo (a candidate species). These and 

other listed species have been considered in this CCP 

and through the completion of an Intra-Service Section 

7 Consultation, found in appendix D of the final CCP. 

MeRcuRy contAMInAtIon 

Comment 1. On page 109, we get this same sort of unprofessional statement on which the FWS makes a 

recommendation: “Researchers from the University of 

Montana have been investigat[ing] the contamination 

of mercury on the refuge and elsewhere in Montana. 

It is theorized that there has been an accumulation 

of methyl mercury as a result of stagnant water, and 

mercury concentrations of fish on the refuge has been 

high (Langner et al. 2011). Theorized, not proven! [If] 

this is the case, if this concern is even remotely possible, why haven’t immediate efforts to deal with it, 

such as implementing studies to prove or unprove, not 

theorize, conclusions on which you make management 

recommendation[s]? You don’t make a management 

decision based on a theory—you do scientific research 

to provide real answers. 

Response 1. Managers often use the best available information and knowledge combined with their professional expertise to make management decisions. They 

also use published literature and the best available 

science to guide management options. Management 

is also adaptable as new information and research 

becomes available. 

The Service and other researchers have determined that there is a bioaccumulation of mercury in 

fish and other aquatic organisms; however, there is 

no definitive answer as to how the Service’s management actions are or are not contributing to this. We 

have added some new strategies under the wetland 

impoundment goal in the final CCP that describe the 

steps the Service will take to investigate this issue. 

The results of this study will be used to make decisions on what changes, if any, could reduce the level of 

mercury accumulation in the wetland impoundments 

and associated aquatic species. 

InvASIve SPecIeS 

Comment 1. We applaud your objective to control weeds 

and to reestablish native plants on the upland grasslands which will help to attract grassland bird species. 

Response 1. Thank you for your comment. 

Comment 2. a. Chemical treatment of weeds should 

not be allowed on the refuge. These chemicals are 

disruptive to life forms. Use farming, bugs, sheep, 

and goats instead. 

b. I applaud your efforts to reduce non-native species. I would urge the use of nonchemical control as 

much as possible, in order to avoid potential effects 

to all wildlife. 

Response 2a–b. The Service has an obligation to address the widespread areas of invasive species on the 

refuge. On this and other refuges, the Service makes 

every attempt to use an integrated pest management 

approach to treat invasive species. Mechanical, cultural, 

or biological controls are the preferred options and 

can be successful. Refuge staff and volunteers spend 

considerable time using these nonchemical methods 

to control certain invasive species. In some cases it 

is necessary to use chemicals to treat other nonnative plants that do not respond to these methods. The 

Service has an approved chemical list that has gone 

through additional analysis beyond standards of the 

EPA. This chemical list is much smaller than those 
134 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

that are available and used by the general public. Although these chemicals are not without side effects, 

most have the least known side effects and are shown 

to be less harmful to nontarget species. 

Comment 3. I am attaching a new study concerning the 

epigenetic changes the thyroid hormone and steroid 

hormone disrupting chemicals cause and how the 

changes/birth defects are passed on for several generations without another exposure to the new generations. 

That of course is not how it works in the real world. 

Each new generation of animal is exposed, so their 

offspring are even worse—for example the generation 

of humans having babies now are having babies with 

epigenetic changes to their brain causing autism at 

a much higher prevalence than the previous generation. The white-tailed deer generations now are having babies with much higher prevalence of misaligned, 

malformed, short scrotal sac than the generation when 

we did the study which is attached on the next email. 

I think these changes to wild vertebrates, including 

mammals, birds, amphibians, reptile and fish should 

be considered in any long term plan and especially in 

the environmental assessment for all wildlife refuges. 

Response 3. Invasive species hinder the Service’s 

ability to manage the refuge’s lands and waters for 

Federal trust species, including migratory birds and 

other fish and wildlife. If we had a choice to effectively 

treat the invasive species without chemicals at all, we 

would. To this end, the refuge most often chooses to 

use chemical-free methods to treat invasive species. 

However, these methods are very labor intensive and 

not without their own impacts on the environment. In 

addition, some species do not respond to these techniques, particularly those that spread by rhizomes. 

Some of the nonchemical methods will actually spread 

these species. The chemical will kill the root of these 

plants, preventing their spread. We appreciate your 

concern and the studies you provided. We would welcome any suggestions to reduce our use of chemicals; 

however, we cannot allow these species to spread onto 

new areas of the refuge and to our neighbors, so the 

use of a limited number of chemicals authorized for 

use on refuge by the Service (see previous response to 

comment above) must be used on occasion until more 

“natural” treatments are developed for some of these 

more challenging species. 

Comment 4. Goal of weed program, 1) reduce weeds, 

2) reduce the need to spray over time, 3) develop a 

monitoring program that shows this. 

Response 4. We agree and have similar language in 

the final CCP. 

Comment 5. Exactly what would be involved when you 

said the plan would involve surrounding landowners? Is the government going to come in with a lot of 

stiff regulations that will cause hardships and anger 

with nearby refuge neighbors? 

Response 5. The refuge will continue to develop its 

partnership with the Ravalli County Weed District to 

provide education to adjoining landowners on weeds 

and their detrimental effects on habitat and productive agricultural lands. 

Comment 6. Monitor invasive species—this term is 

listed at least eleven times in the Draft CCP. With the 

current number of staff this is probably not feasible. 

Response 6. The Service provides additional assistance 

for monitoring through the Invasive Species Strike 

Team that travels throughout Montana to map, treat, 

and monitor invasive species on refuges. One of the 

strike team leaders is currently located at the Lee 

Metcalf Refuge. In addition, the county employees 

that are funded by the refuge map, monitor, and treat 

invasives on the refuge, which they have done for the 

past 2 years. This combined effort has been very instrumental in mapping large areas of the refuge. This 

effort will continue to be updated and expanded and 

used for monitoring programs in the future to determine if treatment methods are having the desired effect 

and to monitor for new invaders. Having this baseline 

information will make any treatment and monitoring 

programs much more efficient and effective. 

PlAnnIng PRoceSS 

Comment 1. Ducks Unlimited biological staff involvement was overlooked in preplanning and scoping meetings over past 4 years. That is a travesty and blatant 

disregard. You missed the boat on your partnership 

vision as stated in the CCP. 

Response 1. Ducks Unlimited was on our mailing list 

at the start of this planning process and was given 

the opportunity to provide their comments during 

our scoping process conducted in 2009. We did not 

receive any comments at that time. Ducks Unlimited 

is a long-time partner of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and valued for its knowledge and contributions 

to our mission; however, we are not permitted to have 

any private organization serve on our planning team. 

The Federal Advisory Committee Act prohibits the 

government from having closed door meetings with 

private individuals and organizations with the purpose 

of asking for their recommendations for what direction 

the government should take. That is why we conduct 

public scoping, ask for comments at the start of our 

processes, and sent the draft document out for review. 

Comment 2. The refuge should follow their policy and 

expedite the conclusion of this planning process. The 

Service’s policy (Section 1.8 (a) in FWM 251, Planning 

and Management, Part 052: Ecosystem Approach to 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation) states: “The Service’s 

focus is on action; planning to be completed quickly, 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 135 

and action to bring about solutions will follow immediately. The intent of the plans is to concisely identify 

issues and problems, solutions, and the funds and 

staff to implement solutions.” Key partnerships and 

projects have suffered during this planning process 

due to the refuge’s understandable reluctance to act 

on riparian and aquatic restoration projects until the 

planning process is finalized. 

Response 2. The policy you are referencing is from 1996 

(prior to the passage of the Improvement Act requiring the development of CCPs) and is a guide for the 

Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife Conservation. There is a separate policy for the development of 

CCPs that does not include such language; nevertheless, every effort has been made to keep this process 

moving forward, while ensuring that the most substantive issues were addressed. In the 48-year history of this refuge, there has never been a plan with 

this level of analysis, public involvement, and detail 

that provided for consistency in management. These 

types of planning efforts, particularly when other 

partners and the public are invited to participate, 

take time. We have not stopped managing the refuge 

while we have been working on this CCP; however, 

we do agree that more significant management decisions have been put on hold as we take advantage of 

this process, including the added expertise, to make 

better informed decisions through the CCP process. 

Fortunately we are at the end of this process and look 

forward to implementing the plans to restore and enhance the refuge’s riparian habitats. 

Comment 3. You have contacted only state wide media 

sites, in violation of the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act of 1969] requirement that there be 

broad outreach. 

Response 3. In addition to statewide media contacts, 

the Service developed a nationwide mailing list of 

individuals and organizations at the start of this process, developed and mailed two planning updates to 

this list, held public meetings, and published a notice 

of intent and notice of availability in the Federal Register. Most of these outreach activities are above and 

beyond the Council on Environmental Quality (the 

agency who regulates NEPA) requirements for an 

environmental assessment. 

Comment 4. An EIS [environmental impact statement] 

needs to be prepared. An EA is cheap sloppy alternative that is not responsible enough for this out of control spending plan which this agency always picks. 

Response 4. The preferred alternative is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)C of the NEPA. Accordingly, the 

preparation of an environmental impact statement is 

not warranted. The issues identified in this document 

are not significant, nor are the proposed changes to 

the management of the refuge. 

AlteRnAtIveS 

Comment 1. a. Re-institute the original charter and 

management plan given the refuge at the time of its 

founding, focusing of actually doing what Congress 

mandated back in 1964 and reemphasized over the 

years. It is my deep conviction that recent management direction at both the local level and from the regional office FWS office in Denver has strayed from 

the original charter, which incidentally seemed to 

work well for the decades that followed establishment 

of the Metcalf Refuge and into which conservation 

groups supported that concept poured hundreds of 

thousands of dollars into accomplishing, and which, 

through the ‘mismanagement’ alleged in the CCP has 

enabled the FWS to stray from its original charter. 

The fact is that what was put in place in the years 

following 1964 worked for decades, and if done correctly, and with proper funding and alliance with its 

support groups, including the Friends of Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge, would be working today. 

Get back to basics, adjust and accommodate changes 

where they’re required, but stick to those original goals 

and everything else will fall into place. 

b. Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (page 

17). Justification for establishing the Lee Metcalf Refuge 

was to provide a feeding and resting area for migratory waterfowl in a locality where some sanctuary is 

needed It appears that the refuge’s desire to establish 

gallery forest by reducing wetlands has lost sight of 

the requirement set forth by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Also 97.3 of the money used 

to purchase the refuge land was from the sale of the 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp (Duck Stamp). 

Response 1a–b. It is unclear what you are referring 

to as the “original charter.” The refuge was approved 

by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission on 

December 10, 1963. The first piece of land was purchased on February 4, 1964, which established the 

refuge. The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approves lands that have been identified by the 

Secretary of Interior for the conservation of migratory birds. The legislative purpose for Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge (originally named Ravalli 

National Wildlife Refuge) is threefold: (1) for use as 

an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management 

purpose, for migratory birds; (2) suitable for incidental 

fish and wildlife–oriented recreational development, 

the protection of natural resources; and (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species. 

This original purpose of managing for migratory birds, 

federally listed species, and incidental wildlife-oriented 

recreation has never changed. Since the refuge was 

purchased with migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp funds, many people believe that these funds 
136 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

should only focus on wetland habitat for the benefit 

of waterfowl. However, Congress clearly states that 

these funds are to be used to rent or purchase properties that benefit any migratory bird. The refuge has 

and will continue to manage wetland impoundment 

habitats during the life of this CCP along with river 

migration, riparian habitat enhancement, and upland 

habitat improvements, including controlling invasive 

species. All of these actions support the legislative 

purposes for which this refuge was established. 

Comment 2. We welcome the thrust of new processes 

at the Metcalf, whichever CCP alternative you select, 

but it is my recommendation that you return direction 

back to the basic charge given the FWS years ago. Dig 

up those original plans and re-institute them as your 

starting point, with whatever minor adjustments you 

need to accommodate the changes brought on by time. 

Response 2. In the 48 years since this refuge was established the refuge has come to better understand 

the effects of management actions on the landscape. 

In addition, different species have become more imperiled (for example, bull trout) as their habitats are 

lost. The refuge has come to play an even bigger role 

in the conservation of a greater variety of species than 

originally envisioned. This is a result of the constant 

development of the Bitterroot Valley and the migration routes used by migratory Federal trust species. 

The refuge’s management programs have and will 

continue to grow and evolve with this new information without losing sight of the purposes for which 

this refuge was established. 

Comment 3. I feel that the proposed action on alternative B is a good direction for the refuge. My only comment would be to not abandon the focus on maintaining wetland impoundments mention in alternative C. 

Since it[s] inception the Lee Metcalf has focused on 

migratory birds and would hate to see that emphasis 

diminished or abandoned. 

Response 3. Although the plan does call for the restoration of historical habitats currently lying under 

some impoundments, most of the impoundments will 

be maintained for the life of this CCP. This will create 

more habitat diversity in support of a greater number 

of wildlife species. 

Comment 4. We [Trout Unlimited] would like to go on 

record as being supportive of Alternative B (proposed 

action) for the following reasons: 

■■ It focuses on expanding native vegetation communities 

■■ An emphasis on controlling invasive species would 

be a priority 

■■ The Bitterroot River would be allowed to periodically achieve overbank flows into the floodplain 

and backwaters facilitating its natural braided 

migration through the refuge 

■■ Water control structures on North Burnt Fork and 

Three Mile Creek would be removed or modified to 

provide connectivity for fish 

■■ Ponds would be managed to more closely mimic 

seasonal water conditions 

Response 4. Thank you for your comments. 

Comment 5. We would discourage the refuge from adopting Alternative C as the proposed action. 

Alternative C would focus habitat management on 

maintaining wetland impoundments while restricting 

the movements of the Bitterroot River throughout the 

refuge (i.e. rebuild or reinforce all levees and dams). 

The river has been impacted its entire length by manmade levees and dams. It does not seem to us prudent 

for the refuge to add to this ever growing problem. 

Response 5. We agree, and this is one of the reasons 

this alternative was not selected. 

geneRAl coMMentS 

Comment 1. The format in which this draft plan is constructed is fantastic and really lays out strategies for 

implementation. Goals and objectives are the backbone 

of the plan. My only suggestion is that when developing objectives for specific goals these objectives should 

contain verbiage that is measurable. The use of time 

frames, numbers, statistics or something tangible that 

would be key to the fact that the objective has been met. 

Response 1. Thank you for your comments. We feel 

that whenever possible, our objectives and associated 

strategies are measurable based on the information 

we had to make those decisions. We will have more 

specific details in the stepdown management plans. 

Comment 2. I have...been distressed by inconsistences 

in management. One director comes along and wraps 

the refuge in barbed wire at considerable time, expense, 

and trouble. Then the next director comes along and 

removes the barbed wire at considerable time, expense, 

and trouble. 

Response 2. One of the values and purposes of completing this type of long-range management plan is to 

provide more consistency in management, including 

long-term goals, that will still be in place even when 

new staff arrive. 

Comment 3. The public was given a postmark date 

of April 30th to comment on the proposals prior to 

a final decision being made. Note on photo 1 and 2, 

one turn-out near the visitor center and another on 

Wildfowl Lane is well under way. As see in photo 3 

work is already under way near the Whaley House. 

Wasn’t the public’s right to comment supposed to occur prior to work done? 
APPENDIX A—Public Involvement 137 

Response 3. The planning process takes a number of 

years. During this time, the refuge must still manage 

resources. The issues related to the safety of Wildfowl 

Lane have been ongoing, even prior to the start of this 

planning process. The draft CCP proposed to designate Wildfowl Lane as an auto tour route. That has yet 

to be done. However, the turnout you refer has been 

completed to improve the safety of our visitors. This 

project had been proposed years before the CCP was 

started, and recently this long standing proposal was 

funded. The work completed near the Whaley House 

was on Pond 4. This project was initiated to improve 

the existing dike and replace the culvert to allow us to 

better manage water levels, address cattail encroachment, and create a safer driving surface. 

Comment 4. Under ‘issues’ (see summary xi) things are 

noted such as invasives species, small visitor contact 

area, outdated displays, inadequate public access, 

inadequate staff, algal and river issues. The main 

reason for the decline of the refuge is never identified. 

Response 4. Greater details on this and other issues 

can be found in the issues section in chapter 2 and in 

various sections in chapter 4 of this final CCP. There 

is no one cause for the management challenges identified in this CCP. 

Comment 5. We [EPA] appreciate the efforts of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in carrying out planning 

and environmental analysis to improve management 

of the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, and to 

enhance public awareness and support for wildlife 

conservation. The EPA does not object to the proposed actions. 

Response 5. Thank you for your comment. 

Comment 6. The old cars on the riverbank are ugly. 

Can they be removed? 

Response 6. We agree with this statement. Many of 

these cars are not on the refuge. The cars were originally placed there in the late 1950s by the railroad in 

order to ensure that the river flowed under the trestle. 

The river has since and continues to remove these 

cars and migrate around them. At this time, the refuge does not have any plans to remove the cars that 

reside on refuge lands. 

Comment 7. page 29—Right column last sentence— 

Adaptive resources management would inform this 

revision. What does this mean is the public informed 

or is this strictly a refuge decision? 

Response 7. In the context of this paragraph the word 

“inform” could also mean “direct” or “guide.” Adaptive 

resource management is also defined in the glossary. 

The Service’s planning policy guideline on reviewing 

these documents states, “Review the CCP at least 

annually to decide if it requires any revisions. Modify 

the plan and associated management activities whenever this review or other monitoring and evaluation 

determine that we need changes to achieve planning 

unit purpose(s), vision, and goals.” 

The policy does not direct the refuge when to notify the public about these changes within the 15-year 

life of this plan; however, in the past, if the change is 

substantial enough, the Service has gone back to the 

public to inform them of the modification. 

Comment 8. Follow the lead of The Friends of the Lee 

Metcalf National Wildlife refuge in working with the 

Bitter Root Land Trust to participate in implementation of protecting habitat (including the watershed) 

and wildlife corridors on private lands surrounding 

the refuge. 

Response 8. The plan recommends that these types 

of partnerships be maintained and expanded in the 

future. The refuge has a long-standing working relationship with the Bitter Root Land Trust. Recently 

the refuge met with this organization to identify parcels along North Burnt Fork Creek that, if protected, 

would establish habitat corridors as well as enhance 

refuge resources. 

Comment 9. Who will have the responsibility to approve the final CCP? 

Response 9. The assistant regional director for refuges approved the compatibility determinations (appendix C of the final CCP) and the Regional Director 

approved the final CCP. 

Comment 10. What has been progressed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service is great. They work at what 

they know and to do to keep The Lee Metcalf National 

Wildlife Refuge is true and meaningful. They have 

the knowledge of all of the areas to bring together 

what they may need and be taken care of. To keep the 

refuge where wildlife is and NATURE—they give it 

exactly what it needs. 

Response 10. Thank you for your comments. 

Comment 11. The refuge is well taken care of and the 

plans to do more and keep it up and beautiful for 

ALL who see it and are appreciative of what they see 

and hear. 

Response 11. Thank you for your comments. 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

Environmental Compliance 

Environmental Action Statement 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act and other 

statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and 

wildlife resources, I have established the following 

administrative record. 

I have determined that the action of implementing 

the “Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge” is found not to have 

significant environmental effects, as determined by 

the attached “finding of no significant impact” and 

the environmental assessment as found with the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

Stephen D. Guertin Date 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Matt Hogan Date 

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

W. Dean Rundle Date 

Refuge Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Tom Reed Date 

Refuge Manager 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

Stevensville, Montana 
finding of no Significant impact 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

140 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Three management alternatives for the Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge were assessed for their effectiveness in achieving the refuge’s purposes and for 

their impacts on the human environment. 

AltErnAtivE A 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would continue current management. 

AltErnAtivE B 

Alternative B focuses on the expansion and restoration of native plant communities on the refuge including grasslands, shrublands, and gallery and riverfront 

forests. Some areas of wetland impoundments would 

be restored to native communities including forest 

and shrubland. 

Refuge staff would manage and, where appropriate, restore the natural topography, water movements, 

and physical integrity of surface water flow patterns 

across the Bitterroot River floodplain. Unimpeded 

flow from North Burnt Fork Creek would be reconnected with flow pathways into the Bitterroot River to 

reduce creek water temperature, improve water and 

nutrient flow, and create habitat conditions conducive 

to native cold-water species. Additionally, a channel 

to the Bitterroot River would be reestablished that 

mimics the historical flow pattern of Three Mile Creek 

to create habitat conditions supporting native coldwater species and the restoration of riparian habitat. 

