Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

June 2009

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

27650B South Valley Road

Lima, MT 59739

406/276 3536

and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, CO 80225

303/236 8145

 Approved by 

Steve Guertin Date

Regional Director, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

Submitted:

Bill West Date

Project Leader

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

Lima, MT

Reviewed: 

Dean Rundle Date

Refuge Supervisor (MT, UT, WY)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, CO

Approved:

Richard A. Coleman Date

Assistant Regional Director

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, CO

Contents 

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... iii

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................ vii

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ................................................................................

1.2 Early History of Conservation .................................................................................

1.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System .......................................

1.4 National and Regional Mandates .............................................................................

1.5 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans ........................................

1.6 Ecosystem Description and Threats .......................................................................

1.7 Planning Process ........................................................................................................

.......................................

.......................................

.......................................

.......................................

.......................................

.......................................

.......................................

 3

 3

 4

 5

 6

 10

 12

2 The Refuge .................................................................................................................................................................... 17

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

2.2 Special Values of the Refuge ....................................................................................

2.3 Purposes ......................................................................................................................

2.4 Vision ............................................................................................................................

.......................................

.......................................

.......................................

.......................................

 17

 25

 26 

 26

2.5 Goals .................................................................................................................................................................... 26

2.6 Planning Issues .................................................................................................................................................. 27

3 Refuge Resources and Description .............................................................................................................................. 35

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

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

3.3 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................

.......................................

.......................................

.......................................

 35

 44

 55

3.4 Special Management Areas ......................................................................................

3.5 Public Uses ..................................................................................................................

.......................................

.......................................

 56

 59

3.6 Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................................................................... 60

3.7 Operations .......................................................................................................................................................... 63

4 Management Direction ................................................................................................................................................. 67

 4.1 Management Focus ........................................................................................................................................... 67

4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale ................................................................................................

Lake, Pond, and Marsh Habitat Goal .............................................................................................................

Riparian Habitat Goal ......................................................................................................................................

Wet Meadow, Grassland, and Shrub-steppe Habitat Goal ..........................................................................

Aspen Forest, Mixed Coniferous Forest, and Woodland Habitat Goal ....................................................

Visitor Services and Cultural Resources Goal .............................................................................................

 68

 68

 75

 80

 86

 87

Refuge Operations Goal ...................................................................................................................................

4.3 Staffing and Funding ........................................................................................................................................

4.4 Step-down Management Plans ........................................................................................................................

4.5 Partnership Opportunities ...............................................................................................................................

4.6 Monitoring and Evaluation ..............................................................................................................................

 92

 94

 94

 95

 95

Glossary................................................................................................................................................................................................ 97
ii CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Appendices

 A 

 

Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................................. 103

B Key Legislation and Policies.............................................................................................................................. 127

C Section 7 Biological Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 131

D Preparers .............................................................................................................................................................. 135

E Environmental Compliance ............................................................................................................................... 137

F Compatibility Determinations .......................................................................................................................... 141

G Species Lists ....................................................................................................................................................... 159

H Fire Management Program ............................................................................................................................... 183

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................... 187

Figures

 1 Location of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ........................................................ 2

 2 Physiographic area map of the United States. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

 Refuge lies within physiographic region 64 ..................................................................................... 7

 3 Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia rivers ecosystem map ....................................... 11

 4 CCP and environmental analysis process steps ...................................................................................... 12

 5 Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge approved acquisition boundary 

 and acquired lands—refuge base map............................................................................................... 20

 6 Conservation easements within the Centennial Valley .......................................................................... 24

 7 Significant declines in annual, December, and January precipitation totals 

 between 1948 and 2005 ........................................................................................................................ 37

 8 Mean annual, March, and April air temperatures at Lakeview, Montana, 

 between 1949 and 2005. Significant increases are shown for the months 

 of March and April ............................................................................................................................... 38

 9 Representative flow rates for Red Rock, Odell, and Tom creeks at Red Rock Lakes National 

 Wildlife Refuge....................................................................... ....................................... 42

 10 Habitat types found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................... 45

 11 Vegetation classifications found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ................................. 47

 12 Wetland types found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge .................................................... 49

 13 Designated wilderness within the acquisition boundary of Red Rock Lakes 

 National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................................... 57

 14 Public use areas to be implemented at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ......................... 61

 15 Intra-annual moose abundance on Red Rock Lakes NWR, 1983–1985 ............................................... 77

 16 Adaptive management process .................................................................................................................. 95

Tables

 1 Planning process summary for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ....................................... 13

 2 Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2008 .......................... 21

 3 Conservation easement acquisition history within the Centennial Valley, 2001–2008 ...................... 25

 4 Current base funded staff at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.......................... 63

 5 Nesting and foraging requirements for the five most commonly detected bird 

 species in willow riparian habitat at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana .... 79

 6 Habitat requirements for target wet meadow bird species .................................................................. 81

 7 Habitat requirements for target shrub-steppe and grassland, and Centennial 

 Sandhills bird species........................................................................................................................... 83

 8 Current and proposed staff, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ........................... 94

 9 Step-down management plans for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana ................ 94 
Summary

Angler on Odell Creek.