A significant focus of any restoration proposal would 

be controlling invasive species and preventing further 

spread. Grasses and shrubs native to the uplands, including the alluvial fans (that is, areas of sedimentary 

deposits where fast-flowing streams have flown into 

flatter plains), would begin to be restored to provide 

habitat for native wildlife including grassland-dependent migratory birds. Some wetland impoundments 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (nonpublic) roads 

would be removed or reduced in size to allow for river 

migration and to restore native gallery and riverfront 

forest for riparian-dependent wildlife. The remaining 

impoundments would be managed to mimic natural 

conditions for wetland-dependent migratory birds. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would expand 

and improve the refuge’s compatible wildlife-dependent 

public use programs, in particular the wildlife observation, environmental education, and interpretation 

programs. The visitor contact area would be expanded 

into a visitor center with new displays and a combination conference room and environmental education classroom. New displays would be professionally 

planned and produced. The refuge would work with 

Ravalli County staff to designate the county road in 

the refuge as an auto tour route, which would include 

pulloffs and some form of interpretation. A seasonal 

hiking trail would be added, and current trails would 

be improved for wildlife observation and photography. 

Interpretation and environmental education programs 

would be expanded using added staff and volunteers. 

All public use programs would provide visitors with 

a consistent message about the purposes and values 

of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

The refuge staff would be expanded by 3.5 individuals to include an assistant refuge manager (one 

full-time equivalent), a full-time and a career-seasonal 

biological science technician (1.5 full-time equivalents), 

and a visitor services specialist (one full-time equivalent) who would serve as a visitor center manager and 

volunteer coordinator. 

Increased research and monitoring, staff, funding, 

infrastructure, and partnerships would be required to 

accomplish the goals, objectives, and strategies associated with this alternative. Additional staff and funding 

would be added depending on the regional priorities 

for those funds allocated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for management of lands and waters within 

the Refuge System. 

AltErnAtivE C 

Alternative C contains many of the elements found 

in alternative B related to expanding visitor service 

programs and facilities. However, habitat management would be focused on maintaining the wetland 

impoundments and attempting to restrict the movements of the Bitterroot River throughout the refuge. 

Habitat efforts would be primarily focused on providing waterfowl and other waterbird habitat. 

SElECtion of AltErnAtivE 

Based on this assessment and comments received, I 

have selected alternative B as the preferred alternative for implementation. The preferred alternative 

was selected because it best meets the purposes for 

which the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge was 

established, and it is preferable to the no-action alternative in light of physical, biological, economic, 

and social factors. The preferred alternative will continue to provide public access for wildlife-dependent 

recreation at Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation). 
 

APPENDIX B—Environmental Compliance 141 

I find that the preferred alternative is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the meaning 

of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the preparation of 

an environmental impact statement on the proposed 

action is not required. 

The following is a summary of anticipated environmental effects from implementation of the preferred 

alternative: 

■■ The preferred alternative will not adversely impact 

endangered or threatened species or their habitat. 

■■ The preferred alternative will not adversely impact 

archaeological or historical resources. 

■■ The preferred alternative will not adversely impact 

wetlands, nor does the plan call for structures that 

could be damaged by or that would significantly 

influence the movement of floodwater. 

■■ The preferred alternative will not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or 

environmental effect on minority or low-income 

populations. 

The State of Montana has been notified and given the 

opportunity to review the comprehensive conservation plan and associated environmental assessment. 

Stephen D. Guertin Date 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Appendix C 

Compatibility Determinations 

C.1 Refuge Information 

Refuge NAme 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

DAte estAblIsheD 

February 4, 1964 

estAblIshINg AND ACquIsItIoN AuthoRItIes 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 United States 

Code [U.S.C.] 661–667e) 

Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k–1) 

State of Montana approval under provisions of Public 

Law 87–383 (75 Stat. 813) 

Refuge PuRPoses 

“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

“suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k–1 

“the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real 

... property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of 

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 

16 U.S.C. 460k–2 (Refuge Recreation Act, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k–4) 

C.2 National Wildlife Refuge 

system mission 

The mission of the System is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

C.3 Description of uses 

The following uses are evaluated for compatibility 

within the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge: 

■■ hunting 

■■ fishing 

■■ wildlife observation and noncommercial photography 

■■ environmental education and interpretation 

■■ commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography 

■■ cooperative farming and prescriptive grazing 

■■ research and monitoring 

huNtINg 

Hunting is one of six wildlife-dependent priority public 

uses specified in the Improvement Act. Hunting occurs 

in two forms on the refuge: waterfowl (by shotgun) 

and white-tailed deer (by bow). In addition to the sitespecific regulations mentioned below, State hunting 

regulations will apply to all Lee Metcalf Refuge lands 

open to hunting. Hunters may only possess and use 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)–approved, 

nontoxic shot shells on the refuge, and vehicle travel 

and parking is restricted to public roads, pulloffs, and 

parking areas. The refuge Web site and public use brochures provide guidance on site-specific regulations. 

The general hunting regulations are available from 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP). 

Waterfowl hunting is restricted to the southeast 

part of the refuge. This 654-acre area of the refuge encompasses five wetlands and is closed to the general 

public. Waterfowl hunters access this area from one 

parking area. According to 2005–2009 records, fourteen blinds together accommodate an average of 965 

visits per year. Waterfowl hunting is conducted during 

the State hunting season, which usually occurs from 

the first week of October through first week of January. Waterfowl hunting is available on a first-come, 

first-served basis except for opening weekend, during 

which blinds are allocated by drawing. 

Archery hunters access 2,275 acres of refuge lands 

from five archery hunting access parking areas. According to 2005–2009 records, archery hunting for 

white-tailed deer draws an average of 1,030 visits annually and an average of 33 deer are harvested each 
144 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

year. Deer hunting season starts in early September 

and ends the second week in January. In addition to 

providing a compatible recreational activity, deer 

hunting assists the refuge in managing overbrowsing 

of native habitats. 

The comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for 

the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge proposes to 

continue the hunting uses described above. 

Availability of Resources. Hunting will be administered 

by the refuge staff. Currently, refuge staff does not 

include a dedicated or collateral duty law enforcement 

officer or a refuge biologist to monitor deer populations. 

It is anticipated that the refuge would rely on the zone 

law enforcement officer or staff from other refuges. 

Also, the regional inventorying and monitoring biologist will assist with analysis and trend monitoring. 

Infrastructure in place on the refuge includes the 

following: 

■■ hunt information kiosk 

■■ five parking area and check-in stations 

■■ 14 waterfowl blinds (2 are universally accessible) 

Anticipated Impacts of use. The hunting program on 

Service lands will continue to provide hunters ample 

quality hunting opportunities without materially detracting from the mission and goals of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) or from 

the establishing purposes of refuge lands. Public use 

brochures and the refuge Web site will be kept up-todate and made readily available to hunters. Hunter 

success and satisfaction will continue to be monitored 

using the hunter registration kiosk sign-in sheet along 

with random contacts with hunters in the field and in 

the refuge office. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 

(as amended), other laws, and the Service’s policy 

permit hunting on a national wildlife refuge when it 

is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge 

was established and acquired. Habitat that normally 

supports healthy wildlife populations produces harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource. As 

practiced on Lee Metcalf Refuge, hunting does not 

pose a threat to the wildlife populations and, in some 

instances, is necessary for sound wildlife management. However, by its very nature, hunting creates 

a disturbance to wildlife and directly affects the individual animal being hunted. Nonetheless, it is well 

recognized that this activity has given many people 

a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge 

System mission. Furthermore, despite the potential 

impacts of hunting, a goal of Lee Metcalf Refuge is to 

provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Hunting will be designed and monitored to 

offer a safe and quality program and to keep adverse 

effects within acceptable limits. 

Although hunting directly affects the hunted animal and may indirectly disturb other animals, limits 

on hunting access and harvest will ensure that populations do not fall to unsustainable levels. Closed areas 

on the refuge provide sanctuary to migratory birds 

during the hunting season. In some cases, hunting 

can be used as a management tool to control elevated 

populations that are negatively affecting wildlife habitat (for example, through overbrowsing). 

Additional impacts from hunting include conflicts 

with individuals participating in wildlife-dependent, 

priority public uses such as wildlife observation and 

photography. 

Determination. Hunting is a compatible use on Lee 

Metcalf Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure Compatibility 

■■ Visitors participating in hunting will be provided 

the Service’s public use regulations, including sitespecific regulations and State hunting regulations. 

■■ Hunters will continue to use approved nontoxic 

shot for waterfowl hunting. 

■■ Vehicles will be restricted to county and designated 

public roads and parking areas in the refuge. 

■■ Signage and brochures will be used to provide 

hunters information on where and how to hunt on 

the refuge to ensure compliance with public use 

regulations. 

Justification. A secondary goal of the Refuge System 

is to provide opportunities, when found compatible, 

for the public to develop an understanding and appreciation for wildlife. Hunting is identified as a priority 

public use in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and will 

help meet the above secondary goal with only minimal 

conflicts. Hunting can instill, in citizens of all ages, a 

greater appreciation for wildlife and its habitat. This 

appreciation may extend to the Refuge System, other 

conservation agencies, and to the individual personal 

land conservation ethic. 

Based on anticipated biological impacts described 

above and in the environmental assessment (EA) that 

accompanied the draft CCP for Lee Metcalf Refuge, 

the Service has determined that hunting within the 

refuge will not interfere with the Service’s habitat 

goals and objectives or purposes for which the refuge 

was established. Limiting access and monitoring the 

use will help limit any adverse effects. 

mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2027 

fIshINg 

Fishing is one of six wildlife-dependent priority public uses specified in the Improvement Act. Fishing is 
APPENDIX C—Compatibility Determinations 145 

allowed within the wildlife viewing area (WVA) (145 

acres), specifically along Francois Slough and the Bitterroot River. Fishing is available year-round, though 

limited in winter and during spring flooding. Fishing 

will be conducted in accordance with the rules and 

regulations set by the State of Montana. Additional 

refuge-specific regulations are printed in the refuge 

fishing brochure. 

The CCP does not call for the implementation of 

any new fishing programs. 

Availability of Resources. The refuge will continue to 

work with MFWP to conduct fish and creel surveys. 

The regional inventorying and monitoring biologist 

will assist with analysis and trend monitoring. The 

refuge will rely on the law enforcement officer, stationed at the refuge, and law enforcement staff from 

other refuges to enforce fishing regulations. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. Fishing and other human 

activities cause disturbance to wildlife and trampling 

of vegetation along the bank of rivers and streams. 

There will also be some mortality to those fish caught 

and then released. Refuge-specific regulations will assist in managing anglers and minimizing disturbance. 

Determination. Fishing is a compatible use at designated fishing areas on Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure Compatibility 

■■ Visitors participating in fishing be provided the 

Service’s public use regulations and State fishing 

regulations and limits. Rules specific to the refuge 

are published in the refuge fishing brochure. 

■■ Vehicles will be restricted to county and designated 

public roads and parking areas. 

■■ No boats may be used or launched at the WVA or 

anywhere else on the refuge, with the exception of 

boats launched off- refuge that then travel through 

the refuge on the Bitterroot River. Public fishing on 

the Bitterroot River by boat is restricted to below 

the high watermark, and boats cannot be launched 

onto the river from refuge lands. 

■■ Boats, fishing equipment, and all other personal 

property must be removed at the end of each day. 

Justification. Fishing is a priority public use identified 

in the Improvement Act. No long-term or significant 

adverse impacts of wildlife resources are expected 

from the primary or supporting uses. Based on the 

biological effects addressed above and in the EA that 

accompanied the draft CCP for Lee Metcalf Refuge, 

the Service has determined that fishing will not interfere with the Service’s habitat goals and objectives or 

purposes for which the refuge was established. 

mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2027 

WIlDlIfe obseRvAtIoN AND NoNCommeRCIAl 

PhotogRAPhy 

Wildlife observation and photography are two of six 

wildlife-dependent priority public uses identified in 

the Improvement Act. Wildlife observation and photography on the refuge are conducted at the following 

public use areas: (1) the WVA; (2) outside the visitor 

contact area; (3) the Kenai Nature Trail; and (4) Wildfowl Lane, a county road that runs through the refuge. 

The WVA, located in the southwest corner of the 

refuge, has four trail segments that total 2.5 miles. 

The area is open to off-trail hiking and observation. 

The 0.55-mile accessible segment of the trail system 

is 10 feet wide and paved and has three concrete 

benches. The three other trail segments are soil or 

gravel and vary in width. The gravel parking area is 

three-quarters of an acre, large enough to accommodate recreational vehicles. There is also a designated 

paved parking area for visitors with disabilities. Additional facilities include an information kiosk, portapotties, and a shelter. 

At the visitor contact area, visitors are provided a 

spotting scope to view waterfowl and other waterbirds 

and raptors on the adjacent ponds. This is one of the 

most popular wildlife observation and photography 

sites for visitors, including school groups. 

The Kenai Nature Trail is 1.25 miles long. It starts 

at refuge headquarters and parallels the eastern edge 

of Ponds 6, 8, and 10. The areas immediately next to 

the trail are closed, so visitors must remain on the 

trail. The first quarter mile of this trail is asphalt and 

meets accessibility guidelines. Five benches and one 

spotting scope are positioned along this paved section 

of trail. The remaining trail is soil and gravel and is 

not considered accessible. An additional four benches, 

one overlook platform with spotting scope, boardwalk, 

two wooden bridges, and two permanent photo blinds 

are located along this part of the Kenai Nature Trail. 

Two permanent photo blinds are located along the 

Kenai Nature Trail. Blind 1 is located one-third of a 

mile from the visitor contact area on Pond 8; it sits 

within 55 acres of open water and marsh land and is 

sheltered to the east by cottonwood and alder trees. 

Blind 2 is located 1 mile from the visitor contact area 

on approximately 85 acres of open water on Pond 10. 

An “L”-shaped 2.8-mile section of Wildfowl Lane 

travels through the refuge on a south-central to eastcentral direction and has informally served as the refuge auto tour route. The southern and easternmost 

miles of the road are paved or covered with recycled 

asphalt. The remaining road is gravel. The road is 

wide—at least 33 feet in width—allowing motorists 

to pull over safely and observe wildlife. 

Wildlife observation and photography will be conducted year-round at the WVA, the visitor contact 

area, Kenai Nature Trail, and Wildfowl Lane. 
146 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

The CCP proposes to continue the above wildlife 

observation and noncommercial photography activities and add the following to improve opportunities 

for these uses: 

■■ The refuge will work with the county to develop 

the 2.8 miles of Wildfowl Lane, described above, 

as an auto tour route, with observation sites and 

accompanying interpretation. 

■■ Visitors using the Kenai Nature Trail could choose 

to walk on the upper bench of a small portion of 

the trail to access a more level walking surface. 

■■ The Kenai Nature Trail will be extended westward 

using the Pond 8 dike road (near Potato Cellar 

Pond); it will then loop south, travel past a former 

residence site, and then connect to Wildfowl Lane. 

This trail addition measures 1.25 miles in length. 

The trail will be open seasonally for public use. 

The closure will provide refuge for migrating and 

nesting waterfowl and other waterbirds. This spur 

to the Kenai Nature Trail will provide additional 

opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

■■ Through partnerships, the refuge will conduct an 

annual wildlife photography workshop highlighting how to photograph wildlife while minimizing 

disturbance. 

■■ Waterfowl hunting Blind 2 will be upgraded to 

provide a photo blind for photographers, including those with disabilities. At least two portable 

photo blinds will be purchased and available for 

visitor use. 

■■ Snowshoeing and cross-country skiing will be 

permitted on walking trails when adequate snow 

is available. 

Availability of Resources. Wildlife observation and 

photography will be administered by refuge staff. The 

refuge will rely on the zone law enforcement officer and 

staff from other refuges for law enforcement. Signage 

and law enforcement will be used to keep visitors from 

crossing into areas closed to public use. 

The porta-potties will be maintained twice a week, 

and paved trails will be sealed periodically to maintain 

a smooth surface. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. There will be temporary 

disturbance to wildlife near the WVA and along trails. 

This disturbance will be minimized through refuge 

regulations and education including brochures, signage, 

and staff- or volunteer-led wildlife walks that highlight 

the ethics of wildlife observation and photography. 

Determination. Wildlife observation and photography 

are compatible uses on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure Compatibility 

■■ Visitors participating in wildlife observation and 

photography will be strongly encouraged to follow 

all public use regulations. 

■■ All users of the Kenai Nature Trail will be required 

to stay on the trail. 

■■ Non-Service vehicles will be restricted to county 

and public access roads in the refuge. 

■■ Viewing areas will be designed to minimize disturbance impacts on wildlife and all refuge resources 

while providing good opportunities to view wildlife 

in their natural environments. 

■■ Visitors using permanent or portable observation 

and photography blinds will be provided with information on properly using these structures to 

minimize disturbance to wildlife, habitats, and 

other refuge visitors. 

■■ Photography outside of public use sites is not allowed. 

■■ Dogs are allowed only on leashes and only on trails 

in the WVA. 

■■ Bicycles, horses, and off-road vehicles are not allowed on the refuge. 

Justification. Wildlife observation and photography 

is a wildlife-dependent, priority public use. No unacceptable, long-term or significant adverse impacts on 

wildlife resources are expected from the primary or 

supporting uses. 

mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2027 

eNvIRoNmeNtAl eDuCAtIoN AND 

INteRPRetAtIoN 

Environmental education and interpretation are two 

of six wildlife-dependent priority public uses specified 

in the Improvement Act. 

Most environmental education programs will be 

conducted at sites near refuge headquarters: (1) the 

visitor contact area, (2) Okefenokee Room, (3) environmental education shelter, (4) outdoor amphitheater, and 

(5) Kenai Nature Trail. The WVA will also be used for 

staff-led programs but even more so by self-directed 

environmental education partner organizations and 

school groups. Environmental education can be both 

formal and informal, and it can range from presentations to special events like festivals or fishing clinics. 

However, certain programming, usually special events, 

may involve additional refuge lands outside the headquarters area. The refuge will continue to organize 

and provide at least 15 on- and off-refuge annual and 

special events for adults and students. 

The refuge has hosted an average of 2,300 students 

annually. Students come from communities as far as 

Darby to the south (approximately 40 miles) and Ronan 

to the north (about 85 miles). Most students are from 

grades 3–5. Environmental education will be conducted 
APPENDIX C—Compatibility Determinations 147 

year-round; however, most students visit the refuge 

in May, and these visits are typically limited by the 

individual schools to one visit per year. 

Interpretation of the natural and cultural resources 

of the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley will be provided 

year-round in the same designated environmental 

education and wildlife observation and photography 

areas. Interpretation will be conducted through interpretive panels, revolving displays, videos, online 

materials, social media, brochures, flyers, handouts, 

and booklets. New displays will be professionally 

planned and produced. 

Interpretive panels and brochures will be maintained and updated to reflect changes in information 

or policy and to meet the Service’s graphic standards. 

The CCP proposes to continue environmental education and interpretation and add the following to 

improve these programs: 

■■ The Service will expand the programs and opportunities for environmental education and interpretation, reaching additional students and visitors. These programs will focus on the values and 

importance of the natural, historical, and cultural 

resources of the refuge and the Bitterroot Valley, 

including the refuge’s efforts to maintain, enhance, 

and restore native plant and wildlife communities 

on the refuge. 

■■ Partnerships will be developed with local universities to provide opportunities for students to conduct 

research and monitoring projects that are beneficial to the refuge, that help address management 

needs, and that provide an opportunity for students 

to work on the refuge and with refuge staff. 

■■ The Service will expand opportunities to collaborate 

with universities to provide outdoor classrooms for 

students interested in the refuge, its management 

programs, its current issues, and the values of the 

Refuge System. 

■■ A classroom and associated supplies will be added 

to the expanded visitor center for environmental 

education programs. 

■■ The Service will continue to maintain and update 

the current four kiosks, including three with interpretive panels. An additional interpretive panel 

will be located along the river trail within the WVA 

explaining the migration of the Bitterroot River. 