R. Madsen/USFWS

The following summary provides a brief overview of 

this final comprehensive conservation plan for Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, including (1) 

a general description, (2) purposes of the refuge, (3) 

vision and goals, (4) the planning process, and (5) 

outcomes of the plan.

THE REFUGE

On April 22, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

established Red Rock Lakes Migratory Waterfowl 

Refuge (later named Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge on July 19, 1961). During the 74 

years since the executive boundary was established, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has continued to 

acquire lands by purchase from willing landowners 

and acceptance of donations. The Service currently 

owns 48,955 acres.

This refuge is one of the most remote in the 

contiguous United States. It is located in the 

Centennial Valley in southwestern Montana 

in Beaverhead County, 47 miles west of West 

Yellowstone and 38 miles east of the town of Lima. 

This 48,955-acre refuge sits at 6,670–9,400 feet above 

sea level and lies east of the Continental Divide near 

the uppermost reach of the Missouri drainage. 

Historically, management focused on protecting and 

enhancing the trumpeter swan population at the 

refuge. In the 1930s, the refuge and surrounding 

area was their last known breeding location. 

Service efforts to protect and expand the population 

included winter feeding, transferring swans to 

other suitable habitats, managing wetland habitats 

for breeding swans, and minimizing illegal harvest 

and disturbance (especially during breeding). 

Today, swans actively breed and nest on the refuge. 

Intensive population enhancement efforts such as 

winter feeding and translocations are no longer 

necessary or appropriate for species conservation, 

and have been phased out. The refuge continues 

to focus on providing quality wetland habitats for 

nesting swans. This has resulted in a steady increase 

in the number of trumpeter swans in the Centennial 

Valley since the mid-1990s. The important role these 

magnificent birds played in establishing this refuge is 

outlined in greater detail within this document. 

The refuge has some of the most naturally diverse 

habitats in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

refuge boasts the largest wetland complex within the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, as well as expansive 

tracts of grassland and sagebrush-steppe habitats, 

and a small amount of midelevation forested areas. 

These habitats support over 230 species of birds, 

including peregrine falcons, bald eagles, short-eared 

owls, sandhill cranes, sage grouse, and numerous 

species of waterfowl and waterbirds. Common 

mammals include Shiras moose, Rocky Mountain elk, 

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

fox. In addition, wolves and grizzly bears have been 

documented using the refuge in recent years. There 

is also a remnant population of endemic adfluvial (a 
iv CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

population that lives in a lake and breeds in a river) 

Arctic grayling that occur on the refuge. 

A full-time staff of five employees and various 

temporary employees manage and study the refuge 

habitats and maintain visitor facilities. Domestic 

livestock grazing and prescribed fire are the primary 

management tools used to maintain and enhance 

upland habitats. Currently, four grazing cooperators 

are using refuge lands. Water level manipulation 

occurs in some areas of the refuge to improve 

wetland habitats. 

Approximately 12,000 people visit the refuge 

annually. Two refuge roads and three county roads 

that pass through the refuge account for the majority 

of visitor use. The refuge is open to limited fishing, 

with the majority of fishing occurring on Red Rock 

Creek. In addition, the refuge is open to limited 

hunting of ducks, geese, coots, elk, pronghorn, moose, 

and mule and white-tailed deer.

REFUGE PURPOSES

Every refuge has a purpose for which it was 

established. The purpose is the foundation upon 

which to build all refuge programs, from biology 

and visitor services, to maintenance and facilities. 

No uses of a refuge may be allowed if they are 

determined to materially detract from or interfere 

with the purposes for which the refuge was 

established or the mission of the Refuge System. 

The refuge purpose is found in the legislative acts or 

administrative orders that provide the authorities to 

either transfer or acquire a piece of land for a refuge. 

Over time, an individual refuge may contain lands 

that have been acquired under a variety of transfer 

and acquisition authorities, giving a refuge more than 

one purpose. The goals, objectives, and strategies 

identified in this final comprehensive conservation 

plan are intended to support individual purposes for 

which the refuge was established.

The legislative purposes for Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge include the following:

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

and animals.” (Executive Order 7023, dated 

April 22, 1935)

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

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act 1929)

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

the protection of natural resources, (c) 

the conservation of endangered species or 

threatened species ... the Secretary ... may 

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

acceptance may be accomplished under the 

terms and conditions of restrictive covenants 

imposed by donors.” (Refuge Recreation Act 

1962) 

4. “The conservation of the wetlands of the 

nation in order to maintain the public benefits 

they provide and to help fulfill international 

obligations contained in various migratory 

bird treaties and conventions.” (Emergency 

Wetlands Resources Act 1986)

5. “For the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources ... for the benefit of 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such 

acceptance may be subject to the terms of any 

restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition 

of servitude.” (Fish and Wildlife Act 1956)

6. "Wilderness areas ... shall be administered for 

the use and enjoyment of the American people 

in such manner as will leave them unimpaired 

for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, 

and so as to provide for the protection 

of these areas, the preservation of their 

wilderness character, and for the gathering and 

dissemination of information regarding their 

use and enjoyment as wilderness." (Wilderness 

Act 1964)

VISION STATEMENT

The vision for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge is based on the establishing purposes of the 

refuge, resource conditions and potential, and the 

issues identified during the planning process (see 

Section 2.2). 

The majestic Centennial Valley of southwest 

Montana is an expansive mosaic of high-elevation 

wetlands, grasslands, shrublands, and forests 

framed by dramatic mountain peaks. Through 

partnerships and conservation programs, the 

valley has maintained its biological integrity 

and is a working landscape that remains largely 

undeveloped.

To this end, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge is a conservation leader in the valley 

working to maintain, mimic, and where 

appropriate, restore natural processes to create and 

sustain native habitat for migratory and resident 

fish and wildlife. Visitors have a sense of solitude 

and wildness that lifts their spirits and stirs their 

souls. This first-hand experience with the refuge 

encourages people to participate as stewards, not 

only of the refuge, but also of the natural resources 

in their own communities.

GOALS

The goals described below help the staff achieve the 

vision for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
Summary v

Lake, Pond, and Marsh habitat GoaL

Provide habitat for breeding and staging migratory 

birds, native fishes, and resident wildlife that 

maintains the biological diversity and integrity of 

montane wetland systems. 

R

Maintain the processes necessary to sustain the 

biological diversity and integrity of native riparian 

vegetation for migratory breeding birds, native 

fishes, and wintering ungulates.

Wet MeadoW, GrassLand, 

and shrub-stePPe habitat GoaL

Provide structurally complex native meadow, 

grassland, and shrub-steppe habitats, within a 

watershed context, for upland-nesting migratory 

birds, sagebrush-dependent species, rare plant 

species, and other resident wildlife.

A

Create and maintain aspen stands of various 

age classes within a mosaic of coniferous forest 

and shrubland for cavity-nesting birds and other 

migratory and resident wildlife.

Visitor serViCes and CuLturaL 

resourCes GoaL

Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, 

environmental education, interpretation, and 

outreach opportunities that nurture an appreciation 

and understanding of the unique natural and cultural 

resources of the Centennial Valley, for visitors and 

local community members of all abilities, while 

maintaining the primitive and remote experience 

unique to the refuge. 

R

Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the 

protection of trust resources in the utilization of staff, 

funding, and volunteer programs. 

PLANNING PROCESS

In 2006, a planning team of refuge and other Service 

staff gathered to begin planning the future direction 

of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. The 

planning process included designing a vision for the 

refuge, along with goals to reach that vision. The 

team invited the state and various tribes to serve 

on the planning team. We received a commitment 

from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to participate 

in the process. In June 2006, a notice of intent was 

published in the Federal Register and planning 

updates were mailed inviting the public to participate 

in the planning process and public scoping meetings. 

A mailing list of about 250 names was created which 

included private citizens; local, regional, and state 

government representatives and legislators; other 

federal agencies; tribal governments; and nonprofit 

organizations. Key issues (habitat, wildlife, fisheries, 

visitor use, and refuge operations) were identified 

during analysis of the topics raised by refuge staff, 

partners, and the public. The unique qualities 

and values of the refuge were also identified. The 

team determined which of these qualities and 

issues were key to achieving the vision and goals. 

These were addressed throughout the planning 

process and in the comprehensive conservation 

plan. Four alternatives were developed for 

addressing substantive issues and managing refuge 

programs. The draft environmental assessment and 

comprehensive conservation plan was released to 

the public in September 2008. Two public meetings 

were held and the public was given 60 days to review 

the draft plan. In addition to the public meetings, 

over 100 additional comments were received. 

Through the environmental analysis process, 

including internal and public reviews, the Service has 

selected alternative B from the draft environmental 

assessment and comprehensive conservation plan. 