■■ Interpretation will be provided along the Kenai 

Nature Trail, within the WVA, and along the auto 

tour route. 

■■ On the north end of the refuge, a kiosk will be constructed at a parking lot used by hunters; it will 

provide regulations as well as information on refuge purposes and resources. 

Availability of Resources. The refuge’s outdoor recreation planner and volunteers, supplemented by other 

current Service staff, will continue to develop and lead 

these programs. Expanding current programs may require additional visitor services staff and volunteers. 

Funding for environmental education and interpretation activities, directional signs, and brochures will 

be mainly supported by annual operation and maintenance money. Funding from other sources such as 

grants, regional project proposals, challenge cost-share 

agreements, and other temporary funding sources 

will also be sought and used as they became available. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. The bulk of environmental education and interpretation will take place in the 

refuge headquarters area. The use of the refuge for 

onsite activities by groups of teachers and students 

for environmental education or interpretation may impose a short-term, low-level impact on the immediate 

and surrounding area. Impacts may include trampling 

of vegetation and temporary disturbance to nearby 

wildlife species during the activities. 

Refuge brochures, interpretive panels, and other 

educational materials will continue to be updated as 

needed to meet Service requirements. The Service will 

continue to promote a greater public understanding 

and appreciation of the refuge resources, programs, 

and issues through interpretive, outreach, and environmental educational programs. Presentations, both 

on and off Service lands, will be provided to refuge 

visitors, school groups, and organizations, allowing 

the Service to reach a broader audience. Onsite presentations will be managed to minimize disturbance 

to wildlife, habitat, and cultural resources. 

Determination. Environmental education and interpretation are compatible uses on Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure Compatibility. Onsite activities will be held where minimal impact on 

wildlife and habitats would occur. The Service will 

review new environmental education and interpretation activities to ensure that these activities meet 

program and refuge management objectives and are 

compatible. 

■■ Visitors participating in environmental education 

and interpretation programs will be provided Service regulations. Compliance with regulations will 

be achieved through education, signage, and law 

enforcement and will minimize negative impacts 

on refuge habitat and wildlife. 

■■ Environmental education may be limited to reduce 

disturbance to wildlife, particularly during the nesting seasons. The refuge manager will evaluate and, 

if appropriate, approve additional environmental 

education sites on the basis of potential impacts on 

wildlife. Access should be restricted around active 

bird nests and during other sensitive life history 

phases of refuge resources. Staff or volunteer-led 

programs may occur in areas not open to the public; 
148 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

however, the location and timing of these activities 

must be approved by the manager. 

■■ Educational activities will be commonly held in 

the Okefenokee Room, environmental education 

shelter, outdoor amphitheater, WVA, and the Kenai 

Nature Trail. On occasion and by special use permit only, environmental education activities may 

occur near dikes along Ponds 8 and 10, Grube Barn, 

and management areas I–4 and I–5. A number of 

stipulations will cover special events: 

➤■ The Bitterroot and Five Valleys Audubon 

Societies’ bird walk activities will be held on 

refuge-approved dates and times and located 

in public use areas. 

➤■ The Great Backyard Bird Count in mid-February—a national “citizen science” event that 

promotes knowledge of native birds—will take 

place in areas open to the public. Event activities must be approved by the refuge manager. 

➤■ Ground Hog Day, February 2, will include information and activities that emphasize the 

natural history of mammals, ecology, habitat, 

community processes, and the Refuge System; 

event activities must be approved by the refuge 

manager, and the location of this event will be 

restricted to the area around the Grube Barn. 

Other proposed locations will need to be approved by the refuge manager. 

➤■ Montana Junior Duck Stamp Program activities (mid-April to early May) will take place at 

the outdoor amphitheater and environmental 

education shelter. The program will highlight 

the integration of science with the arts. Event 

activities must be approved by the refuge 

manager. 

➤■The Weed Pull in May or June is a public event 

targeting the removal of noxious weeds, which 

is compatible with refuge and management purposes. Staff will work with partners employing 

environmental education curriculum and outreach to educate visiting public on noxious weed 

identification and management. Event locations 

must be approved by the refuge manager. 

➤■ For the Kid’s Fishing Clinic, held in both June 

and September, all fishing and environmental 

education stations will be positioned for the 

purpose of safety and minimizing resource disturbance. Activities will primarily be located 

surrounding the Refuge Headquarters area, 

but may occur, with issuance of a special use 

permit, in areas currently closed to public use. 

Event locations and times must be approved 

by the refuge manager. 

➤■ The spring and summer Hunter Safety Courses 

can be held at the Okefenokee Room, Kenai 

Nature Trail, Grube Barn, and parts of management units I–4 and I–5 with issuance of a 

special use permit. Activities will be planned to 

ensure safety and minimize wildlife and visitor 

disturbance. Event activities and optional locations must be approved by the refuge manager. 

➤■ The Stevensville Audubon Christmas Bird 

Count is held in December or January every 

year. Refuge staff escort Audubon volunteers, 

counting and identifying all birds encountered 

on the refuge. Most bird identification activities 

will be conducted from refuge roads and dikes, 

minimizing wildlife disturbance; event activities 

and locations must be approved by the refuge 

manager. Unaccompanied individuals may not 

enter areas closed to the public without a special use permit. 

➤■The refuge will continue to provide staff-led 

programs, in places and at times of day, that 

are not open to general public access. Typically 

these special programs will be planned during 

special celebrations such as National Wildlife 

Refuge Week or International Migratory Bird 

Day. Such events will be preplanned by the 

visitor services staff in the station annual work 

plan and publicized well in advance. Any special 

interpretive or wildlife observation programs 

offered will be open to the general public and 

will not be conducted for a select group. 

Justification. A secondary goal of the Refuge System 

is to provide opportunities, when found compatible, 

for the public to develop an understanding and appreciation for wildlife. 

Environmental education and interpretation can be 

used to help citizens of all ages build a land ethic and act 

responsibly in protecting wildlife and habitats, which 

in turn can enrich a person’s life, provide an incentive 

for outdoor activity with associated health benefits, 

and potentially lessen the likelihood of that person 

violating laws protecting wildlife. Additionally, environmental education and interpretation are important 

tools for the refuge to provide visitors with an awareness of its purposes, values, and specific issues such as 

invasive species, habitat management, restoration of 

natural processes, and migratory bird management. 

These tools will provide visitors and students with a 

greater understanding of the mission and importance 

of the Refuge System to the American people. 

Based on anticipated biological impacts described 

above and in the EA that accompanies the draft CCP 

for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, the Service determines that environmental education and 

interpretation will not significantly detract from the 

Service’s implementation of wildlife habitat goals and 

objectives, or with the purposes for which the refuge 
APPENDIX C—Compatibility Determinations 149 

was established. Managing areas used for conducting 

environmental education and interpretation, monitoring those areas, and mitigating impacts will help 

minimize potential adverse effects. 

mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2027 

CommeRCIAl fIlmINg, AuDIo ReCoRDINg, AND 

stIll PhotogRAPhy 

Commercial filming is the digital or film capture of a 

visual image. Commercial audio recording is the capture of sound. Commercial still photography is the 

digital or film capture of a still image. Each of these 

activities is conducted by a person, business, or other 

entity for a market audience for use in a documentary, 

television program, feature film, advertisement, or 

similar project. It does not include news coverage or 

visitor use. 

Lee Metcalf Refuge provides opportunities for 

commercial filming and still photography of migratory 

birds and other wildlife. Requests from commercial 

persons, businesses, or entities to conduct commercial 

activities will be evaluated on their merit in educating the public about the resources and purposes of the 

refuge and the Refuge System. Any issued special use 

permit for filming or photography will designate the 

specific areas that may be accessed and the activities 

that are allowed (refer to “Stipulations Necessary to 

Ensure Compatibility” below). 

In rare cases the Service may permit access to areas 

closed to the public. The public benefit, as determined 

by the refuge manager, must outweigh the potential 

disturbance to wildlife resources. 

Availability of Resources. Current staff will evaluate requests for commercial photography, filming, or 

audio recording. Administrative costs for reviewing 

applications, the issuance of subsequent special use 

permits, and staff time to monitor compliance may 

be offset by a fee. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. Wildlife filmmakers and 

photographers tend to create the greatest disturbance 

of all wildlife observers (Dobb 1998, Klein 1993, Morton 1995). While observers frequently stop to view 

wildlife, photographers are more likely to approach 

animals (Klein 1993). Even a slow approach by photographers tends to have behavioral consequences on 

wildlife (Klein 1993). Photographers often remain close 

to wildlife for extended periods of time in an attempt 

to habituate the subject to their presence (Dobb 1998). 

Furthermore, photographers with low-power lenses 

tend to get much closer to their subjects (Morton 

1995). This usually results in increased disturbance to 

wildlife as well as habitat, including the trampling of 

plants. Handling of animals and disturbing vegetation 

(such as cutting plants and removing flowers) or cultural artifacts is strictly prohibited on Service lands. 

Issuance of special use permits with strict guidelines and monitoring by refuge staff for compliance 

may help minimize or avoid these impacts. Permittees 

who do not follow the stipulations of their special use 

permits could have their permits revoked, and further 

applications for filming or photographing on refuge 

lands will be denied. 

Determination. In rare circumstances, commercial 

filming, audio recording, and still photography will be 

compatible uses on Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure Compatibility. Commercial filming or photography must (1) demonstrate 

a means to increase the public’s knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of the purposes of Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, or the wildlife resources that are managed on 

these lands. Failure to fully demonstrate a measurable 

means to meet this criterion would likely result in a 

denial of the special use permit request.

 Any commercial filming and audio recording will 

require a special use permit that will (1) identify conditions that protect the refuge’s values, purposes, resources, and public health and safety and (2) prevent 

unnecessary disruption of the public’s use and enjoyment of the refuge. Such conditions may be, but are 

not limited to, specifying road conditions when access 

would not be allowed, establishing time limitations, 

identifying routes of access, limiting the number of 

participants, and specifying the exact location participants are allowed. These conditions will be identified 

to prevent excessive disturbance to wildlife, damage 

to habitat or refuge infrastructure, or conflicts with 

other visitor services or management activities. 

The special use permit will stipulate that imagery 

produced on refuge lands will be made available for 

use in environmental education and interpretation, 

outreach, internal documents, or other suitable uses. 

In addition, any commercial products must include appropriate credits to the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife 

Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Still photography requires a special use permit 

(with specific conditions as outlined above) if one or 

more of the following would occur: 

■■ It takes place at locations where or at times when 

members of the public are not allowed. 

■■ It uses models, sets, or props that are not part of 

the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities. 

■■ The Service would incur additional administrative 

costs to monitor the activity. 

■■ The Service would need to provide management and 

oversight to avoid impairment of the resources and 

values of the site, limit resource damage, or minimize health and safety risks to the visiting public. 
150 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

■■ The photographer intends to intentionally manipulate vegetation to create a shot (for example, 

cutting vegetation to create a blind). 

To minimize the impact on Service lands and resources, 

refuge staff will ensure that all commercial filmmakers and commercial still photographers comply with 

policies, rules, and regulations. The staff will monitor 

and assess the activities of all filmmakers, audio recorders, and still photographers. 

Justification. Commercial filming, audio recording, and 

still photography are economic uses that, if allowed, 

must contribute to the achievement of the refuge purposes, mission of the Refuge System, or the mission 

of the Service. Providing opportunities for these uses 

should result in an increased public awareness of the 

refuge’s ecological importance as well as advancing the 

public’s knowledge and support for the Refuge System 

and the Service. The stipulations outlined above and 

conditions imposed in the special use permits issued 

to commercial filmmakers, audio recorders, and still 

photographers will ensure that these wildlife-dependent activities occur with minimal adverse effects on 

resources or visitors. 

mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2022 

CooPeRAtIve fARmINg AND PResCRIPtIve 

gRAzINg 

The Service has used cooperative farming and prescriptive livestock grazing in the past as a management tool to manage a variety of upland, riparian, and 

seasonal wetland habitats. These tools will be used 

to meet habitat objectives, control vegetative litter, 

promote native plant production and diversity, control 

the spread of invasive plant species, and help convert 

disturbed grasslands back to native plant species. 

Cooperative farming is usually done on a share basis 

where the Service and the cooperator each receive a 

share of the crop. The Service will retain its share as 

standing cover for wildlife forage or in exchange for 

additional work from the cooperator such as invasive 

plant control, grass seeding, or provision of supplies 

such as herbicides and fence materials for habitat protection and improvement on the management unit. 

Any income received by the Service will be deposited 

in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. Cooperative 

farming will primarily be used to treat invasive species 

by continually farming specific areas until seedbed is 

reduced. Following this process, these areas will be 

restored to native species found on that site. The site 

will continue to be monitored for reinvasion. 

Grazing by livestock has been a preferred management tool because the effect on habitat is controllable 

and measurable. Grazing may occur throughout the 

year as management needs dictate. For wetland units, 

the purpose of grazing will be to consume portions of 

emergent vegetation and to break root rhizomes with 

hoof action. This will likely result in enhanced aeration of soils, removing portions of monotypic emergent 

vegetation. For upland units, grazing will be used to 

mimic the historical grazing patterns, most likely employing short-duration, intense grazing pressure with 

extended rest periods. 

Fencing and controlling livestock is the responsibility of the cooperating rancher. The Service provides instruction and guidance within the special use 

permit for placement of fences, water tanks, and livestock supplements to ensure that sensitive habitats 

or refuge assets are protected. A temporary electric 

fence is used in most grazing applications. Current 

forage conditions, habitat objectives, and available 

water determine stocking rates in each grazing unit. 

The Service will continue using cooperative farming and prescriptive livestock grazing to meet habitat 

objectives. Furthermore, the CCP establishes goals 

and objectives for specific habitat types where these 

tools may be used. In addition, the Service has identified target wildlife species (for example, grasshopper sparrow and marbled godwit) and their habitat 

requirements, which has resulted in objectives that 

guide these programs to achieve the habitat needs 

of these target species. The refuge will improve the 

monitoring and research programs for vegetation and 

wildlife to assess habitat and wildlife population responses to prescriptive livestock grazing. 

Availability of Resources. Current refuge staff and 

funding resources are sufficient for the purposes of 

monitoring habitats and implementing research needs 

to understand the impacts of grazing on refuge habitats. 

One biological technician will be necessary to carry out 

the on-the-ground monitoring. These programs will 

continue to be conducted through special use permits 

or cooperative farming agreements, which minimize 

the need for staff time and Service assets to complete 

work. Permittees will be selected on their ability to 

accomplish refuge habitat goals and minimize expenditures of staff time and resources. Fencing, caring for, 

and all animal husbandry tasks are the responsibility 

of the permittee. The permittee is also responsible for 

keeping all animals within the management unit and 

preventing them from roaming at large. The Service 

provides direction on the placement of temporary 

fences, water tanks, livestock supplements, loading 

and off-loading panels and chutes to ensure the protection of sensitive habitats and refuge resources. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. The cooperative farming 

and prescriptive livestock-grazing program is used 

to meet habitat- and species-specific goals and objectives identified in the CCP. This program is intended 

to maintain and enhance habitat conditions for the 

benefit of a wide variety of migratory birds and other 

wildlife that use the refuge. 
APPENDIX C—Compatibility Determinations 151 

Some wildlife disturbance may occur during operation of noisy farming equipment, and some animals 

may be temporarily displaced. Wildlife will receive 

the short-term benefit of standing crops or stubble 

for food and shelter and the long-term benefit of having historical cropland or other poor-quality habitat 

converted to native grasses and shrubs. Reducing the 

number of invasive species and the existing seedbed 

will support future restoration efforts. 

Some trampling of areas by livestock occurs around 

watering areas. It is anticipated that grazing will continue to be used to manage vegetative monocultures 

on a rotational basis. Grazing, as well as fire, is known 

to increase the nutrient cycling of nitrogen and phosphorous (Hauer and Spencer 1998, McEachern et al. 

2000). Hoof action may break up the soil cap on upland fields, allowing moisture to infiltrate the soil and 

allowing native plant seeds to become established. 

However, cattle grazing would also increase the risk 

of invasive plants becoming established. Grazing in 

the spring could have adverse effects on grasslandbird nests due to trampling and loss of vegetation. In 

addition, the presence of livestock may disturb some 

wildlife species and some public users. The long-term 

benefits of this habitat management tool should outweigh the short-term negative effects. 

Determination. Cooperative farming and prescriptive 

grazing as habitat management tools are compatible 

uses on Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. 

stipulations Necessary to ensure Compatibility. To 

ensure consistency with management objectives, the 

Service will require general and specific conditions for 

each cooperative farming and grazing permit. 

To minimize impacts on nesting birds and other 

wildlife, the refuge manager will determine and incorporate any necessary timing constraints on the 

permitted activity into the cooperative farming agreement or special use permit. 

The cooperative farming agreement or special 

use permit will specify the type of crop to be planted. 

Farming permittees will be required to use Serviceapproved chemicals that are less detrimental to wildlife and the environment. 

Control and confinement of livestock are the responsibility of the permittee, but the Service will 

continue to determine where fences, water tanks, and 

livestock supplements (if necessary) are placed within 

the management unit. Temporary electric fences are 

used to retain livestock within grazing cells as well 

as to protect sensitive habitat areas and refuge assets such as water control structures. Cooperators 

will be required to remove fences at the end of the 

grazing season. 

When grazing fees are assessed, they are based 

on the current-year U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Statistics Board publication, “Grazing Fee Rates for 

Cattle by Selected States and Regions.” Standard deductions for labor associated with the grazing permit 

may be included on the special use permit. 

The refuge will monitor vegetation and soils to assess if habitat requirements of target species are being 

met. A minimum of one temporary biological technician 

is necessary to monitor and document these activities. 

Justification. Habitat management needs to occur to 

maintain and enhance habitat for migratory birds and 

other wildlife in this altered landscape. When properly managed and monitored, cooperative farming and 

prescriptive livestock grazing can rejuvenate native 

grasses and help control the spread of some invasive 

plant species and some undesirable monoculture species like cattail. Prescriptive grazing is controlled 

and the results monitored (for example, vegetation 

monitoring) so that adjustments in the grazing program are made to meet habitat goals and objectives. 

The cooperative farming program will be monitored 

to determine the effectiveness and necessary duration and frequency of farming needed to control and 

reduce invasive species. 

Using local cooperators to perform the work is a 

cost-effective method to accomplish habitat objectives. The long-term benefits of habitat restoration 

and management far outweigh any short-term impacts 

caused by grazing. 

mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2022 

ReseARCh AND moNItoRINg 

Lee Metcalf Refuge receives approximately 8–12 

requests each year to conduct scientific research or 

monitoring on Service lands. Priority is given to studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, 

preservation, and management of the refuge’s native 

plant, fish, and wildlife populations and their habitats. 

Non-Service applicants must submit a proposal that 

outlines the following: 

■■ objectives of the study 

■■ justification for the study 

■■ detailed methodology and schedule 

■■ potential impacts on wildlife and habitat including disturbance (short- and long-term), injury, or 

mortality 

■■ description of measures the researcher would take 

to reduce disturbances or impacts 

■■ staff required and their qualifications and experience 

■■ status of necessary permits such as scientific collection permits and endangered species permits 

■■ costs to the Service including staff time requested, 

if any 

■■ anticipated progress reports and endproducts such 

as reports or publications 
152 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Refuge staff will review research and monitoring proposals on a case-by-case basis and issue special use 

permits if approved. Criteria for evaluation include, 

but are not limited to, the following: 

■■ Research and monitoring that contribute to specific refuge management issues will be given higher 

priority over other requests. 

■■ Research and monitoring that would cause undue 

disturbance or would be intrusive would likely not 

be approved. The degree and type of disturbance 

will be carefully weighed when evaluating a research request. 

■■ Research projects that can answer the same questions yet be conducted off-refuge are less likely to 

be approved. 

■■ Evaluations will determine if effort has been made 

to minimize disturbance through study design, 

including adjusting location, timing, scope, number of researchers, study methods, and number 

of study sites. 

■■ If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the 

refuge to monitor researcher activity, this may be 

a reason to deny the request. 

■■ The length of the project will be considered and 

agreed upon before approval. Projects will be reviewed annually. 