Substantive public comments were addressed in 

the final plan, resulting in modifications to the 

final document. Responses to public comments 

are summarized in appendix A. This alternative 

is now the final comprehensive conservation plan. 

Implementation of this plan will be monitored 

throughout its 15-year effective period.

ISSUES

Several key issues were identified during the 

planning process that affect the refuge such as 

habitat loss and fragmentation caused by residential 

development; inadequate monitoring of the current 

grazing program to determine its effectiveness as a 

management tool; the effect on the refuge of loss of 

wetlands throughout the United States; the scarcity 

of information on the ecology of montane (the zone 

below the subalpine zone) wetlands; providing 

suitable habitat for migratory birds, including 

trumpeter swans; maintaining one of the last known 

endemic populations of adfluvial Arctic grayling; 

management of fishing and hunting; management 

and improvments to trails, roads, and signage, while 

maintaining the wilderness characteristics of the 

refuge; the ecology of the Centennial Sandhills; 

stream restoration; invasive plant species; aquatic 

nuisance species; law enforcement; inadequate 

staffing; and fire management. 
vi CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THE PLAN

Based on the analysis document included in 

the environmental assessment in the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan, the Service’s 

director for region 6 (Mountain-Prairie Region) 

approved alternative B for implementation. The key 

actions for this plan are summarized in the following 

section. A complete description of all objectives and 

strategies are found in chapter 4.

Management under alternative B acknowledges 

the importance of naturally functioning ecological 

communities on the refuge. However, changes to 

the landscape (for example, human alterations to 

the landscape, created wetlands, and species in peril 

requiring special management actions) prevent 

management of the refuge solely as a naturally 

functioning ecological community. Because some of 

these changes are significant, some refuge habitats 

will require “hands on” management actions during 

the life of this plan. Visitor services programs 

(such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education, 

interpretation, and outreach programs) will be 

improved and expanded while maintaining the 

wilderness characteristics of the refuge.

H

There will be improved management of wetland 

habitats for trumpeter swans and other waterfowl. 

Management will focus on maintaining high wetland 

productivity through infrequent drawdowns of 

modified and created wetlands to benefit breeding 

and migrating waterfowl. The management of 

riparian areas will be designed to benefit migratory 

bird species, and moose and Arctic grayling. 

A riparian habitat is the area along a natural 

watercourse, such as a river or stream. Some 

modified wetlands will be restored back to freeflowing streams and associated riparian corridors. 

Management actions (such as prescriptive grazing 

and prescribed fire) will only occur on the refuge 

to achieve specific habitat and wildlife objectives, 

with increased and improved oversight, monitoring, 

and research (when appropriate) conducted to 

assess if management objectives are being met. 

The refuge will continue to support the “Pacific 

Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain 

Population of Trumpeter Swans” (Subcommittee on 

Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans 

2008).

Visitor serViCes

Management will emphasize improving and 

maintaining high-quality public opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreation for visitors of all 

abilities. Visitors will be better oriented to the 

refuge through accurate brochures and limited 

signage. Some of the criteria for all visitor services 

programs is to ensure (1) all proposed public uses are 

compatible, (2) visitors know that they are visiting 

a national wildlifie refuge, (3) visitors understand 

the specific regulations in place to provide for their 

safety and protection of the refuge resources and 

wildlife, and (4) any additional visitor facilities 

and signage compliment the refuge’s wilderness 

setting. Additional environmental education and 

interpretation opportunities will be provided in 

order to better orient the public, while fostering 

support for refuge programs through a better 

understanding and awareness of the values of the 

refuge and Centennial Valley. Hunting programs 

will continue or be modified or expanded to provide 

quality hunting experiences while ensuring that 

trumpeter swans and other priority migratory birds 

are provided protected nesting and resting areas. 

An auto tour route along roads open to the public 

will be developed and inerpreted through a brochure 

and minimal signage. A blind will be provided for 

photographers and hunters with disabilities.

FaCiLities and staFF

Refuge and visitor services facilities will continue to 

be maintained, including historical structures that 

are being used. Staff numbers and refuge housing 

have remained static since the 1950s. During this 

time, refuge visitor numbers have grown, programs 

and issues have become more complex, and there 

are greater opportunities to better understand and 

manage refuge resources. The refuge currently has 

five full-time staff members, including one biologist. 

To carry out this plan, additional staff will be 

required including a full-time wildlife biologist, range 

technician, temporary visitor services specialist, 

temporary office assistant, and permanent seasonal 

maintenance worker. At least three temporary 

biological science technicians will be recruited for 

the summer field season. One permanent refuge 

staff member will be required to maintain law 

enforcement credentials. Up to four residences 

will be needed to accommodate additional staff. 

These residences will complement existing refuge 

buildings. To accommodate additional volunteers, the 

refuge will construct up to three recreational vehicle 

concrete pads.

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS

The comprehensive conservation plan is intended as 

a broad umbrella plan that provides general concepts 

and specific wildlife, habitat, visitor services, and 

partnership objectives over the next 15 years. 

When the plan is implemented, additional stepdown management plans will be developed. The 

purpose of the step-down management plans is to 

provide greater detail to managers and employees 

for carrying out specific actions and strategies 

authorized by the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Table 9 (chapter 4) presents the plans needed for the 

refuge, their status, and the next revision date.
Abbreviations

ARM adaptive resource management

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

ATV all-terrain vehicle

AUM animal unit months

BP before present

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CCP comprehensive conservation plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO2 carbon dioxide

compact Water Rights Compact

°F degrees Fahrenheit

districts wetland management districts

DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

EA environmental assessment

FMP fire management plan

FONSI finding of No Significant Impact

GS general pay schedule

GYE Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

IBA Important Bird Area

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

IWJV Intermountain West Joint Venture

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

msl mean sea level

MTNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOI notice of intent

PL public law

PM particulate matter

refuge Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

sandhills Centennial Sandhills

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. United States

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WCS water control structure

WG wage grade pay schedule 

WMD wetland management district

WPA Works Progress (or Project) Administration

WUI wildland-urban interface

YNP Yellowstone National Park

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

1 Introduction

Sunset over Upper Red Rock Lake.

Michele Hernandez/USFWS

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 Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

(refuge). This refuge is located in the Centennial 

Valley in southwestern Montana in Beaverhead 

County, 47 miles west of West Yellowstone and 38 

miles east of the town of Lima (see figure 1). It is one 

of the most remote refuges in the contiguous United 

States. This CCP is intended as a broad umbrella 

plan that provides general concepts and specific 

wildlife, habitat, visitor services, and partnership 

objectives over the next 15 years. When the plan 

is implemented additional step-down management 

plans will be developed. The purpose of these stepdown management plans is to provide greater detail 

to managers and employees for carrying out specific 

actions and strategies authorized by the CCP. Table 9 

(chapter 4) presents the plans needed for the refuge, 

their status, and the next revision date. This chapter 

provides an introduction to the CCP process and 

describes the involvement of the Service, the state 

of Montana, tribes, the public, and others, as well as 

conservation issues and plans that affect Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

This CCP was developed in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 “National 

Wildlife Refuge System Planning” of “The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described in 

this CCP meet the requirements of the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations that implement 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). Compliance with NEPA was also achieved 

through involvement of the public.

This final CCP specifies the necessary actions to 

achieve the vision and purposes of the refuge. 

Wildlife is the first priority in refuge management, 

and various public uses, including wildlife-dependent 

recreation may be allowed as long as they are 

determined to be compatible with the Service’s 

purposes for the refuge and the mission of the refuge. 

This CCP has been prepared by a planning team 

comprised of refuge staff and representatives from 

various state and Service programs. In addition, the 

planning team used public input, public involvement, 

and the planning process as described in section 1.6, 

“Planning Process.” See appendix A for details about 

the public involvement process.

After reviewing a wide range of public comments 

and management needs, the planning team 

developed alternatives for managing the refuge. 

This was documented in the “Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment—

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.” The 

regional director of region 6 approved alternative 

B as the Service’s preferred alternative for 

management of the refuge. This preferred alternative 

has now become this final CCP. This action addressed 
2 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

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

all substantive issues, while determining how best to 

achieve the purposes of the refuge. 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

The purpose of this final CCP is to identify the role 

that Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge will 

play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System) and to provide longterm guidance for managing refuge programs and 

activities. The CCP is needed to

■ communicate with the public and other partners 

in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge 

System;

■ provide a clear statement of direction for 

managing the refuge;

■ provide neighbors, visitors, and government 

officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the refuge;

■ ensure that the Service’s management 

actions support the goals and intent of the 

Improvement Act;

■ to the extent practicable, ensure refuge plans 

will be consistent with the fish and wildlife 

conservation plans of the state and the 

conservation programs of tribal, public, and 

private partners within the ecosystem;

■ provide a basis for development of budget 

requests for the refuge’s operation, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs.