Availability of Resources. Current resources are minimally adequate to administer research and monitoring 

efforts. A full-time biological science technician will 

assist in monitoring research proposals and projects. 

It is anticipated that approximately $4,000 per year 

is required to administer and manage current research and monitoring projects. Coordination with a 

Service inventorying and monitoring biologist will be 

necessary to administer large or long-term projects, 

which generally require more in-depth evaluation of 

applications, management of permits, and oversight 

of projects. The refuge will work with this biologist 

to identify research and monitoring needs and work 

with other Service staff, universities, and scientists 

to develop studies that will benefit the refuge and address the goals and objectives in the CCP. 

Anticipated Impacts of use. Some degree of disturbance 

is expected with research activities, because most researchers enter areas and use Service roads that are 

closed to the public. In addition, some research requires 

collecting samples or handling wildlife. However, the 

overall impact on wildlife and habitats is expected to 

be minimal with research studies when special use 

permits include conditions to minimize those impacts. 

Determination. Research and monitoring are compatible uses on the Lee Metcalf Refuge. 

stipulations Needed to ensure Compatibility 

■■ Extremely sensitive wildlife habitats and species 

are sufficiently protected from disturbance by limiting research activities in these areas. 

■■ All refuge rules and regulations are followed unless otherwise exempted by refuge management. 

■■ Refuge staff use the criteria for evaluating research 

and monitoring proposals as outlined above (“Description of Use”) when determining whether to approve a proposed project on the refuge. If proposed 

research methods are evaluated and determined to 

have potential impacts on refuge wildlife or habitat, it must be demonstrated that the research is 

necessary for refuge resource conservation management. All projects are reviewed annually. 

■■ Measures to minimize potential impacts will need 

to be developed and included as part of the project 

and study design. These measures, with potential 

modifications or additions, will be listed as conditions on the special use permit. 

■■ The length of the project will be considered and 

agreed on before approval. 

■■ Projects will be reviewed annually and any modifications made as appropriate. 

■■ Refuge staff will monitor research and monitoring 

activities to ensure compliance with all conditions 

of the special use permit. At any time, refuge staff 

may accompany the researchers to determine potential impacts. Staff may determine that previously approved research and special use permits 

be terminated due to observed impacts. 

■■ No unauthorized individuals may accompany the 

researcher without prior consent from the refuge. 

■■ The special use permit is nontransferable from one 

researcher to any other individual. 

■■ The refuge manager will have the ability to cancel 

a special use permit if the researcher is out of compliance or to ensure wildlife and habitat protection. 

Justification. The program as described is determined 

to be compatible. Potential impacts of research activities on refuge resources will be minimized through 

restrictions included as part of the study design, and 

research activities will be monitored by refuge staff. 

Results of research projects will contribute to the understanding, enhancement, protection, preservation, 

and management of the refuge’s wildlife populations 

and their habitats. 

mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2022 
 

 

 

Tom Reed, Refuge Manager Date 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

Stevensville, Montana 

RevIeWeD: 

W. Dean Rundle, Refuge Supervisor Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

APPRoveD: 

Matt Hogan, Assistant Regional Director Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

APPENDIX C—Compatibility Determinations 153 

C.4 signatures 

submItteD: 

Appendix D
 

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 

Originating Person: Tom Reed Date Submitted: July 12, 2012 

Telephone Number: 406 / 777 5552 

I. Service Program and Geographic Area or Station Name: Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge (Ravalli 

County) 

II. Flexible Funding Program (e.g. Joint Venture, etc.) if applicable: Not applicable 

III. Location: Location of the project including county, State and TSR (township, section and range): 

See attached map (page 2) in accompanying “Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Lee Metcalf National 

Wildlife Refuge.” 

IV. Species/Critical Habitat: List federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species or designated or proposed critical habitat that may occur within the action area. 

Species Status Relevance	 Critical habitat 

Bull trout Threatened Historically used refuge waters to access 

spawning area 

North Burnt Fork Creek and 

Bitterroot River 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Candidate Suitable habitat present; never documented None 

Wolverine Candidate No suitable habitat present None 

Whitebark pine Candidate No suitable habitat present None 

V.	 Project Description: Describe proposed project or action or, if referencing other documents, prepare an 

executive summary (attach additional pages as needed): 

The proposed action is to implement ongoing actions and to execute several proposed projects over the 

next 15 years that support the goals, objectives, and strategies of the “Lee Metcalf National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan” (CCP) while fulfilling the goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

The CCP proposes to conserve natural resources by restoring, protecting, and enhancing native grasslands 

and riverfront and gallery forest and associated stream habitat; improving the health and productivity 

of the wetland impoundments; and more effectively controlling invasive species across the refuge. The 

CCP also proposes to develop and implement restoration actions to improve existing habitat conditions 

and address threats to native fish where practicable. Management operations of the refuge would likely 

change as new actions are implemented during the 15-year term of this CCP. A description of ongoing 

actions and current management operations can be found in chapter 4 of the draft CCP or alternative 

A of the environmental assessment (EA). 

One of the new proposals is to restore in-stream habitat in North Burnt Fork Creek, which is designated as critical bull trout habitat. On September 30, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) designated 18,795 miles of streams and 488,252 acres of lakes and reservoirs in Idaho, Oregon, 

Washington, Montana, and Nevada as critical habitat for this wide-ranging native fish. The Bitterroot 

River and North Burnt Fork Creek are both located within this designated area. Today, the bull trout 
156 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

is primarily restricted to the upper reaches of North Burnt Fork (Creek) on U.S. Forest Service land 

because of dammed and diverted waterflows, sedimentation, and increased water temperatures in the 

creek (Stringer 2009). Over time, this creek has been altered due to irrigation diversions, development, 

encroachment and realignment of the stream channel, increased sedimentation, and comingling of irrigation water and North Burnt Fork Creek. On the refuge portion of this creek, the Service constructed 

three structures by 1970 with an objective to create more pond-like habitat for waterfowl and warmwater fish (providing more fishing opportunities in the public use area). 

This final CCP is proposing to remove obstructions and reestablish the North Burnt Fork Creek entrance into the Bitterroot River where it is sustainable and conducive for native salmonids. As part of 

this project, the Service would strategically remove water control structures, if appropriate, and other 

obstructions in the tributary and floodplain channels to allow fish and other aquatic animals to use this 

stream corridor. Removal of water control structures along the creek would deepen and narrow the 

streambed, allowing unimpeded flow to the Bitterroot River. This connection would encourage riparian ecological processes to continue to function. Flooding and drainage capabilities would more closely 

emulate natural hydrological regimes that sustained native plant communities. However, augmented 

irrigation water diverted into North Burnt Fork Creek upstream of the refuge greatly affects the hydrology of this creek on the refuge. These actions would restore only a small portion of this historic 

migration route for bull trout, but the Service would continue to work with other partners to expand 

these efforts to address river and stream connectivity off the refuge. 

The CCP also proposes to evaluate and potentially reestablish a channel to the Bitterroot River that 

mimics the historical channel pattern of Three Mile Creek. Three Mile Creek is another mountain and 

terrace–derived tributary to the Bitterroot River. Much like North Burnt Fork Creek, this stream 

channel has been altered both off and on the refuge by the installation of culverts, bridge crossings, 

irrigation diversions, and artificial channels. This creek contributes high sediment and nutrient loads 

to the Bitterroot River compared to other tributaries in the Bitterroot watershed (McDowell and Rokosch 2005) and also receives augmented irrigation water off refuge. In 1984, three sediment catch 

pools were built on the refuge just south of Pond 11 to prevent sediment from entering and filling this 

impoundment. The sediment catch pools were filled to capacity in only 1 year. In 1989, as a solution to 

the sedimentation, the Service built Otter Pond. The refuge portion of Three Mile Creek was channeled 

into a bypass directly to the river. Water from Otter Pond was then siphoned under Three Mile Creek 

to feed Ponds 11–13. Currently, the river’s mainstem is just west of this confluence, and the sediment 

from Three Mile Creek has created a willow-filled island within what is now considered part of North 

Island Slough. Restoring Three Mile Creek to its historical channel will encourage riparian ecological 

processes to become reestablished. Additionally, overbank flooding capabilities will improve and more 

closely emulate natural hydrological regimes that sustained native plant communities. The objective 

of the restoration proposal is to create habitat conditions supporting native cold-water species (cooler 

water temperature, riffles, deep pools, natural sinuosity) and the restoration of riparian habitat including gallery and riverfront forest. This may require the removal of impoundments, level ditching, spoil, 

and islands that obstruct the migration of this stream. 

Both of these stream restoration projects would require additional engineering and hydrological expertise in order to select a restoration path that is beneficial and sustainable. Once each design is completed, 

a stepdown intra-Service consultation would be conducted on each proposal. 

In addition to these stream restoration projects, the CCP proposes to begin removing other obstructions 

(levees, dams, ditching) that impede the movement of flood water across this floodplain refuge. This will 

restore the capability of the Bitterroot River to overflow its banks and back water up into tributaries 

and into other floodplain channels. Backwater flooding provides foraging habitat for pre-spawning native fish and rearing habitat for larval and juvenile fishes. Annual backwater flooding recharges water 

regimes in depressions and shallow floodplain wetlands that serve as productive breeding habitat for 

amphibians, reptiles, waterbirds, and certain mammals. Subsequent drying of floodplains concentrates 

aquatic prey for fledgling waterbirds. To begin reconnecting this floodplain habitat with the Bitterroot 

River, the Service proposes to remove levees, roads, and ditches that prohibit overbank and backwater 

flooding of the Bitterroot River and disrupt natural sheet flow into the central floodplain of the refuge. 

Many of these structures have already been eroded by the movement of the river. Once these structures 
APPENDIX D—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 157 

are removed, additional efforts may require assistance from engineers and hydrologists to determine 

which structures are continuing to impede flooding processes. 

VI. Determination of Effects: 

(A) Description of Effects: Describe the action(s) that may affect the species and critical habitats listed in 

item IV. Your rationale for the Section 7 determinations made below (B) should be fully described here. 

Ongoing actions and current management operations of the refuge are not likely to adversely affect the 

current baseline conditions for bull trout or diminish the existing functions of the primary constituent 

elements that support bull trout critical habitat. Bull trout are all but absent from this stretch of the 

Bitterroot River and the lower reaches of North Burnt Fork Creek. A resident local population of bull 

trout exists in the headwaters of North Burnt Fork Creek several miles above the refuge. Both the Bitterroot River and North Burnt Fork Creek are designated critical habitat. Because of the unlikelihood 

of a bull trout being in the area, effects on the species from current refuge operations are indiscernible. 

A concern of the Service is the likelihood that the past water management operations of the refuge may 

have to some degree contributed to the current degraded baseline habitat conditions in the lower reach 

of North Burnt Fork Creek. Given the long history of impacts on the North Burnt Fork Creek watershed—most of which have occurred (and continue to occur) upstream of the refuge—it is virtually impracticable to determine with precision the level of impact that past or current refuge operations may 

have or continue to have on bull trout and bull trout habitat in the area. Therefore, under the CCP, the 

refuge has identified several new proposed actions that, when implemented, would improve baseline 

habitat conditions for bull trout by addressing the habitat parameters most affected by refuge operations, mainly connectivity to the Bitterroot River and flow through water management. 

The proposed actions would result in changes on the refuge that are anticipated to benefit bull trout 

and other native fish species. Effects on bull trout and its habitat will be assessed in subsequent intraService consultations. Each individual proposed action identified in the CCP would include site-specific 

designs, construction elements, maintenance and operational components, as well as monitoring features to ensure that the intended outcome of improving baseline conditions for bull trout is achieved. 

The stream restoration proposals would reestablish a portion of the spawning migration route within 

the designated critical bull trout habitat. This will be a small step to returning this threatened species 

to its historic passageway. An example of a proposed action to improve baseline conditions for bull trout 

is the removal of obstructions that inhibit river migration and overbank flooding. This project would 

help create and sustain communities and basic ecological functions (scouring, deposition, movement of 

water, native fish, and animals between the river and the floodplain) that support life cycle events and 

the needs of native plant, native fish, and animal communities. 

There are many off-refuge obstacles to returning bull trout to its historical spawning area. The refuge 

is currently exploring opportunities to partner with other watershed stakeholders with an interest in 

improving and enhancing watershed health in the Bitterroot River system. The CCP proposes to continue to work with other partners including the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service, and other 

valley-wide conservation partners to continue and expand this process of repatriation. 

A number of projects proposed under various objectives and strategies, including those listed above, 

would need site-specific designs before they are implemented. Complete determination of effects from 

such projects on bull trout and bull trout critical habitat is not feasible prior to more detailed design. 

Table 1 lists all goals, objectives, and strategies of the CCP that may affect bull trout; the short-term 

and long-term effects, when known; and whether additional stepdown consultation will be needed. Once 

the CCP is approved and implemented, stepdown plans will be completed for various programs. The 

purpose of the stepdown management plans is to provide details to Service staff for carrying out specific actions and strategies authorized by the CCP. Stepdown management plans to be developed under the CCP that may affect bull trout include water management and habitat management plans, and 

these will be developed under informal consultation with Ecological Services, with formal consultation 

to follow, if so indicated. 
 

158 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

(B) Determination: Determine the anticipated effects of the proposed project on species and critical habitats listed in item IV. Check all applicable boxes and list the species (or attach a list) associated with 

each determination. 


Determination

No Effect: This determination is appropriate when the proposed project 
 X 

will not directly or indirectly affect (neither negatively nor beneficially) 


individuals of listed/proposed/candidate species or designated/proposed 


critical habitat of such species. No concurrence from ESFO required.
 

(yellow-billed cuckoo, whitebark pine, wolverine) 


May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect: This determination is ap­ X 

propriate when the proposed project is likely to cause insignificant, discountable, or wholly beneficial effects to individuals of listed species and/
 

or designated critical habitat. Concurrence from ESFO required.
 

(bull trout, designated critical habitat)
 

The Service has determined the proposed CCP may affect, but is 

not likely to adversely affect the threatened bull trout or its designated critical habitat. 

May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect: This determination is appropriate when the proposed project is likely to adversely impact individuals 

of listed species and/or designated critical habitat. Formal consultation with 

ESFO required. 

May affect but Not Likely to Jeopardize candidate or proposed species/critical 

habitat: This determination is appropriate when the proposed project may 

affect, but is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or a candidate species, or adversely modify an area 

proposed for designation as critical habitat. Concurrence from ESFO optional. 

Likely to Jeopardize candidate or proposed species/critical habitat: This 

determination is appropriate when the proposed project is reasonably expected to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing 

or a candidate species, or adversely modify an area proposed for designation as critical habitat. Conferencing with ESFO required. 

Signature Date 

Tom Reed, Manager 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

Stevensville, Montana 
 

 

APPENDIX D—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 159 

Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation (check all that apply): 

A.	 Concurrence X Nonconcurrence 

 Explanation for nonconcurrence: 

B.	 Formal consultation required 

 List species or critical habitat unit 

C. Conference required 

 List species or critical habitat unit 

Ecological Services 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Helena, Montana 

Signature Date 

R. Mark Wilson, Ecological Services Supervisor 

Ecological Services 

Helena, Montana 
160 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

Table 1. Goals, objectives, and strategies of the Lee Metcalf CCP that may affect bull trout or bull trout critical 

habitat. 

Goals, objectives, and strategies Effect

(short/long)1 Consultation2 

Goal for Bitterroot River Floodplain and Associated Wildlife (excerpt): Manage 

and, where appropriate, restore the natural topography, water movements, and 

physical integrity of surface water flow patterns across the Bitterroot River 

floodplain to provide healthy riparian habitats... 

Restore Complete 

Floodplain Objective 1: Where channel migration of the Bitterroot River is occurring, do not inhibit the river from establishing natural flow patterns during 

high flow events, where appropriate, to enhance existing riparian woodlands and 

provide suitable restoration sites for both gallery and riverfront forest vegetation that could provide breeding, nesting, feeding, or migration habitat for target 

species (over the next 15 years). 

Restore Complete 

Strategy: Contracting as necessary, work with engineers and hydrologists (with 

expertise in fluvial geomorphology) to determine and design overflow channels 

in the north part of the refuge (Ponds 11, 12, and 13) and remove infrastructure 

to allow for river movements into these channels. The design for this restoration 

may indicate the need for changes to Otter Pond. Revegetate exposed soils with 

gallery and riverfront forest species. 

Unknown/ 

Restore 

Stepdown 

Strategy: Work with partners to investigate options for slowing the erosion of 

the WVA. All options will be evaluated based on cost, effectiveness,and impacts 

on the environment, including the river system. 

Unknown Stepdown 

Strategy: Continue to allow seasonal flows (including backwater flooding into 

Francois Slough) of the Bitterroot River into and through North Island and 

Francois Sloughs. 

Restore Complete 

Strategy: Allow and promote natural regeneration of native gallery and riverfront forests and plant native trees, shrubs, and grasses, where appropriate. 

Restore Complete 

Floodplain Objective 2 (excerpt): Reconnect floodplain habitats with the Bitterroot River to allow natural overbank and backwater flooding into and out of the 


floodplain during high flow events to support and expand the health, diversity, 


and extent of the riparian woodlands... (over the next 15 years).
 

Restore Complete
 

Strategy: Construct wide spillways in or remove artificial levees, roads, and 

ditches that prohibit overbank and backwater flooding of the Bitterroot River 

and disrupt natural sheet flow into the central floodplain of the refuge. 

Restore Complete 

Strategy: Work with engineers and hydrologists, contracting as necessary, to determine and design the best methods available to remove structures, level ditching, and islands next to the river that are impeding natural overbank and backwater flooding on the refuge, including Ponds 11–13. 

Unknown/ 

Restore 

Stepdown 

Strategy: Improve high water flow west of Ponds 6–10 into and through historical slough and swale channels by removing obstructions, levees, and dams in and 

across these drainages. 

Restore Complete 

North Burnt Fork Creek Objective: Within the refuge, reconnect unimpeded flow 

from North Burnt Fork Creek with flow pathways into the Bitterroot River to 

reduce creek water temperatures, improve water and nutrient flow, create habitat conditions conducive to native cold-water species and restore riparian woodland habitat that will support target species (within 8 years). 

Unknown/ 

Restore 

Stepdown 

Strategy: Based on historical channel information (photos, topographical features), 

establish the Burnt Fork Creek entrance into the Bitterroot River where it is 

sustainable and conducive for native salmonids. 

Unknown/ 

Restore 

Stepdown 

Strategy: Work with an engineer and hydrologist to determine the best route for 

North Burnt Fork Creek to return to the river, considering the requirements of 

bull trout. Strategically remove water control structures and other obstructions 

in the tributary and floodplain channels to allow fish and other aquatic animals 

to use this riparian corridor. 

Unknown/ 

Restore 

Stepdown 
APPENDIX D—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 161 

Table 1. Goals, objectives, and strategies of the Lee Metcalf CCP that may affect bull trout or bull trout critical 

habitat. 

Goals, objectives, and strategies Effect

(short/long)1 Consultation2 

Strategy: Through partnerships, encourage restoration and stream connectivity 

off the refuge to reestablish natural fish passage and flow pathways in the creek 

to its upper reaches. (Consultation on any future off-refuge actions will be conducted by those agencies developing these restoration proposals) 

Restore Complete 

Strategy: Restore newly exposed banks to riparian habitat. Restore Complete 

Three Mile Creek Objective: Reestablish a channel to the Bitterroot River that 

mimics the historical flow pattern of Three Mile Creek to create habitat conditions supporting native cold-water species (cooler water temperature, riffles, 


deep pools) and the restoration of riparian habitat. 


Unknown/ 

Restore
 

Stepdown
 

Strategy: Develop contracts as necessary with engineers and hydrologists to determine and design the best methods available to remove structures, level ditching, 

and islands. Through partnerships, attempt to restore river and stream connectivity off refuge to reestablish natural fish passages and flow pathways in the creek. 

Unknown/ 

Restore 

Stepdown 

Strategy: Plant and encourage native vegetation (for example, cottonwood or 

willow) on restored sites to prevent invasive species encroachment as Ponds 

11–13 (see Floodplain Objective 2) dry up and overbank and backwater flow patterns reestablish. 

Restore Complete 

Riverfront Forest Habitat Objective: Restore regenerating and sustaining mechanisms for riverfront forest communities alongside the Bitterroot River 

Restore Complete 

Strategy: Remove levees, berms, and roads to allow for natural overbank and 

backwater flooding (see Floodplain Objective 2). These occasional flood events 

would scour surfaces, deposit sands, and create regeneration sites to restore and 

sustain riverfront forest vegetation, including cottonwood, along the margins of 

the Bitterroot River. 

Restore Complete 

Strategy: Monitor and treat invasive species and promote and restore vegetation 

native to riverfront forest to provide quality habitat for target species. 

Restore Complete 

Gallery Forest Habitat Objective (excerpt): Restore regenerating and sustaining mechanisms for gallery forest communities on higher floodplain elevations 


(natural levees and benches) in areas with sandy-loam soils, on natural levees, 


and on other floodplain ridges that have 2- to 5-year flood occurrence intervals...
 

Restore Complete
 

Strategy: Reduce the size of Ponds 8 and 10 to allow for expansion of gallery forest on the west side of these impoundments, thereby reducing the amount of water diverted to these ponds. Restore Complete 

Strategy: Plant cottonwood and ponderosa pine to expand gallery forest areas, 

focusing on areas with appropriate soils. 

Restore Complete 

Goal for Wetland Impoundment Habitat and Associated Wildlife: Where appropriate, manage wetland impoundments to create a diversity of habitats for target 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and other associated native wetland-dependent species. 

Restore Complete 

Wetland Impoundment Habitat Objective 1: Over the next 15 years, manage water levels on 628 acres to emulate natural and seasonal water regimes including 

natural increases in waterflow in the spring followed by rotational drying in the 

summer and fall. [Note: Consultation on this objective and pertinent strategies 

will be covered under the development of the Water Management Plan.] 

Unknown/ 

Restore 

Stepdown 

Strategy: Maintain or replace the water management structures in Ponds 1–6, 

Ponds 8 and 10, and Otter Pond. The remaining wetland impoundment structures 

will be maintained as needed. 

Maintain Complete 

Strategy: Water level management of all ponds will be changed to a more seasonal 

water regime that emulates natural increases in distribution and depth in spring, 

followed by occasional drying in summer and fall to encourage the restoration of 

wetland and shrub habitat. [Note: Consultation on this objective and pertinent 

strategies will be covered under the development of the water management plan.] 

Unknown/ 

Restore 

Stepdown 
Table 1. Goals, objectives, and strategies of the Lee Metcalf CCP that may affect bull trout or bull trout critical 

habitat. 

Goals, objectives, and strategies Effect

(short/long)1 Consultation2 

Strategy: Emulate long-term patterns of drier conditions in floodplain wetlands 

in most years including periodic complete drying in some years and occasional 

prolonged flooding in a few years. 

Unknown/ 

Restore 

Stepdown 

Strategy: Determine the feasibility and methods for restoring the historical flow 

of the side channel of the Bitterroot River and Three Mile Creek through Ponds 

11 through 13 to restore riparian habitat (see Floodplain Goal) and reestablish 

unimpeded flow to the river. 

Unknown/ 

Restore 

Stepdown 

Wetland Impoundment Habitat Objective 2 (excerpt): Where appropriate, reduce the area of more permanently flooded wetland impoundments and persistent emergent vegetation to restore native plant communities, such as gallery 

forest... [Note: Consultation on this objective and pertinent strategies will be 

covered under the development of the Water Management Plan.] 

Unknown/ 

Restore 

Stepdown 

Strategy: Remove levees, ditches, and water control structures from abandoned 

wetland impoundments to facilitate the restoration and expansion of the gallery 

forest (Ponds 7, 7a, 7b, and 9) and native grassland (Pair Ponds and Potato Cellar Pond) habitat. 

Restore Complete 

Strategy: Reduce Pond 8 and Pond 10 in size to allow for the restoration of gallery forest habitat on the west side of these impoundments. Restore Complete 

1 

2 

Effects of the action are indicated, distinguishing between short- and long-term impacts. 


“Stepdown” indicates actions requiring additional intra-Service consultation once site-specific designs are completed.
 

162 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 
Appendix E 

Key Legislation and Policy 

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and other key legislation and policies that guide management of the Lee 

Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. 

E.1 National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997) 

GoAlS 

■■ Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purposes 

and further the Refuge System mission. 

■■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance 

all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

■■ Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, 

and marine mammal populations. 

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

■■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United States including the ecological processes characteristic of those 

ecosystems. 

■■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their conservation, 

by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use. Such use 

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

GuidiNG PRiNciPlES 

There are four guiding principles for management and 

general public use of the Refuge System established 

by Executive Order No. 12996 (1996): 

■■ Public Use—The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

■■ Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper without 

high-quality habitat and without fish and wildlife, 

traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. 

The Refuge System will continue to conserve and 

enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within refuges. 

■■ Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and women 

were the first partners who insisted on protecting 

valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. 

Conservation partnerships with other Federal 

agencies, State agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public can make significant 

contributions to the growth and management of 

the Refuge System. 

■■ Public Involvement—The public should be given 

a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and management of our 

national wildlife refuges. 

E.2 legal and Policy Guidance 

Management actions on national wildlife refuges and 

wetland management districts are circumscribed by 

many mandates including laws and Executive orders. 

Regulations that affect refuge and district management the most are listed below. 

American indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—Directed agencies to consult with native traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes 

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibited 

discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorized the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides 

penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken 

or collected without a permit. 
164 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974)— 

Directed the preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), 

as amended—Protected materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction, 

and requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Required federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

clean Water Act (1977)—Required consultation with 

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

major wetland modifications. 

Section 404 (of the clean Water Act)—Authorized 

the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 

of Engineers, to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, for discharge of dredged 

or fill material into navigable waters of the United 

States, including wetlands, at specified disposal sites. 

Required selection of disposal sites be in accordance 

with guidelines developed by the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction 

with the Secretary of the Army. Stated that the Administrator can prohibit or restrict use of any defined 

area as a disposal site whenever she or he determines, 

after notice and opportunity for public hearings, that 

discharge of such materials into such areas will have 

an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water 

supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas. 

dingell–Johnson Act (1950)—Authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for 

State fish restoration and management plans and projects. Financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers 

of rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. Known as the 

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)—Promoted wetland conservation for the public benefit to 

help fulfill international obligations in various migratory bird treaties and conventions. Authorized the 

purchase of wetlands with Land and Water Conservation Fund monies. 

Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended—Required 

all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990—Established 

the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and 

administer a Federal environmental education program. Responsibilities of the office include developing 

and supporting programs to improve understanding 

of the natural and developed environment and the 

relationships between humans and their environment, 

supporting the dissemination of educational materials, 

developing and supporting training programs and environmental education seminars, managing a Federal 

grant program, and administering an environmental 

internship and fellowship program. Required the office to develop and support environmental programs 

in consultation with other Federal natural resource 

management agencies including the Service. 

Executive order No. 11644, use of off-road Vehicles 

on Public lands (1972)—Provided policy and procedures for regulating off-road vehicles. 

Executive order No. 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977)—Required Federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and 

preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

the floodplains. Prevented Federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains” and the “direct 

or indirect support of floodplain development.” In the 

course of fulfilling their respective authorities, Federal 

agencies “shall take action to reduce the risk of flood 

loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.” 

Executive order No. 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

(1977)—Directs Federal agencies to (1) minimize 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and (2) 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists. 

Executive order No. 12996, Management and General 

Public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

public uses of the Refuge System; presented four 

principles to guide management of the Refuge System. 

Executive order No. 13007, indian Sacred Sites (1996)— 

Directed Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of Indian sacred 

sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, 

and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality 

of sacred sites. 

Executive order No. 13443, Facilitation of Hunting 

Heritage and Wildlife conservation (2007)—Directed 

Federal agencies that have programs and activities 

that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, 

including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion 

and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the 

management of game species and their habitat. 
APPENDIX E—Key Legislation and Policy 165 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—Required the use 

of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other Federal 

and State agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950)—Required the preservation of evidence of the Government’s organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information. 

Federal Water Pollution control Act of 1972—Required any applicant for a Federal license or permit 

to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge 

into navigable waters to obtain a certification from 

the State in which the discharge originates or will 

originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water 

pollution control agency having jurisdiction over navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate, that the discharge will comply 

with applicable effluent limitations and water quality 

standards. Required that a certification obtained for 

construction of any facility must also pertain to subsequent operation of the facility. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)—Directed the Secretary 

of the Interior to develop the policies and procedures 

necessary for carrying out fish and wildlife laws and 

to research and report on fish and wildlife matters. 

Established the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 

the Department of the Interior, as well as the positions of Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Director of the Service. 

Fish and Wildlife coordination Act (1958)—Allowed 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements with private landowners for wildlife management purposes. Also required consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State fish and wildlife agencies where the waters of any stream or other 

body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted 

or licensed to be impounded, diverted , or otherwise 

controlled or modified by any agency under a Federal 

permit or license. Consultation is to be undertaken 

for the purpose of preventing loss of and damage to 

wildlife resources. 

Fish and Wildlife improvement Act of 1978)—Improved 

the administration of fish and wildlife programs and 

amends several earlier laws including the Refuge 

Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956. Authorized the Secretary to accept gifts and 

bequests of real and personal property on behalf of 

the United States. Authorized the use of volunteers 

for Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

volunteer programs. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), known 

as the Historic Sites Act, as amended (1965)—Declared 

a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects 

of national significance, including those located at 

refuges and districts. Provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of 

such sites and for designation of national historic and 

natural landmarks. 

Junior duck Stamp conservation and design Act 

(1994)—Directed the Secretary of the Interior to create a junior duck stamp and to license and market the 

stamp and the stamp design. The proceeds from these 

efforts are used to support conservation education 

awards and scholarships. In 2000, Congress preauthorized the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design 

Program Act for another five years, and expanded 

the conservation education program throughout the 

United States. and its territories. Since that time, all 

50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands have joined the program. 

land and Water conservation Fund Act of 1965—Provided money from leasing bonuses, production royalties, and rental revenues for offshore oil, gas, and sulphur extraction to the Bureau of Land Management, 

the USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and State and local agencies for purchase of 

lands for parks, open space, and outdoor recreation. 

Migratory Bird conservation Act (1929)—Established 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gifts 

of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and conservation Stamp Act 

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

waterfowl hunting and requires each waterfowl hunter 

16 years of age or older to possess a valid Federal 

hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp 

are deposited in a special Treasury account known as 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not 

subject to appropriations. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designated the protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility 

and enabled the setting of seasons and other regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or nonFederal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—Required 

all agencies including the Service to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. 

Required Federal agencies to integrate this act with 

other planning requirements and prepare appropriate documents to facilitate better environmental decisionmaking (40 CFR 1500). 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended— 

Established policy that the Federal Government is to 
166 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

provide leadership in the preservation of the Nation’s 

prehistoric and historical resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966)—Defined the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to permit 

any use of a refuge, provided such use is compatible 

with the major purposes for which the refuge was 

established. 

National Wildlife Refuge System improvement Act of 

1997—Set the mission and administrative policy for 

all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandated comprehensive conservation planning for 

all units of the Refuge System (amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998—Encouraged the use of volunteers to help the Service in the 

management of refuges within the Refuge System. 

Facilitated partnerships between the Refuge System 

and non-Federal entities to promote public awareness 

of the resources of the Refuge System and public participation in the conservation of those resources. Encouraged donations and other contributions by persons 

and organizations to the Refuge System. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)—Required Federal agencies and museums 

to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. 

North American Wetlands conservation Act (1989)— 

Provided for the conservation of North American 

wetland ecosystems, waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, fish, and wildlife that depend on such habitats. 

Pittman–Robertson Act (1937)—Taxed the purchase of 

ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds 

to be distributed to the States for wildlife restoration. 

Known as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act 

or P–R Act. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allowed the use of 

refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient 

money is available to manage the uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, Section 401 (1935)—Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes using 

revenues derived from the sale of products from refuges. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906—Provided the 

first Federal protection for wildlife at national wildlife 

refuges. Made it unlawful to hunt, trap, capture, willfully disturb, or kill any bird or wild animal, or take 

or destroy the eggs of any such birds, on any lands of 

the United States set apart or reserved as refuges or 

breeding grounds for such birds or animals by any law, 

proclamation, or Executive order, except under rules 

and regulations of the Secretary. Protected Government property on such lands. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Required programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for all 

facilities and programs funded by the Federal Government to ensure that any person can participate in 

any program. 

Transfer of certain Real Property for Wildlife conservation Purposes Act of 1948—Provided that, upon determination by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no longer needed 

by a Federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior if the 

land has particular value for migratory birds or to a 

State agency for other wildlife conservation purposes. 

u.S. department of the interior order No. 3226 (2001)— 

Directed bureaus and offices of the Department to 

analyze the potential effects on climate change when 

undertaking long-range planning, setting priorities 

for scientific research, and making major decisions 

about use of resources. 

Volunteer and community Partnership Enhancement 

Act (1998)—Encouraged the use of volunteers to help 

in the management of refuges within the Refuge System. Facilitated partnerships between the Refuge 

System and non-Federal entities to promote public 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System and 

public participation in the conservation of the resources 

and encouraged donations and other contributions. 

Wilderness Act of 1964—Directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless 

area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless island 

(regardless of size) within the Refuge System and 

National Park Service for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. 
Appendix F 

List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination 

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

team shown below. 

Team member Position Work unit 

Mike Artmann Wildlife biologist and GIS specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Division of Refuge 

Planning, Lakewood, Colorado 

Bob Danley Outdoor recreation planner Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana 

Deborah Goslin Biological science technician Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana 

Erin Holmes Refuge manager Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge, Sherwood, Oregon 

(transferred April 2011) 

Laura King Refuge program specialist (planning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Division of Refuge 

team leader) Planning, Lakewood, Colorado 

Tom Reed Refuge manager Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana 

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

The Service acknowledges the efforts of the following individuals and groups toward the completion of the 

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

this document. 

Contributor Position Work unit 

Neil Anderson Biologist Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Laboratory, Bozeman, 

Montana 

Tim Bodurtha Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Kalispell, Montana 

Diane Borgreen Biological science technician U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Health Office, 

Bozeman, Montana 

Rob Brassfield Fisheries biologist U.S. Forest Service, Stevensville, Montana 

Dan Brewer Fish and wildlife biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Service, Missoula, 

Montana 

Chris Clancy Fisheries biologist U.S. Forest Service, Hamilton, Montana 

Matt Hogan Assistant regional director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Vivica Crowser Information and education manager Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Missoula, Montana 

Shannon Downey Fish and wildlife biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Kalispell, Montana 

Sheri Fetherman Chief, Division of Education and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Visitor Services 

Patti Fiedler Hydrologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Sean Fields Wildlife biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat and Population 

Evaluation Team, Great Falls, Montana 

Leigh Fredrickson Wetland ecologist and retired professor Wetland Management and Education Services, Puxico, 

Missouri 

Lindy Garner Regional invasive species coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Great Falls, 

Montana 
168 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Contributor Position Work unit 

Teresa Giffen Technical writer and editor ICF International, Sacramento, California 

Todd Graham Biologist and owner Aeroscene Land Logic, Bozeman, Montana 

Louis Hartjes Fire management officer Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana 

Shannon Heath Outdoor recreation planner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Helena, Montana 

Mickey Heitmeyer Wetland ecologist and owner Greenbrier Wetland Services, Advance, Missouri 

Brett Husong Facilitator Belt Collins West, Boulder, Colorado 

Sandy Hutchcroft Information technology specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Ladd Knotek Fisheries management biologist Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Missoula, Montana 

David Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Mimi Mather Facilitator and planner Belt Collins West, Boulder, Colorado 

Pam Okland Teacher Lone Rock School, Stevensville, Montana 

Dale Pfau Range and fire technician Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, Montana 

Dean Rundle Refuge zone supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado 

Julie Schreck Conservation education specialist Bitterroot National Forest, Hamilton, Montana 

Dean Vaughan Private lands biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife, Moiese, Montana 

George Wasser Teacher Stevensville Public Schools, Stevensville, Montana 

Germaine White Information and education specialist Natural Resources Department, Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes Pablo, Montana 

Mark Wilson Field supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana 
Appendix G 

Species Lists 

This appendix contains the common and scientific names of animals and plants that have been recorded on Lee 

Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge or the surrounding Bitterroot Valley. The animal and plant lists are from refuge wildlife surveys, annual narratives (USFWS 1988–93), and the 2009 Lee Metcalf Refuge Bioblitz. Species 

of concern were determined from global, Federal, and State of Montana listings (Montana Natural Heritage 

Program 2012). In the tables below, the asterisk (*) denotes a Montana Species of Concern, and the dagger (†) 

denotes a species that is on the Montana Noxious Weed List (September 2011) and high priority for treatment. 

ClAss AmphibiA 

Common name Scientific name 

Frogs 

American bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris 

Toads and Salamanders 

Boreal toad* Bufo boreas* 

Long-toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum 

ClAss ReptiliA 

Common name Scientific name 

Snakes 

Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans 

Rubber boa Charina bottae 

Eastern racer Coluber constrictor 

Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis 

Gopher snake Pituophis catenifer 

Turtles 

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta 

ClAss Aves 

Common name Scientific name 

Swans, Geese, and Ducks 

Snow goose Chen caerulescens 

Ross’s goose Chen rossii 

Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons 

Canada goose Branta canadensis 

Trumpeter swan* Cygnus buccinator* 

Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus 

Wood duck Aix sponsa 

Gadwall Anas strepara 

American wigeon Anas americana 
170 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Common name Scientific name 

Eurasian wigeon Anas penelope 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Blue-winged teal Anas discors 

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera 

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata 

Northern pintail Anas acuta 

Green-winged teal Anas crecca 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Redhead Aythya Americana 

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris 

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis 

Greater scaup Aythya marila 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica 

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Common merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca 

Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis 

Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata 

Black scoter Melanitta nigra 

Upland Gamebirds 

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus 

Gray partridge Perdix perdix 

Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus 

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

California quail Callipepla californica 

Loons 

Common loon* Gavia immer* 

Grebes 

Pied-billed grebe Podylimbus podiceps 

Horned grebe* Podiceps auritus* 

Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena 

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Clark’s grebe* Aechmophorus clarkii* 

Pelicans 

American white pelican* Pelecanus erythrocephalus* 

Cormorants 

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Herons 

American bittern* Botaurus lentiginosus* 

Great blue heron* Ardea herodias* 
APPENDIX G—Species Lists 171 

Common name Scientific name 

Great egret Ardea alba 

Snowy egret Egretta caerulea 

Black-crowned night-heron* Nycticorax nycticorax* 

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 

Ibis 

White-faced ibis* Plegadis chihi* 

Vultures 

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura 

Hawks and Eagles 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Bald eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephalus* 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Northern goshawk* Accipiter gentilis* 

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Ferruginous hawk* Buteo regalis* 

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus 

Golden eagle* Aquila chrysaetos* 

White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus 

Falcons 

American kestrel Falco sparverius 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Peregrine falcon* Falco peregrinus* 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus 

Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus 

Rails 

Virginia rail Rallus limicola 

Sora Porzana carolina 

American coot Fulica americana 

Cranes 

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis 

Plovers 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous 

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

American golden plover Pluvialis dominica 

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola 

Avocets 

American avocet Recurvirostra americana 

Black-necked stilt* Himantopus mexicanus* 

Sandpipers 

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria 
172 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Common name Scientific name 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 

Long-billed curlew* Numenius americanus* 

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa 

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 

Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata 

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres 

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

Sandpipers 

Stilt sandpiper Calidis himantopus 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri 

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii 

Gulls and Terns 

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

Franklin’s gull* Larus pipixcan* 

California gull Larus californicus 

Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadelphia 

Forster’s tern* Sterna forsteri* 

Black tern* Sterna niger* 

Caspian tern* Sterna caspia* 

Common tern* Sterna hirundo* 

Herring gull Larus argentatus 

Least tern* Sternula antillarum* 

Pigeons and Doves 

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

Rock dove Columbia livia 

Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto 

Cuckoos 

Black-billed cuckoo* Coccyzus erythropthalmus* 

Yellow-billed cuckoo* Coccyzus americanus* 

Owls 

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus 

Burrowing owl* Athene cunicularia* 

Long-eared owl Asio otus 

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus 

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus 
APPENDIX G—Species Lists 173 