1.2 EARLY HISTORY OF CONSERVATION

Wildlife conservation in North America evolved to 

take on a form unique to 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-19th 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% to 20%; this 

four-fold increase is the greatest proportional 

increase in urban population that ever occurred 

in America (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, as opposed to market hunters 

who placed value on dead animals they could bring 

to market. The growing legion of sport hunters 

fomented a national movement that resulted in state 

and federal 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). Originating 

in an 1842 Supreme Court decision in the Martin 

v. Waddell case, its origins derive from Greek and 

Roman law and the Magna Carta. Simply stated, 

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 are:

■ wildlife as a public trust resource

■ elimination of markets for game

■ allocation of wildlife by law

■ wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate 

purpose

■ wildlife considered an international resource

■ science as the proper tool to discharge wildlife 

policy

■ democracy of hunting

These pillars have stood the test of time and have 

seen significant changes in approaches to wildlife 

conservation for over 100 years. The original 

conservation movement championed by Theodore 

Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell and others placed 

emphasis on stemming the decline, and programs 

restricting take and protecting lands were put in 

place. During the 1920s, conservationists realized 

that more was needed, and a committee comprised 

of Aldo Leopold, A. Willis Robertson, and other 

leading conservationists of the time authored the 

1930 American Game Policy. This policy called for 

an active program of restoration of habitats and 

populations based on scientific research, and stable 

equitable funding to achieve this. Within a decade, 

landmark legislation fulfilled many of the needs 

identified, with passage of the Duck Stamp Act to 

fund land acquisition for national wildlife refuges, 

and the Pittman–Robertson Wildlife Restoration 

Act that shifted excise taxes imposed on firearms 

and ammunition to fund wildlife restoration through 

cooperation between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and state fish and wildlife agencies. In order 

for states to avail themselves of these funds, they 

were required to pass laws that prevented revenues 

from hunting licenses to be diverted to any purpose 

other than administration of the state fish and 

wildlife agency.

In recent decades, the importance of overall wildlife 

diversity has gained more emphasis in wildlife 

management. All wildlife have benefited from the 

North American Model of Wildlife Conservation 

pillars, not just game animals. However, the vast 

majority of funding for wildlife conservation at 

the federal and state level comes from PittmanRobertson excise taxes, Duck Stamp revenues, and 

hunting license sales. We owe the origins of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System to the hunters 
4 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

who articulated the need and provided the funds 

(Grinnell 1913). The National Wildlife Refuge 

System has evolved along with the North American 

Model of Wildlife Conservation, and today provides 

refuge for virtually all species found in America, 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 our 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.

1.3 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM

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

federal agency responsible for fish, wildlife, and 

plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the 

Service’s major programs. 

U

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 1904, passage of 

the first federal wildlife law, the Lacey Act, that 

prohibited interstate transportation of wildlife 

taken in violation of state laws. Beginning in 1903, 

President Theodore Roosevelt created over fifty 

wildlife refuges across the nation. Over the next 

3 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 America. 

S

Service activities in Montana contribute to the state’s 

economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The 

following list highlights the Service’s presence and 

activities:

■ employed 142 people in Montana

■ 407 volunteers donated more than 21,131 hours 

to Service projects on refuge lands

■ managed two national fish hatcheries, one fish 

and wildlife management assistance office, 

one fish health center, four ecological services 

offices, and one fish technology center

■ managed twenty-three national wildlife refuges 

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

state)

■ managed five wetland management districts 

(districts)

R managed 47,884 acres of fee waterfowl 

production areas

R managed 135,320 acres under various leases 

or easements

■ hosted more than 629,950 annual visitors to 

Service-managed lands

R 112,835 hunting visits

R 71,665 fishing visits

R 419,062 wildlife observation visits

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

participated in environmental education 

programs

■ provided $6.9 million to Montana Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks (MFWP) for sport fish restoration 

and $6.3 million for wildlife restoration and 

hunter education (generated through taxing 

hunting and fishing equipment)

■ since 1988, the Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program has helped private 

landowners restore more than 27,402 wetland 

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

sites; and 1,138 miles of river habitat

■ paid Montana counties $315,271 under the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (money used for 

any public purpose)
Chapter 1 — Introduction 5

N

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 

Refuge System. 

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands and waters 

in the world specifically managed for wildlife, 

encompassing over 150 million acres within 550 

refuges and over 3,000 waterfowl production areas 

for waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, there is 

at least one refuge in every state and in each of the 

Pacific and Caribbean territories.

The Improvement Act of 1997 established a clear 

mission for the Refuge System. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is to administer a national network 

of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration 

of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

The Improvement Act states that each national 

wildlife refuge (that is, each unit of the Refuge 

System, which includes wetland management 

districts) shall be managed to

■ fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;

■ fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge and 

district;

■ consider the needs of fish and wildlife 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, wildlife photography, and 

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 U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service immediately began to carry 

out the direction of the new legislation, including 

preparation of CCPs for all national wildlife refuges 

and wetland management districts. Consistent with 

the Improvement Act, the Service prepares all CCPs 

in conjunction with public involvement. Each refuge 

and each district is required to complete its CCP 

within the 15-year schedule (by 2012).