Common name Scientific name 

Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma 

Western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii 

Great gray owl* Strix nebulosa* 

Flammulated owl* Otus flammeolus* 

Snowy owl Bubo scandiacus 

Nighthawks 

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Swifts 

White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis 

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi 

Black swift* Cypseloides niger* 

Hummingbirds 

Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus 

Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope 

Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri 

Kingfishers 

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 

Woodpeckers 

Lewis’s woodpecker* Melanerpes lewis* 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus 

Pileated woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus* 

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus 

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis 

Flycatchers 

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus forficatus 

Say’s phoebe Saynoris saya 

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri 

Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondii 

Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis 

Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus 

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi 

Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus 

Shrikes 

Loggerhead shrike* Lanius ludovicianus* 

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor 

Vireos 

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 

Cassin’s vireo Vireo cassinii 

Plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus 

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 

Jays, Crows, and Magpies 

Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri 
174 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Common name Scientific name 

Clark’s nutcracker* Nucifraga columbiana* 

Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Pinyon jay* Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus* 

Common raven Corvus corax 

Larks 

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris 

Swallows 

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor 

Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina 

Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Bank swallow Riparia riparia 

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica 

Chickadees 

Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus 

Mountain chickadee Parus gambeli 

Nuthatches 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea 

Creepers 

Brown creeper* Certhia americana* 

Wrens 

House wren Troglodytes aedon 

Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes 

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 

Dipper 

American dipper Cinclus mexicanus 

Kinglets 

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula 

Thrushes 

American robin Turdus migratorius 

Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi 

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus 

Veery* Catharus fuscescens* 

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides 

Western bluebird Sialia mexicana 

Varied thrush* Ixoreus naevius* 

Thrashers, Mockingbirds, and Catbirds 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Sage thrasher* Oreoscoptes montanus* 

Starlings 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris 
APPENDIX G—Species Lists 175 

Common name Scientific name 

Pipits 

American pipit Anthus rubescens 

Waxwings 

Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulous 

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

Warblers 

Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata 

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata 

Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi 

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Common yellowthroat Geothlipis trichas 

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei 

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla 

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens 

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata 

Sparrows 

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea 

Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida 

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia laucophrys 

Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus 

Harris’ sparrow Zonotrichia querula 

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Lincoln sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca 

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Le Conte’s sparrow* Ammodramus leconteii* 

Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana 

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 

House sparrow Passer domesticus 

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 

Tanagers, Cardinals, and Buntings 

Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana 

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus 

Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena 

Blackbirds 

Bobolink* Dolichonyx oryzivorus* 

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 
176 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Common name Scientific name 

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater 

Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii 

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Finches 

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator 

Evening grosbeak* Coccothraustes vespertinus* 

Common redpoll Carduelis flammea 

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus 

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis 

Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra 

ClAss mAmmAliA 

Common name Scientific name 

Shrews 

Vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans 

Common (masked) shrew Sorex cinereus 

Yellow-pine chipmunk Tamias amoenus 

Bats 

California myotis Myotis californicus 

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum 

Western long-eared myotis Myotis evotis 

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus 

Fringed myotis* Myotis thysanodes* 

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans 

Yuma myotis Myotis ymanensis 

Townsends big-eared bat* Corynorhinus townsendii* 

Hoary bat* Lasiurus cinereus* 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Beavers 

American beaver Castor canadensis 

Porcupines 

Common porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 

Pocket Gophers 

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides 

Mice, Voles, and Rats 

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea 

Common muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Squirrels 

Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 

Columbian ground squirrel Spermophilus columbianus 
APPENDIX G—Species Lists 177 

Common name Scientific name 

Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus 

Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger 

Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris 

Wolves, Coyotes, and Foxes 

Red fox Vulpes vulpes 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Gray wolf* Canis lupus* 

Cats 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Mountain lion Puma concolor 

Skunks 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Weasels 

Short-tailed weasel Mustela erminea 

Northern river otter Lontra canadensis 

American badger Taxidea taxus 

Mink Mustela vison 

Raccoons 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Bears 

Black bear Ursus americanus 

Deer, Moose, and Elk 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Moose Alces alces 

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus 

Elk Cervus elaphus 

ClAss OsteiChthyes 

Common name Scientific name 

Fish 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Yellow perch Perca flavescens 

Largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus 

Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus 

Northern pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis 

Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus 

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni 

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Brown trout Salmo trutta 

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis 

Bull trout* Salvelinus confluentus* 
178 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

ClAss pinOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Pinaceae (Pine) 

Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum 

Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta 

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa v. ponderosa 

Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii v. glauca 

ClAss mAGnOliOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Aceraceae (Maple) 

Rocky mountain maple Acer glabrum 

Amaranthaceae Amaranth (Pigweed) 

Tumbleweed Amaranthus albus 

Prostrate pigweed Amaranthus graecizans 

Powell’s amaranth Amaranthus powellii 

Redroot amaranth Amaranthus retroflexus 

Asclepiadaceae (Milkweed) 

Showy milkweed Asclepias speciosa 

Apocynaceae (Dogbane) 

Spreading dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium 

Clasping leaved dogbane Apocynum sibiricum 

Balsaminaceae (Touch-Me-Not) 

Spurless jewelweed Impatiens ecalcarata 

Berberidaceae (Barberry) 

Oregon grape Berberis repens 

Betulaceae (Birch) 

Thin-leaved alder Alnus incana 

River birch Betula occidentalis 

Boraginaceae (Borage) 

Slender cryptantha Cryptantha affinis 

Houndstongue† Cynoglossum officinale† 

Blueweed† Echium vulgare† 

Western stickseed Lappula redowskii 

Corn gromwell Lithospermum arvense 

Wayside gromwell Lithospermum ruderale 

Field forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis 

Small flowered forget-me-not Myosotis laxa 

Blue forget-me-not Myosotis micrantha 

Common forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides 

Early forget-me-not Myosotis verna 

Italian bugloss† Anchusa azurea mill† 

Scouler’s popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys scouleri 

Cactaceae (Cactus) 

Brittle cholla Opuntia fragilis 
APPENDIX G—Species Lists 179 

Common name Scientific name 

Callitriche (Water-Starwort) 

Northern water-starwort Callitriche hermaphroditica 

Water-starwort Callitriche heterophylla 

Pond water-starwort Campanula rotundifolia 

Campanulaceae (Harebell) 

Scotch harebell Campanula rotundifolia 

Caprifoliaceae (Honeysuckle) 

Blue elderberry Sambucus caerulea 

Common snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 

High-bush cranberry Viburnum opulus 

Caryophyllaceae (Pink) 

Blunt leaved sandwort Arenaria lateriflora 

Thyme-leaved sandwort Arenaria serpyllifolia 

Field chickweed Cerastium arvense 

Nodding chickweed Cerastium nutans 

Jagged chickweed Holosteum umbellatum 

White champion Lychnis alba 

Menzies’ silene Silene menziesii 

Red sandspurry Spergularia rubra 

Long leaved starwort Stellaria longifolia 

Ceratophyllaceae (Hornwort) 

Common hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum 

Chenopodiaceae (Goosefoot) 

Fat hen Atriplex patula v. hastata 

Lambs quarter Chenopodium album 

Jerusalem oak Chenopodium botrys 

Maple leaved goosefoot Chenopodium nybridum 

Kochia/red belvedere† Kochia scoparia† 

Poverty weed Monolepis nuttalliana 

Russian thistle† Salsola kali† 

Compositae (Asteraceae) (Sunflower) 

Yarrow Achillea millefolium 

False dandelion Agoseris glauca 

Pearly everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea 

Nuttals pussy-toes Antennaria parviflora 

Rosy pussy-toes Antennaria microphylla 

Umber pussy-toes Antennaria umbrinella 

Common burdock Arctium minus 

Meadow arnica Arnica chamissonis 

Western absinthium † Artemisia absinthium† 

Biennial sagewort Artemisia biennis 

Northern sagewort Artemisia campestris v. scouleriana 

Tarragon Artemisia dracunculus 

Fringed sagewort Artemisia frigida 

Western mugwort Artemisia ludoviciana v. latiloba 
180 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Common name Scientific name 

Prairie sage Artemisia ludoviciana v. ludoviciana 

Smooth aster Aster laevis 

Few-flowered aster Aster modestus 

White prairie aster Aster pansus 

Beggar-ticks Bidens cernua 

Musk thistle† Carduus nutans† 

Spotted knapweed† Centaurea maculosa† 

Oxeye daisy† Chrysanthemum leucanthemum† 

Hairy golden aster Chrysopsis villosa 

Rabbit-brush Chrysothamnus nauseosus 

Canada thistle† Cirsium arvense† 

Wavy leaved thistle Cirsium undulatum 

Bull thistle† Cirsium vulgare† 

Horseweed Conyza canadensis 

Cutleaf daisy Erigeron compositus 

Spreading fleabane Erigeron divergens 

Shaggy fleabane Erigeron pumilus 

Showy fleabane Erigeron speciosis 

Daisy fleabane Erigeron strigosus v. strigosus 

Field filago Filago arvensis 

Blanket flower Gaillardia aristata 

Lowland cudweed Gnaphalium palustre 

Gumweed Grindelia squarrosa 

Sunflower Helianthus annuus 

Nuttals sunflower Helianthus nuttallii 

Narrow-leaved hawkweed Hieracium umbellatum 

Poverty weed Iva xanthifolia 

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola 

Pineapple weed Matricaria matricarioides 

Nodding microseris Microseris nutans 

False-agroseris Microseris troximoides 

Woolly groundsel Senecio canus 

Groundsel Senecio indecorus 

Tall butterweed Senecio serra 

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis 

Late goldenrod Solidago gigantea 

Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis 

Western goldenrod Solidago occidentalis 

Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus 

Marsh sowthistle Sonchus uliginosus 

Common tansy† Tanacetum vulgare† 

Smooth dandelion Taraxacum laevigatum 

Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale 

Goatsbeard/western salsify† Tragopogon dubius† 

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium 
APPENDIX G—Species Lists 181 

Common name Scientific name 

Convolvulaceae (Morning-Glory) 

Field bindweed† Convolvulus arvensis 

Cornaceae (Dogwood) 

Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera 

Crassulaceae (Stonecrop) 

Lanceleaf stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum 

Cruciferae (Mustard) 

Pale alyssum Alyssum alyssoides 

Desert alyssum Alyssum desertorum 

Holboell’s rockcress Arabis holboellii 

Nuttall’s rockcress Arabis nuttallii 

Wintercress Barbarea orthoceras 

Hoary alyssum† Berteroa incana† 

Field mustard Brassica campestris 

Black mustard Brassica nigra 

Hairy false flax Camelina microcarpa 

Shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris 

Little western bittercress Cardamine oligosperma 

Pennsylvania bittercress Cardamine pensylvanica 

Tansy mustard Descurainia sophia 

Woods draba Draba nemorosa 

Whitlow-grass Draba verna 

Wormseed mustard Erysimum cheiranthoides 

Dame’s rocket Hesperis matronalis 

Field pepper grass Lepidium campestre 

Common pepper grass Lepidium densiflorum 

Clasping pepper grass Lepidium perfoliatum 

Western yellowcress Rorippa curvisiliqua 

Marsh yellowcress Rorippa islandica 

Watercress Rorippa nasturtiumaquaticum v. glabrata 

Jim hill mustard Sisymbrium altissimum 

Tumble mustard Sisymbrium loeselii 

Fanweed Thlaspi arvense 

Dipsacaceae (Teasel) 

Teasel† Dipsacus sylvestris† 

Euphorbiaceae (Spurge) 

Leafy spurge† Euphorbia esula† 

Corrugate-seeded spurge Euphorbia glyptosperma 

Thyme-leaf spurge Euphorbia serpyllifolia 

Ericaceae (Heath) 

White pyrola Pyrola elliptica 

Pinedrops Pterospora andromeda 

Geraniaceae (Geranium) 

Cranes bill Erodium cicutarium 

Bicknell’s geranium Geranium bicknelli 
182 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Common name Scientific name 

Small field geranium Geranium pusillum 

Sticky geranium Geranium viscosissimum 

Grossulariacea (Gooseberry) 

Common current Ribes sativum 

Missouri gooseberry Ribes setosum 

Haloragaceae (Water-Milfoil) 

Northern water milfoil Myriophyllum sibricum 

Hippuridaceae (Mares-Tail) 

Mares-tail Hippuris vulgaris 

Hydrophyllaceae (Waterleaf) 

Sand phacelia Phacelia linearis 

Hypericaceae (St. Johnswort) 

Western St. Johnswort Hypericum formosum v. scouleri 

Canada St. Johnswort Hypericum majus 

Goatweed/St. Johnswort† Hypericum perforatum† 

Labiatae (Mint) 

Hemp nettle Galeopsis tetrahit 

Water horehound Lycopus americanus 

Rough bugleweed Lycopus asper 

Northern bugleweed Lycopus uniflorus 

Field mint Mentha arvensis 

Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa 

Catnip Nepeta cataria 

Purple dragonhead Physostegia parviflora 

Self-heal Prunella vulgaris 

Marsh skullcap Scutellaria galericulata 

Hedge nettle Stachys palustris v. pilosa 

Leguminosae (Pea) 

Canada milkvetch Astragalus canadensis v. mortonii 

Weedy milkvetch Astragalus miser 

Wild licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota 

Velvet lupine Lupinus leucophyllus 

Washington lupine Lupinus polyphyllus 

Blue-bonnet Lupinus sericeus 

Black medic Medicago lupulina 

Alfalfa Medicago sativa 

White sweet-clover Melilotus alba 

Yellow sweet-clover Melilotus officinalis 

Alsike clover Trifolium hybridum 

Wooly clover Trifolium microcephalum 

Red clover Trifolium pratense 

White clover Trifolium repens 

White-tip clover Trifolium variegatum 

American vetch Vicia americana 

Common vetch Vicia sativa 

Slender vetch Vicia tetrasperma 
Common name Scientific name 

Hairy vetch Vicia villosa 

Lentibulariaceae (Bladderwort) 

Little bladderwort Utricularia minor 

Common bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris 

Loranthaceae (Mistletoe) 

Dwarf mistletoe Arceuthobium sp. 

Malvaceae (Mallow) 

Common mallow Malva neglecta 

Cheese weed Malva parviflora 

Moraceae (Mulberry) 

Hops Humulus lupulus 

Nymphaeaceae (Water Lily) 

Indian pond lily Nuphar polysepalum 

Onagraceae (Evening Primrose) 

Enchanter’s nightshade Circaea alpina 

Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium 

Swamp willow-herb Epilobium palustre 

Annual willow-herb Epilobium paniculatum 

Shrubby willow-herb Epilobium suffruticosum 

Watson’s willow-herb Epilobium watsonii 

Yellow evening primrose Oenothera strigosa 

Oxalidaceae (Wood-Sorrel) 

Yellow wood-sorrel Oxalis corniculata 

Plantaginaceae (Plantain) 

Ribgrass Plantago lanceolata 

Common plantain Plantago major v. major 

Indian wheat Plantago patagonica 

Polemoniaceae (Phlox) 

Narrow-leaved collomia Collomia linearis 

Scarlet gillia Gilia aggregata 

Pink microsteris Microsteris gracilis 

Annual polemonium Polemonium micranthum 

Jacob’s ladder Polemonium pulcherrimum v. calycinum 

Polygonaceae (Buckwheat) 

Umbrella plant Erigonum umbellatum v. subalpinum 

Knotweed Polygonum achoreum 

Water smartweed Polygonum amphibium 

Dooryard knotweed Polygonum aviculare 

Water smartweed Polygonum coccineum 

Ivy bindweed Polygonum convolvulus 

Douglas’ knotweed Polygonum douglasii v. douglasii 

Marshpepper Polygonum hydropiper 

Smartweed Polygonum hydropiperoides 

Willow weed Polygonum lapathifolium 

Spotted ladysthumb Polygonum persicaria 

Dotted smartweed Polygonum punctatum 

APPENDIX G—Species Lists 183 
184 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Common name Scientific name 

Red sorrel Rumex acetosella 

Curly dock Rumex crispus 

Seaside dock Rumex maritimus 

Western dock Rumex occidentalis 

Willow dock Rumex salicifolius 

Portulacaceae (Purslane) 

Narrow-leaved miners lettuce Montia linearis 

Miner’s lettuce Montia perfoliata 

Purslane Portulaca oleracea 

Bitterroot Lewisia rediviva 

Primulaceae (Primrose) 

Fairy candelabra Androsace occidentalis 

Woodland shooting star Dodecatheon pulchellum 

Fringed loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata 

Tufted loosestrife Lysimachia thrysiflora 

Ranunculaceae (Buttercup) 

Western clematis Clematis ligusticifolia 

Sedge mousetail Myosurus aristatus 

Kidney-leaved buttercup Ranunculus abortivus 

Tall buttercup† Ranunculus acris† 

Water buttercup Ranunculus aquatilis v. capillaceus 

Shore buttercup Ranunculus cymbalaria 

Yellow water buttercup Ranunculus flabellaris 

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus flammula 

Sagebrush buttercup Ranunculus glaberrimus v. glaberrimus 

Gmelins buttercup Ranunculus gmelinii v. limosus 

Long-beaked water-buttercup Ranunculus longirostris 

Macouns buttercup Ranunculus macounii 

Bristly buttercup Ranunculus pensylvanicus 

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens 

Celery-leaved buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus 

Stiff-leaf water buttercup Ranunculus subriqidus 

Little buttercup Ranunculus uncinatus v. uncinatus 

Tall meadowrue Thalictrum dasycarpum 

Western meadowrue Thalictrum occidentale 

Few-flowered meadowrue Thalictrum sparsiflorum 

Rosaceae (Rose) 

Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 

River hawthorn Crataegus douglasii 

Woods strawberry Fragaria vesca 

Blueleaf strawberry Fragaria virginiana 

Large-leaved avens Geum macrophyllum 

Water avens Geum rivale 

Prairie smoke Geum triflorum 

Silverweed Potentilla anserina 
Common name Scientific name 

Silvery cinquefoil Potentilla argentia 

Biennial cinquefoil Potentilla biennis 

Sticky cinquefoil Potentilla glandulosa 

Elmer’s cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis v. elmeri 

Marsh cinquefoil Potentilla palustris 

Sulfur cinquefoil† Potentilla recta† 

Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata 

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana v. melanocarpa 

Woods rose Rosa woodsii 

Red raspberry Rubus idaeus 

Rubiaceae (Madder) 

Cleavers Galium aparine 

Thinleaf bedstraw Galium bifolium 

Northern bedstraw Galium boreale 

Small cleavers Galium trifidum 

Salicaceae (Willow) 

Lombardy poplar Populus nigra v. italica 

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides 

Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 

Peach-leaf willow Salix amygdaloides 

Bebb willow Salix bebbiana 

Sandbar willow Salix exigua 

Geyer willow Salix geyeriana 

Whiplash willow Salix lasiandra 

Mackenzie willow Salix rigida 

Saxifragaceae (Saxifrage) 

Smooth fringecup Lithophragma glabra 

Small-flowered fringecup Lithophragma parviflora 

Scrophulariaceae (Figwort) 

Blue-eyed mary Collinsia parviflora 

Common hedge-hyssop Gratiola neglacta 

Dalmation toadflax† Linaria dalmatica† 

Yellow toadflax† Linaria vulgaris† 

Monkey flower Mimulus guttatus v. guttas 

Musk plant Mimulus moschatus 

Little penstemon Penstemon procerus 

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus 

American speedwell Veronica americana 

Water speedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatica 

Chain speedwell Veronica catenata 

Purslane speedwell Veronica peregrina 

Thyme-leaved speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia v. serpyllifolia 

Vernal speedwell Veronica verna 

Solanaceae (Nightshade) 

Henbane† Hyoscyamus niger† 

APPENDIX G—Species Lists 185 
186 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Common name Scientific name 

Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara 

Cut-leaved nightshade Solanum triflorum 

Umbelliferae (Parsley) 

Water hemlock Cicuta douglasii 

Cow-parsnip Heracleum lanatum 

Mountain sweet-cicely Osmorhiza chilensis 

Wild parsnip Pastinaca sativa 

Black snakeroot Sanicula marilandica 

Water parsnip Sium suave 

Urticaceae (Nettle) 