PeoPLe and the reFuGe systeM

The nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part 

of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places 

have always given people special opportunities to 

have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world. 

Whether through bird watching, fishing, hunting, 

photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife 

recreation contributes millions of dollars to local 

economies. In particular, money generated from 

the taxing of sporting arms and ammunition, and 

of fishing equipment, authorized by the Pittman–

Robertson and Dingell–Johnson Acts, respectively, 

have generated tens of millions of dollars. This 

money, distributed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, has been used by states to increase wildlife 

and fish populations, expand habitat, and train 

hunters across the nation. Approximately 37 million 

people visited the Refuge System in 2004, mostly to 

observe wildlife in their natural habitats. Visitors 

are most often accommodated through nature trails, 

auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and 

fishing opportunities. Significant economic benefits 

are being generated to the local communities that 

surround refuges and wetland management districts. 

Economists report that Refuge System visitors 

contribute more than $1.4 billion annually to local 

economies. 

1.4 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL 

MANDATES 

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, along with the designated purpose of each 

refuge and district (as described in establishing 

legislation, executive orders, or other establishing 

documents). The key concepts and guidance of the 

Refuge System are contained in the Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), 

Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

“The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and the 

Improvement Act. 
6 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

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 ensure that the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands 

are maintained. Each refuge and district must be 

managed to fulfill the Refuge System’s mission and 

the specific purposes for which it was established. 

The Improvement Act requires the Service to 

monitor the status and population of fish, wildlife, 

and plants in each refuge and district. 

A detailed description of these and other laws and 

executive orders that may affect the CCP or the 

Service’s implementation of the CCP is found in 

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

“Refuge System Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual.”

1.5 REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANS

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

contributes to the conservation efforts outlined in the 

various state and national plans described here.

FuLFiLLinG the ProMise

A 1999 report, “Fulfilling the Promise, The National 

Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999b), is 

the culmination of a yearlong process by teams 

of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge 

System nationwide. This report was the focus of 

the first national Refuge System conference (in 

1998)—attended by refuge managers, other Service 

employees, and representatives from leading 

conservation organizations. 

The report contains forty-two recommendations 

packaged with three vision statements dealing with 

wildlife and habitat, people, and leadership. This 

CCP deals with all three of these major topics. The 

planning team reviewed the recommendations in the 

document for guidance during CCP planning. 

PaCiFiC FLyWay ManaGeMent PLan 

For the roCky Mountain PoPuLation 

oF truMPeter sWans

The “Pacific Flyway Plan for the Rocky Mountain 

Population of Trumpeter Swans” (Subcommittee on 

Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans 

2008) provides broad direction to the states, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other interests 

engaged in cooperative management of this 

population. The document was developed by The 

Pacific Flyway Council's Subcommittee on Rocky 

Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans. The plan 

has been periodically updated to address evolving 

management challenges and to incorporate new 

information. The Pacific Flyway Council approved 

the most recent revision in 2008. The 2008 plan 

included six objectives to (1) redistribute wintering 

swans, (2) rebuild the United States breeding flocks, 

(3) encourage the growth of Canadian flocks, 

(4) increase the abundance of desirable submersed 

macrophytes in Henry’s Fork of the Snake River, 

(5) monitor the population, and (6) maintain the 

tundra swan hunt in the Pacific Flyway in a manner 

compatible with trumpeter swan restoration. The 

plan assigns specific tasks and time frames to carry 

out the strategies listed. Population objectives 

specific to the Centennial Valley, including the refuge, 

are provided in this CCP as part of the objective to 

rebuild the United States’ breeding flocks. In the 

past the refuge has used, and will continue to use, 

the “Pacific Flyway Plan for the Rocky Mountain 

Population of Trumpeter Swans” to determine refuge 

management objectives for trumpeter swans. 

Partners in FLiGht

The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 

with the recognition of declining populations of 

many migratory bird species (Rich et al. 2004). The 

challenge is, according to the program, maintaining 

functional natural ecosystems in the face of human 

population growth. To meet this challenge, Partners 

in Flight worked to identify priority land bird species 

and habitat types. Partners in Flight activity has 

resulted in fifty-two bird conservation plans covering 

the contiguous United States.

The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide 

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

The first priority is to prevent the rarest species 

from going extinct. The second priority is to prevent 

uncommon species from descending into threatened 

status. The third priority is to “keep common birds 

common.” 