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica spp. Gracilis 

Verbenaceae (Vervain) 

Blue vervain Verbena hastata 

Violaceae (Violet) 

Early blue violet Viola adunca v. bellidifolia 

Marsh violet Viola palustris 

Bog violet Viola nephrophylla 

ClAss liliOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Alismataceae (Water-Plantain) 

America water-plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica v. americanum 

Narrowleaf water-plantain Alisma gramineum v. angustissimum 

Arumleaf arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata 

Cyperaceae (Sedge) 

Awned sedge Carex atherodes 

Water sedge Carex aquatilis 

Clustered sedge Carex arcta 

Slenderbeaked sedge Carex anthrostachya 

Golden sedge Carex aurea 

Bebb’s sedge Carex bebii 

Lesser panicled sedge Carex diandra 

Douglas’ sedge Carex douglassii 

Wooly sedge Carex languinosa 

Slender sedge Carex lasiocarpa 

Kellog’s sedge Carex lenticularis 

Nebraska sedge Carex nebrascensis 

Retrose sedge Carex retrosa 

Sawbeaked sedge Carex stipata 

Beaked sedge Carex utriculata (c. Rostrata) 

Inflated sedge Carex vesicaria 

Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea 

Awned flatsedge Cyperus aristatus 

Shining flatsedge* Cyperus rivularis* 

Needle spike-rush Eleocharis acicularis 
APPENDIX G—Species Lists 187 

Common name Scientific name 

Delicate spike-rush Eleocharis bella 

Common spike-rush Eleocharis palustris 

Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus 

Small-fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus 

Softstem bulrush Scirpus validus 

Poaceae (Gramineae) (Grass) 

Goat grass Aegilops cylindrica 

Bearded wheatgrass Agropyron canium v. andinum 

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum 

Thin spiked wheatgrass Agropyron dasystachyum 

Intermediate wheatgrass Agropyron intermedium 

Quack grass Agropyron repens 

Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii 

Bluebunch wheatgrass Agropyron spicatum 

Redtop Agropyron alba v. alba 

Tickle-grass Agropyron scabra 

Shortawn foxtail Alopecurus aequalis 

Meadow foxtail Alopecurus partensis 

Common oats Avena sativa 

Slough grass Beckmania syzigachne 

Smooth brome-grass Bromus inermis spp. inermus 

Soft brome-grass Bromus mossi 

Cheatgrass† Bromus tectorum† 

Bluejoint reedgrass Calamagrostis canadensis v. canadensis 

Slim reedgrass Calamagrostis neglecta 

Brook grass Catabrosa aquatica 

Woodreed Cina latifolia 

Orchard grass Dactylis glomerata 

Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis 

Great basin wildrye Elymus cinereus 

Stinkgrass Eragrostis cilienensis 

Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea 

Six weeks fescue Festuca octoflora 

Northern mannagrass Glyceria borealis 

Tall mannagrass Glyceria elata 

American mannagrass Glyceria grandis 

Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata 

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum 

Junegrass Koeleria cristata 

Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne 

Indian ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides 

Common witchgrass Panicum capillare 

Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea 

Common timothy Phleum pratense 

Annual bluegrass Poa annua 
188 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Common name Scientific name 

Viviparous bluegrass Poa bulbosa 

Canada bluegrass Poa compressa 

Fowl bluegrass Poa palustris 

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis 

Sandbergs bluegrass Poa sandbergii 

Green bristlegrass Setaria viridis 

Sand dropseed Sporobolis cryptandrus 

Squirreltail Sitanion hystrix 

Needle and thread Stipa comata 

Green needlegrass Stipa viridula 

Hydrocharitaceae (Frog’s Bit) 

Canada waterweed Elodea canadensis 

Nuttalls waterweed Elodea nuttallii 

Iridaceae (Iris) 

Yellow flag iris† Iris pseudacorus† 

Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium angustifolium 

Juncaceae (Rush) 

Wire grass Juncus balticus 

Toad rush Juncus bufonius 

Soft rush Juncus effusus 

Dagger-leaf rush Juncus ensifolius 

Tuberous rush Juncus nodosus 

Slender rush Juncus tenuis v. tenuis 

Torrey’s rush Juncus torrei 

Smooth rush Luzula hitchcockii 

Lemnaceae (Duckweed) 

Water lentil Lemna minor 

Star duckweed Lemna trisulca 

Great duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza 

Watermeal Wolffia punctata 

Lilaceae (Lily) 

Nodding onion Allium cernuum 

Asparagus Asparagus officinalis 

Wild hyacinth Brodiaea douglasii 

Starry false solomon’s seal Smilacina stellata 

Common death camas Zigadenus venenosus 

Najadaceae (Water-Nymph) 

Guadalupe water-nymph* Najas guadalupensis* 

Potamogetonaceae (Pondweed) 

Reddish pondweed Potamogeton alpinus 

Large-leaved pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius 

Berchtold’s pondweed Potamogeton berchtoldii 

Ribbon-leaved pondweed Potamogeton epihydrus 

Slender-leaved pondweed Potamogeton filiformis 

Illinois pondweed Potamogeton illinoensis 
APPENDIX G—Species Lists 189 

Common name Scientific name 

Floating-leaved pondweed Potamogeton natans 

Fennel-leaved pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus 

Small pondweed Potamogeton pusillus 

Richardsons pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii 

Eel-grass pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis 

Sparganiaceae (Bur-Reed) 

Narrow-leaved bur-reed Sparganium angustifolium 

Simple stem bur-reed Sparganium emersum v. multipedunculatum 

Typhaceae (Cat-Tail) 

Common cattail Typha latifolia 

Zannichelliaceae (Horned Pondweed) 

Horned pondweed Zannichellia palustris 

ClAss FiliCOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Polypodiaceae (Common Fern) 

Brittle bladder-fern Cystopteris fragilis 

Marsileaceae (Pepperwort) 

Pepperwort Marsilea vestita 

ClAss equisetOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Equisetaceae (Horsetail) 

Common horsetail Equisetum arvense 

Water horsetail Equisetum fluviatile 

Scouring rush Equisetum hyemale 

Smooth scouring rush Equisetum laevigatum 

Marsh horsetail Equisetum palustre 

Shady horsetail Equisetum pratense 

ClAss lyCOpOdiOpsidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Selaginellaceae (Clubmoss) 

Compact clubmoss Selaginella densa v. densa 

ClAss mARChAntiOspidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Marchantiaceae 

— Marcantia polymorphia 

Ricciaceae 

— Riccio carpus natans 
190 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

ClAss ChlOROphyCeAe 

Common name Scientific name 

Characeae (Green Algae) 

— Nostoc ssp. 

— Hydrodictnon reticulatum 

— Riccia fluitins 

— Nitella spp. 

— Chara spp. 

— Tolypella spp. 

ClAss inseCtA 

Common name Scientific name 

Butterflies 

Two-tailed swallowtail Papilio multicaudata 

Western tiger swallowtail Papilio rutulus 

Pale swallowtail Papilio eurymedon 

Western white Pontia occidentalis 

Cabbage white Pieris rapae 

Beckers white Pontia beckerii 

Checkered white Pontia protodice 

Clouded sulphur Colias philodice 

Sara orangetip Anthocharis sara 

Orange sulfur Colias eurytheme 

Ediths copper Lycaena editha 

Purplish copper Lycaena helloides 

Bronze copper Lycaena hyllus 

Western pine elfin Callophrys eryphon 

Gray hairstreak Strymon melinus 

Melissa blue Lycaeides melissa 

Spring azure Celastrina ladon 

Arrowhead blue Glaucopsyche piasus 

Great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele 

Silver-bordered fritillary Boloria selene 

Mormon fritillary Spreyeria mormonia 

Mylitta crescent Phyciodes mylitta 

Northern crescent Phyciodes cocyta 

Field crescent Phyciodes pratensis 

Ediths checkerspot Euphydryas editha 

Satyr anglewing Polygonia satyrus 

Oreas anglewing Polyfonia oreas 

Zephyr anglewing Polyfonia zephyrus 

Mourning cloak Nymphalis antiopa 

Milbert’s tortoiseshell Nymphalis milberti 

California tortoiseshell Nymphalis californica 

Red admiral Vanessa atalanta 

West coast lady Vanessa annabella 
Common name Scientific name 

Painted lady Vanessa cardui 

Lorquins admiral Limenitis lorquini 

Viceroy Limenitis archippus 

Common wood nymph Cercyonis pegala 

Small wood nymph Cercyonis oetus 

Common alpine Eregia eipsoodea 

Common ringlet Coenonympha ampelos 

Pecks skipper Polites peckius 

Sandhill skipper Polites sabuleti 

Long dash Polites mystic 

Common branded skipper Hesperua comma 

Woodland skipper Ochlodes sylvanoides 

Arctic skipper Carterocephalus palaemon 

Garita skipperling Oarisma garita 

Roadside skipper Amblyscirtes vialis 

Common sootywing Pholisora catullus 

Common checkered skipper Pyrgus communis 

Dragonflies and Damselflies 

Spotted spreadwing Lestes congener 

Emerald spreadwing Lestes dryas 

Lyre-tipped spreadwing Lestes unguiculatus 

Northern spreadwing Lestes disjunctus 

Northern bluet Enallagma annexum 

Boreal bluet* Enallagma boreale* 

Marsh bluet Enallagma ebrium 

Pacific forktail Ischnura cervula 

Western forktail Ischnura perparva 

Western red damsel Amphiagrion abbreviatum 

Canada darner Aeshna canadensis 

Lance-tipped darner Aeshna constricta 

Paddle-tailed darner Aeshna palmata 

Shadow darner Aeshna umbrosa 

Common green darner Anax junius 

Variable darner Aeschna interrupta 

California darner Rhionaeschna californica 

Pale snaketail Ophiogomphus severus 

Sinuous snaketail Ophiogomphus occidentis 

Common whitetail Plathemis lydia 

Four-spotted skimmer Libellula quadrimaculata 

Eight-spotted skimmer Libellula forensis 

Twelve-spotted skimmer Libellula pulchella 

Dot-tailed whiteface Leucorrhinia intacta 

Hudsonian whiteface Leucorrhinia hudsonica 

Variegated meadowhawk Sympetrum corruptum 

White-faced meadowhawk Sympetrum obtrusum 

Cherry-faced meadowhawk Sympetrum internum 

APPENDIX G—Species Lists 191 
192 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Common name Scientific name 

Saffron-winged meadowhawk Sympetrum costiferum 

Band-winged meadowhawk Sympetrum semicinctum 

Striped meadowhawk Sympetrum pallipes 

Black meadowhawk Sympetrum vicinum 

Moths 

Isabella tiger moth Pyrrharctia isabella 

Carpenterworm moth Cossoidea spp. 

Big poplar sphinx Pachysphinx occidentalis 

Large yellow underwing Noctua pronuba 

One-eyed sphinx Smerinthus cerisyi 

Polyphemus moth Antheraea polyphemus 

Catocaline moth Catocala spp. 

Beetles 

Blister beetle Epicauta spp. 

Tiger beetle Cincidela oregona 

Leaf beetle Chrysomelidae latreille 

Rifle beetle Optioservus quadrimaculatus 

Beetle Troposternus latoralis 

Tumbling flower beetle Mordellidae latreille 

Carrion beetle Silphidae latreille 

Ground beetle Pterostichus spp. 

Leaf beetle Systena spp. 

Predaceous diving beetle Platambus spp. 

Weevil Larinus spp. 

Weevil Rhinocyllus conicus 

Flies 

Caddisfly Parapsyche almota 

Caddisfly Limnephelus spp. 

Caddisfly Hydropsyche californica 

Mayfly Baetis tricaudatus 

Mayfly Drunella coloradensis 

Mayfly Ephemerella excrucians 

Mayfly Siphlonurus occidentalis 

Mayfly Callibaetis pictus 

Mayfly Rhitrhogena robusta 

Mayfly Ameletus similior 

Mayfly Sweltsa spp. 

Mayfly Serratella tibialis 

Mayfly Drunella doddsi 

Stonefly Claassenia sabulosa 

Stonefly Hesperoperla pacifica 

Stonefly Kogotus modestus 

Stonefly Isoperla spp. 

Stonefly Pteronarcella 

Deerfly Chrysops spp. 
APPENDIX G—Species Lists 193 

ClAss GAstROpOdA 

Common name Scientific name 

Snails and Slugs 

Forest disc Discus whitneyi 

Marsh pondsnail Stagnicola elodes 

Mountain marshsnail Stagnicola montanensis 

Coeur d’Alene Oregonian Cryptomastix mullani 

Brown hive Euconolus fulvus 

Garlic glass snail Oxychilus alliarus 

Two-ridge rams-horn snail Helisoma anceps 

Big-eared radix Radix auricularia 

Mimic lymnaea snail Pseudosuccinea columella 

Glossy pillar Cochilicopa lubrica 

Grey fieldslug Derocerus reticulatum 

Idaho forestsnail Allogona ptychophora 

Lovely vallonia Vallonia pulchella 

Meadow slug Derocerus laeve 

Quick gloss Zonitoides arboreus 

Dusky arion Arion subfuscus 

ClAss ARAChnidA 

Common name Scientific name 

Spiders 

Western black widow Latrodectus hesperus 

ClAss mAlACOstRACA 

Common name Scientific name 

Scuds 

Scud Hyalella azteca 

* Species of concern 

† Montana Noxious Weed List and high priority for treatment. 

Appendix H 

Fire Management Program 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has administrative responsibility for fire management at the 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, which covers 

2,800 acres. This appendix describes the fire management program that will be implemented on the refuge. 

H.1 The Role of Fire 

Vegetation in the Rocky Mountains evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation from fire, drought, 

floods, large herbivores, insect outbreaks, and disease. 

These periodic disturbances kept the ecosystem diverse 

and healthy and maintained significant biodiversity 

for thousands of years. 

Historically, wildland fire played an important role 

in many ecosystems by stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, providing a diversity of habitats for 

plants and wildlife, and decreasing the impacts of insects and diseases. When fire or grazing is excluded 

from a landscape, increased fuel loading occurs due 

to the buildup of thatch and dead or downed trees. 

Increased fuel loading intensifies a fire’s resistance to 

control, increases the potential for large-scale severe 

wildfires, and threatens firefighter and public safety 

as well as Federal and private facilities. The return 

of fire in most ecosystems is essential for healthy vegetation for wildlife habitats in grasslands, wetlands, 

and forests. 

When used properly, fire can accomplish the following: 

■■ Reduce hazardous fuel buildup in both wildland– 

urban interface areas and non-wildland–urban 

interface areas. 

■■ Improve wildlife habitats by reducing the density 

of vegetation, changing the plant species composition, or both. 

■■ Sustain or increase biological diversity. 

■■ Improve woodland and shrubland by reducing 

plant density. 

■■ Reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and disease outbreaks. 

■■ Increase the quantity of water available for municipalities and activities that depend on wildland 

water supplies. 

H.2 Wildland Fire 

Management Policy and 

Guidance 

Based on Federal interagency policy (Fire Executive 

Council 2009), wildland fire is defined as any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland including wildfire 

and prescribed fire. Response to wildland fire is based 

on consideration of a full range of fire management actions—allowing the fire to benefit the resource where 

possible or taking suppression action when those 

benefits are not attainable or important resources or 

adjacent lands are likely threatened. 

The 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy 

was updated in 2001. This revised policy directs Federal agencies to achieve a balance between suppressing fires to protect life, property, and resources and 

prescribing fires to regulate fuels and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. The following are the foundational principles for Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy 

and have been excerpted from “Review and Update of 

the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy” 

(National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2001): 

1. Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in 

every fire management activity. 

2. The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological 

process and natural change agent will be incorporated into the planning process. Federal agency 

land and resource management plans set the objectives for the use and desired future condition 

of the various public lands. 

3. Fire Management Plans (FMP), programs, and 

activities support land and resource management 

plans and their implementation. 

4. Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire 

management activities. Risks and uncertainties 

relating to fire management activities must be understood, analyzed, communicated, and managed as 

they relate to the cost of either doing or not doing 

an activity. Net gains to the public benefit will be 

an important component of decisions. 

5. Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based upon values to be protected, 

costs, and land and resource management objectives. Federal agency administrators are adjusting 
196 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana 

and reorganizing programs to reduce costs and 

increase efficiencies. As part of this process, investments in fire management activities must be 

evaluated against other agency programs in order 

to effectively accomplish the overall mission, set 

short- and long-term priorities, and clarify management accountability. 

6. Fire Management Plans and activities are based 

upon the best available science. Knowledge and experience are developed among all federal wildland 

fire management agencies. An active fire research 

program combined with interagency collaboration 

provides the means to make these tools available 

to all fire managers. 

7. Fire Management Plans and activities incorporate public health and environmental quality 

considerations. 

8. Federal, State, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation are essential. 

Increasing costs and smaller work forces require 

that public agencies pool their human resources to 

successfully deal with the ever-increasing and more 

complex fire management tasks. Full collaboration 

among federal wildland fire management agencies 

and between the federal wildland fire management 

agencies and international, State, tribal, and local 

governments and private entities result in a mobile fire management work force available for the 

full range of public needs. 

9. Standardization of policies and procedures among 

federal wildland fire management agencies is an 

ongoing objective. Consistency of plans and operations provides the fundamental platform upon 

which federal wildland fire management agencies 

can cooperate, integrate fire activities across agency 

boundaries, and provide leadership for cooperation with State, tribal, and local fire management 

organizations. 

The fire management considerations, guidance, and 

direction should be addressed in the land use resource 

plans (for example, the comprehensive conservation 

plan [CCP]). A fire management plan describes the 

fire management program and is a stepdown plan 

based on the land management plan or the habitat 

management plan. 

H.3 Management Direction 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge will suppress 

human-caused fires and wildfires that threaten life and 

property. Appropriate suppression actions—whether 

aggressive, high intensity, or low intensity—will be 

based on preplanned analysis, executed to minimize 

costs and resource losses, and consistent with land 

management objectives. 

Prescribed fire, as well as manual and mechanical 

fuel treatments, will be used in an ecosystem context 

to protect both Federal and private property and for 

habitat management purposes. Fuel reduction activities will be applied in collaboration with Federal, 

State, private, and nongovernmental partners. For 

wildland–urban interface treatments, focal areas will 

be those with community wildfire protection plans and 

designated communities at risk. The only community at 

risk near the refuge, as identified in the Federal Register, is the community of Stevensville, Montana. The 

State of Montana has developed a community wildfire 

protection plan for all communities in Ravalli County. 

All aspects of the fire management program will be 

conducted in a manner consistent with applicable laws, 

Department of Interior and Service policies, and guidance established at national, regional, and local levels. 

Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge will maintain a 

fire management plan to accomplish the fire management goals described below. Wildland fire, prescribed 

fire, and manual and mechanical fuel treatments will 

be applied under selected weather and environmental 

conditions, monitored using scientific techniques, and 

refined using adaptive management. 

FiRe MAnAGeMenT GoAls 

Fire management goals are set at national, regional, 

and local levels. 

national Fire Management Goals 

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

Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland Fire 

Management Program Strategic Plan are consistent 

with the following guidance: 

■■ policies of the Department of the Interior and the 

Service 

■■ direction from the National Fire Plan 

■■the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative 

■■ 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan 

■■ guidelines of the National Wildfire Coordinating 

Group 

■■ initiatives of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council 

■■ “Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation 

Operations” 

Regional Fire Management Goals 

Priorities stated in “The Region 6 Refuges Regional 

Priorities FY07–11” are consistent with the vision 

statement for Region 6: “to maintain and improve the 

biological integrity of the region, ensure the ecological condition of the region’s public and private lands 

are better understood, and endorse sustainable use 
APPENDIX H—Fire Management Program 197 

of habitats that support native wildlife and people’s 

livelihoods.” 

Refuge Fire Management Goals and objectives 

Fire management goals and objectives are used in 

the planning process to help management determine 

which responses and activities are necessary to achieve 

National Fire Plan and land management goals and 

objectives. 

The fire management goals and objectives for Lee 

Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge are as follows: 

1. Provide for firefighter and public safety. 

2. Suppress human-caused fires and wildfires that 

threaten life and property. 

3. Reduce wildland fire risk to the community of Stevensville and other public structures and private 

lands through hazardous fuels reduction treatments. 

4. Use wildland fire, manual treatment methods, and 

mechanical treatment methods to achieve habitat 

goals and objectives identified in this CCP using 

scientific techniques and adaptive resource management to monitor results. 

5. Protect important migratory bird habitats and 

natural resource values. 

6. All wildfires will receive a management response 

based on firefighter and public safety considerations, 

resource and cultural values at risk, and circumstances unique to the incident while providing for 

cost-effective management. 

7. Prevent human-caused wildfires through public 

contact and education, monitoring, and hazard fuels mitigation. 

8. Safely suppress all wildfires occurring within the 

refuge. Maintain an initial attack success rate of 

95 percent or higher on wildfires occurring on 

Service lands. 

9. Utilize Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) 

or Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR) funding as 

needed following wildfires. 

10. Implement and monitor a rotational prescribed 

burn program over the life of the plan that supports 

the fire dependent communities within the refuge. 

The refuge staff recognizes that fire can play an important role in habitat management. With an approved 

fire management plan, the refuge staff may use wildland fire or prescribed fire in accordance with Federal, State, and local ordinances and laws to achieve 

hazardous fuels reduction and resource management 

objectives. Strategies and tactics that consider public and firefighter safety, as well as resource values 

at risk, will be used. Wildfire suppression, prescribed 

fire methods, manual and mechanical means, timing, 

and monitoring will be described in detail within the 

stepdown fire management plans for the refuge. 

On approval of this CCP, the 2010 fire management 

plan will be reviewed and updated as needed to meet 

the goals and objectives set forth by the CCP. 

H.4 Fire Management 

organization, Contacts, and 

Cooperation 

Region 6 of the Service would establish a fire management organization to provide qualified technical 

oversight of fire management for the refuge. Fire 

management staffing levels would be determined by 

established modeling systems and based on the fire 

management workload of a group of refuges and possibly that of interagency partners. Workload is based 

on historical wildfire suppression activities as well as 

historical and planned fuel treatments. Fire management activities would be conducted in a coordinated 

and collaborative manner through the “Montana State 

Annual Operating Plan” and other agreements with 

Federal and non-Federal partners. 

Bibliography
 

Alt, D.B. 2001. Glacial Lake Missoula and its humongous floods. Missoula, Montana: Mountain Press 

Publishing Company, 208 p. 

Arno, S. 1980. Forest fire history in the northern 

Rockies. Journal of Forestry, 78(8):460–465. 

Bedunah, D.J. 1992. The complex ecology of weeds, 

grazing, and wildlife. Western Wildlands 18:6–11. 

Brandt, T.M. 2000. Fish diversity, behavior, and microhabitat use in secondary channels of the Bitterroot 

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

University of Montana. 

Briar, D.W.; Dutton, D.M. 2000. Hydrogeology and 

aquifer sensitivity of the Bitterroot Valley, Ravalli County, Montana. Helena, MT: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Resources. Investigations Report 

99-4219. 114 p. 

Bull, Evelyn L.; Collins, Charles T. 2007. Vaux’s swift 

(Chaetura vauxi). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology. [Internet]. <http://bna.birds.cornell. 

edu/bna/species/077doi:10.2173/bna.077> accessed 

January 3, 2011. 

Burkhardt, J.W. 1996. Herbivory in the Intermountain 

West: an overview of evolutionary history, historic 

cultural impacts and lessons from the past. Idaho 

Forest, Wildlife and Range Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 58. University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources, Boise, ID. 

Cappious, S.L. 1939. A history of the Bitter Root Valley to 1914 [master’s thesis]. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. [Pages unknown]. 

Cartier, K.D.W. 1984. Sediment channel morphology, 

and streamflow characteristics of the Bitterroot 

River drainage basin, southwestern Montana. M.S. 

Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Carver, Erin; Caudill, James. 2007. Banking on nature 

2006: the economic benefits to local communities 

of national wildlife refuge visitation. Washington, 

DC: Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 371 p. 

Casey, Daniel. 2000. Partners in Flight draft bird 

conservation plan: Montana. Version 1.0 Kalispell, 

Montana: Montana Partners in Flight. 288 p. 

Caudill, James; Henderson, E. 2006. Banking on nature 

2006: the economic benefits to local communities 

of national wildlife refuge visitation. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 373 p. 

Clary, J.; Hastings, P.B.; O’Neill, J.; Winthrop, R. 2005. 

First roots: the story of Stevensville, Montana’s 

oldest community. Stevensville, MT: Stoneydale 

Press Publishing Company. 251 p. 

Cooper, D.J.; Merritt, D.M.; Andersen, D.C.; Chimner, 

R.A. 1999. Factors controlling the establishment of 

Fremont cottonwood seedlings on the Upper Green 

River. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15:419–440. 

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M. [et al.]. 2006. 

Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in response to 

fire in a temperate mixed-grass savanna. Journal 

of Environmental Quality 35:1620–1628. 

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

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Zimmerman, A.L.; Euliss, B.R. 

2002a. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: western meadowlark. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 33 p. 

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

Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; and Euliss, B.R. 

2002b. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: grasshopper sparrow. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 28 p. 

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

lens. Audubon: January–February. [Pages unknown]. 

Eckmann, E.C.; Harrington, G.L. 1917. Soil survey of 

the Bitterroot River Valley area, Montana. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. 72 p. 

Fire Executive Council. 2009. Guidance for implementation of federal wildland fire management policy. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

and U.S. Department of the Interior. 20 p. <http:// 

www.nifc.gov/policies/policies_documents/guidance/ 

GIFWFMP.pdf> accessed January 2011. 

Fischer, W.C.; Bradley, A.F. 1987. Fire ecology of western Montana forest habitat types. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

General Technical Report INT-223. 95 p. 

Gaeuman, D. 1997. Historical channel changes and 

processes of the central Bitterroot River, Ravalli 

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

University of Montana. 

Geist, V.; Mahoney, S.P.; Organ, J.F. 2001. Why hunting 

has defined the North American model of wildlife 

conservation. In: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; 
200 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

March 20, 2001; Washington, DC. Washington, DC: 

Wildlife Management Institute. 66:175–85. 

Geist V.; Organ, J.F. 2004. The public trust foundation 

of the North American model of wildlife conservation. Northeast Wildlife 58:49–56. 

Graham, Todd. 2009 Assessment of upland units. Bozeman, MT: Aeroscene Land Logic. 9–12. 

Gratto-Trevor, Cheri L. 2000. Marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa). The Birds of North America Online 

(A. Poole, editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. [Internet]. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/ 

species/492doi:10.2173/bna.492> accessed January 

3, 2011. 

Hauer, F.R.; Spencer, C.N. 1998. Phosphorous and nitrogen dynamics in streams associated with wildfire—a study of immediate and long-term effects. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 8:183–98. 

Heitmeyer, M.E.; Artmann, M.J.; Fredrickson, L.H. 

2010. An evaluation of ecosystem restoration and 

management options for Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 6, Denver, CO. Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 10-02. Bloomfield, MO: Blue 

Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC. 

Hejl, S.J.; Newlon, K.R.; Mcfadzen, M.E.; Yound, 

J.S.; Ghalambor, C.K. 2002. Brown creeper (Certhia Americana). The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/669doi:10.2173/bna.669> accessed January 3, 2011. 

Hepp, Gary R.; Bellrose, Frank C. 1995. Wood duck 

(Aix sponsa). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/169doi:10.2173/bna.1169> accessed January 3, 2011. 

Hodges, K.V.; Applegate, J.D. 1993. Age of Tertiary 

extension in the Bitterroot metamorphic core 

complex, Montana and Idaho. Geology 21:161–164. 

Hutchinson, M. 1992. Vegetation management guideline—Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense [L.] Scop.) 

Natural Areas Journal 12:160–1. 

Hyndman, D.W.; Talbot, J.L.; Chase, R.B. 1975. Boulder batholiths—a result of emplacement of a block 

detached from the Idaho batholiths infrastructure. 

Geology 3:401–404. 

[IWJV] Intermountain West Joint Venture. 2005a. 

Coordinated implementation plan for bird conservation in western Montana. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Montana Steering Committee Intermountain West Joint Venture. 58 p. 

———. 2005b. Intermountain West Joint Venture coordinated bird conservation plan. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Intermountain West Joint Venture. 94 p. 

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

decisions. In: Shenk, T.M.; Franklin, A.B., editors. 

Modeling in natural resource management—development, interpretation, and application. Washington, DC: Island Press. 223 p. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses 

to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31–39. 

Kudray, G.M.; Schemm, T. 2008. Wetlands of the Bitterroot Valley; change and ecological functions. 

Prepared for the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Agreement #DEQ 206028. Helena, 

MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 

Kushlan, James A.; Steinkamp, Melanie J.; Parsons, 

Katharine C.; [et al.]. 2002. Waterbird conservation 

for the Americas—the North American waterbird 

conservation plan, version 1. Washington, DC: 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. 78 p. 

Lancia, R.A.; Braun, C.E.; Collopy, M.W. [et al.]. 1996. 

ARM! for the future—adaptive resource management in the wildlife profession. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 24:436–42. 

Langner, H.W.; Greene, E.; Domenech, R.; Staats, M.F. 

2011. Mercury and other mining-related contaminants in ospreys along the Upper Clark Fork River, 

Montana, USA. University of Montana, Missoula, 

MT. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 

November 25, 2011. <http://www.springerlink.com/ 

content/m081860p378q2453/fulltext.html> accessed 

January 3, 2011. 

Langton, C.M. 1935. Geology of the northeastern part 

of the Idaho batholiths and adjacent region in Montana. Journal of Geology 43:27–60. 

Lankston, R.W. 1975. A geophysical investigation 

in the Bitterroot Valley, western Montana [Ph.D. 

dissertation]. University of Montana, Missoula. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Lonn, J.D.; Sears, J.W. 2001. Geologic map of the Bitterroot Valley, Montana. Butte, MT: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report 362. 

Lowther, Peter; Poole, Alan F.; Gibbs, J.P.; Melvin, 

S.; Reid, F.A. 2009. American bittern (Botaurus 

lentiginosus). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/018doi:10.2173/bna.018> accessed January 3, 2011. 

Malouf, Carling I. 1952. Economy and land use by the 

Indians of western Montana, U.S.A. [Unpublished]. 

Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 63 p. 

———. 1956. The cultural connections between the 

prehistoric inhabitants of the upper Missouri and 

Columbia River systems [Ph.D. dissertation]. New 

York, NY: Columbia University. [Pages unknown]. 

Martin, Stephen G.; Gavin, Thomas A. 1995, Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds.cornell. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 201

edu/bna/species/176doi:10.2173/bna.176> accessed 

January 3, 2011. 

Maxwell, Bryce A.; Nelson, K.J.; Browder, S. 2002. 

Record clutch size and observance on breeding and 

development of the western toad (Bufo boreas) in 

Montana. Northwestern Naturalist 83:27–30. 

McDowell, Will; Rokosch, Jim. 2005. Ambrose-Threemile 

watershed project: watershed assessment and recommendations for stream improvements. Sandpoint, 

ID: Tri-State Water Quality Council. 161p. <http:// 

www.tristatecouncil.org/documents/05ambrose_ 

asses.pdf> accessed November 15, 2011. 

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

2000.The forest fire induced impacts on phosphorus, 

nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations in boreal 

sub-arctic lakes of northern Alberta Can. Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57 (Suppl. 2):73–81. 

McMurtrey, R.G.; Konizeski, R.L.; Johnson, M.V.; 

Bartells, J.H. 1972. Geology and water resources 

of the Bitterroot Valley, southwestern Montana, 

with a section on chemical quality of water, by H.A. 

Swenson. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply 

Paper 1889. 80 p. 

Montana Bird Distribution Committee. 1996. P.D. 

Skaar’s Montana bird distribution, fifth edition. 

Special Publication No. 3. Helena, MT: Montana 

Natural Heritage Program. 130 p. 

Montana Department of Agriculture. 2010. Montana 

noxious weed list: effective September 2010. <http:// 

agr.mt.gov/weedpest/pdf/weedlist2010.pdf> accessed March 23, 2011. 

[MFWP] Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2005. The 

Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks. 43–44, 78,158–159. 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2012. [Species 

of concern]. <http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern> 

accessed June 5, 2012. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. In: Whitman, 

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

Kehoe, P.; Roberts, L.; editors. Waterfowl habitat 

restoration, enhancement and management in the 

Atlantic flyway. 3rd edition. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway 

Council Technical Section; Delaware, Division of 

Fish and Wildlife. F59–F86. 

Mowbray, Thomas. 1999. American wigeon (Anas 

americana). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/401doi:10.2173/bna.401> accessed January 3, 2011. 

National Association for Interpretation. 2011. [Mission, 

vision, and core values.] <http://www.interpnet.com/ 

about_nai/mission.shtml> accessed March 9, 2011. 

National Climatic Data Center. 2011. Precipitation 

and temperature graphs, 1900–2010. <http://www. 

ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series> accessed February 8, 2011. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2001. [Review 

and update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy]. <http://www.nwcg.gov/branches/ 

ppm/fpc/archives/fire_policy/history/index.htm> 

accessed January 13, 2012. 

Oring, Lewis W.; Neel, Larry; Oring, Kay E. 2010. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. 

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan. 

Pardee, J.T. 1950. Late Cenozoic black faulting in 

western Montana. Geological Society of America 

Bulletin 61:359–406. 

Popham, C. 1998. Early days in sagebrush country. 

Missoula, MT: Pictoral Histories Publishing Company. 130 p. 

Reiss. S.A. 1995. Sport in industrial America, 1850– 

1920. The American History Series. Wheeling, IL: 

Harlan Davidson, Inc. 178 p. 

Rich, T.D.; Beardmore, C.J.; Berlanga, H.; Blancher, 

P.J.; Bradstreet, M.S.W.; Butcher, G.S.; Demarest, D.W.; Dunn, E.H.; Hunter, W.C.; Inigo-Elias, 

E.E.; Kennedy, J.A.; Martell, A.M.; Panjabi, A.O.; 

Pashley, D.N.; Rosenberg, K.V.; Rustay, C.M.; 

Wendt, J.S.; Will, T.C. 2004. Partners in Flight 

North American landbird conservation plan. Ithaca, 

NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Revised 

March 2005. 85 p. 

Richey. E.D. 1998. Subdividing Eden: land use and 

change in the Bitterroot Valley, 1930–1998. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 290 p. 

Running, Steven W. 2010. Impacts of climate change 

on forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation, Montana Climate Office. <https://www. 

cfc.umt.edu> accessed February 8, 2011. 

Ryan, Michael Jerome. 1977. An archaeological survey 

of the middle Clark Fork River valley: Missoula to 

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

University of Montana. [Pages unknown]. 

Sedgwick, James A. 2000. Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/533doi:10.2173/bna.533> accessed January 3, 2011. 

State of Montana. 2011. [Montana field guides: 

American bullfrog—Rana catesbeiana]. <http:// 

fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AAABH01070.aspx> accessed March 11, 2011. 

Stevensville Historical Society. 1971. Montana genesis. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing 

Company. 289 p. 

Stringer, A. 2009. Effect of constructed wetlands on 

water temperature in Lower Burnt Fork Creek: 
202 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

 

implications for native trout populations and possible 

stream restoration. Unpublished report to Sentinel High School. Missoula, MT. [Pages unknown]. 

Takekawa, John Y.; Warnock, Nils. 2000. Long-billed 

dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus). The Birds 

of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, 

NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://bna.birds. 

cornell.edu/bna/species/493doi:10.2173/bna.493> 

accessed January 3, 2011. 

Texas State Parks and Wildlife. 2011. [Hoary bat 

(Lasiurus cinereus)]. <http://www.tpwd.state. 

tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/hoarybat> accessed 

February 14, 2011. 

Tobalske, Bret W. 1997. Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/284doi:10.2173/bna.284> accessed January 3, 2011. 

Ullrich, Susanne M.; Tanton, Trevor W.; Abdrashitova, 

Svetlana A. 2001. Mercury in the aquatic environment: a review of factors affecting methylation. 

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and 

Technology 31:3:241–293. 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization. 1978. Needs and priorities in Environmental Education: an International Survey. 

Paris, France. [Pages unknown]. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1939. Bitter Root Irrigation District. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Hamilton, MT. 

———. 1982. Bitter Root Project, Montana, Ravalli 

County. U.S. Department of the Interior, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Bureau of Reclamation. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Census Bureau: state and 

county quickfacts for Montana. Data derived from 

2010 population estimates. <http://www.census. 

gov> accessed April 4, 2011. 

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. [Montana State-listed noxious weeds.] <http://plants. 

usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statef 

ips=30> accessed February 10, 2011. 

———. 2012. Geospatial data gateway. [Internet]. 

Revised February 16, 2012. <http://datagateway. 

nrcs.usda.gov> accessed July 30, 2012. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon sequestration research and development. Springfield, VA: 

National Technical Information Service, Office of 

Fossil Energy and the Office of Science. <http:// 

www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/ 

publications/1999_rdreport/> accessed December 

18, 2010. 

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Strategic habitat conservation: final report of the National Ecological Assessment Team. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 45 p. 

———. 2011. National water information system. 

[Internet]. <http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/mt/ 

nwis/peak/?site_no=12344000&agency_cd=USGS> 

accessed August 1, 2011. 

———. 2012. [Mercury in aquatic ecosystems]. <http:// 

toxics.usgs.gov/investigations/mercury.html> accessed May 30, 2012. 

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife 

Health Center. 2007. [Chronic wasting disease 

fact sheet.] <http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease 

_information/chronic_wasting_disease/> accessed 

February 10, 2011. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1966. Wildlife inventory plan. Stevensville, MT: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 22 p. 

———. 1974. Flood Report, Ravalli National Wildlife 

Refuge, Stevensville, MT. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1988–93. Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge 

annual narratives. Stevensville, MT: Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge. [On file at Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, MT]. 

———. 1991. Waterfowl management handbook— 

section 13.4.6, strategies for water manipulation 

in moist-soil systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 8 p. [On file at Lee Metcalf 

National Wildlife Refuge, Stevensville, MT]. 

———. 1999. Fulfilling the promise. Arlington, VA: 

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

Service. 94 p. 

———. 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. Arlington, VA: United States Department of Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. 85 p. <http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/> accessed November 10, 2010. 

———. 2010. Rising to the challenge—strategic plan 

for responding to accelerating climate change. 

Unpublished report on file at Washington, DC. 

28 p. <www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf 

/CCDraftStratPlan92209.pdf> accessed July 27, 2010. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana 

Invasive Species Strike Team. 2009. 2009 Lee 

Metcalf NWR report. Great Falls, MT: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Montana Invasive Species 

Strike Team. 76 p. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 

6 Water Resources Division. 2011. Unpublished 

data. [On file at the water resources division office 

in Lakewood, CO] 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Canadian 

Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl management plan-a strategy for cooperation. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Gatineau, Quebec: Environment, Canada. 26 p. 

Walker, B. 2004. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Brewer’s sparrow. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. <http: 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 203

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

/brsp/brsp.htm> accessed December 22, 2010. 

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

ment experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 

71:2060–8. 

Ward, Linda. 1973. Prehistory of the Bitterroot Val­

ley [master’s thesis]. Missoula, MT: University of 

Montana. [Pages unknown]. 

Weber, W.M. 1972. Correlation of Pleistocene glacia­

tions in the Bitterroot Range, Montana, with fluc­

tuations of glacial Lake Missoula. Montana Bureau 

of Mines and Geology Memoir 42 pp. 

Werner, Kirwin J.; Maxwell, Bryce A.; Hendricks, Paul; 

Flath, Dennis L. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of 

Montana. Missoula, MT: Montana Press Publishing 

Company. 73–4, 93–4, 100–102. 

Woodin, Marc C; Michot, Thomas C. 2002. Redhead (Aythya americana). The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab 

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

species/695doi:10.2173/bna.695> accessed Janu­

ary 3, 2011. 

Woodside, Gail J. 2008. Comparing native oral history 

and scientific research to produce historical evidence 

of native occupation during and after the Missoula 

floods [senior thesis]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University. <http://hdl.handle.net/1957/8746> ac­

cessed September 27, 2010.