There are fifty-eight physiographic areas, defined 

by similar physical geographic features, wholly or 

partially contained within the continental United 

States, and several others wholly or partially in 

Alaska. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

lies within the physiographic area known as the 

central Rocky Mountains (see figure 2). It is a huge 

physiographic area, extending from northwest 

Wyoming 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 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 7

subalpine zone is dominated by Engelmann spruce 

and subalpine fir, with ponderosa pine and Douglasfir in the montane zone below that. Stand-replacing 

fire can change forests in either of those zones to 

lodgepole pine or aspen. Grass and sagebrush occur 

under open pine forests that grade downslope into 

grasslands, wetlands, woodlands, or shrub-steppe.

Approximately twenty-eight 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. 

Fire in higher elevation coniferous forests of the 

central Rocky Mountains tends to be of high intensity 

and low frequency. After such stand-replacing fires, 

either aspen or lodgepole pine occupy a site until a 

century or more of succession results in redominance 

of the site-specific hemlock, spruce, or fir species. 

Many birds are dependent on these different stages 

of succession—both black-backed and three-toed 

woodpeckers specialize in foraging on charred 

postfire trees. Dusky grouse and Williamson’s 

sapsucker are among those species most abundant in 

aspen.

A huge percentage of the central Rockies in the 

United States are in public ownership, mostly 

managed by the Forest Service. Maintenance 

or restoration of healthy forest ecosystems on 

public and private industrial lands will be the most 

important factor in keeping the central Rocky 

Mountains a healthy ecosystem for so many forest 

birds. 

The priority bird species and habitats of the central 

Rocky Mountains found on the refuge include the 

following:

Shrub-steppe

greater sage-grouse

Wetland

American white pelican

trumpeter swan

Barrow’s goldeneye

Franklin’s gull

Riparian

calliope hummingbird

Coniferous forest

Dusky grouse

black-backed woodpecker

Aspen

Williamson’s sapsucker

red-naped sapsucker

Figure 2. Physiographic area map of the United States. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge lies within 

 physiographic region 64.

 (Source: Partners in Flight)
8 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

N

Originally written in 1985, the “North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan” (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986)

envisioned a 15-year effort to achieve landscape 

conditions that could sustain waterfowl populations. 

Specific plan objectives are to increase and restore 

duck populations to the average levels of the 

1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a fall flight of 

100 million birds. 

By 1985 waterfowl populations had plummeted 

to record lows. Habitat that waterfowl depend on 

was disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. 

Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and 

wetlands to North Americans and the need for 

international cooperation to help in the recovery of 

a shared resource, the United States and Canadian 

governments developed a strategy to restore 

waterfowl populations through habitat protection, 

restoration, and enhancement. Mexico became a 

signatory to the plan in 1994. 

The plan is innovative because of its international 

scope and its implementation at the regional level. 

Its success depends on the strength of partnerships 

called “joint ventures,” involving federal, state, 

provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; 

conservation organizations; and individual citizens. 

Joint ventures are regional self-directed partnerships 

that carry out science-based conservation through 

a wide array of community participation. Joint 

ventures develop implementation plans that focus 

on areas of concern identified in the plan. Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge lies within the 

Intermountain West Joint Venture.

I

The Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) 

was established in June of 1994 to serve as the 

implementation arm of the “North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan” (Intermountain West 

Joint Venture 2005b) in the Intermountain West 

region. The focus of the IWJV was conservation 

of wetland and associated habitats. The IWJV is 

comprised of multi-level partnerships between 

diverse public and private organizations who share 

common interest 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 Sierras 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” 

(Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005a). This 

team divided the state of Montana into Bird 

Habitat Conservation Areas to be used for all bird 

conservation projects over the next 5 to 7 years. Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is located in the 

Centennial/Beaverhead Bird Habitat Conservation 

Area and has almost all of the habitat types and 

species identified as priorities for this region. 

The plan identifies this refuge as the single most 

important nesting area for trumpeter swans within 

the Intermountain West region. 

The refuge will continue to work closely with the 

IWJV to support ongoing planning efforts and meet 

their objectives, by protecting high priority habitats 

and the species they support. 

I

The “Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan” 

(Oring et al. 2000) was released in 2000. The plan 

notes that perhaps one million shorebirds breed in 

the Intermountain West region and that millions 

more migrate through the area each year. The 

plan recognizes that finding ample high-quality 

fresh water will be the greatest challenge faced 

by shorebirds in the Intermountain West region. 

The shorebird plan articulates seven goals plus 

associated objectives and strategies related to 

habitat management, monitoring and assessment, 

research, outreach, and planning. The planning 

goal includes objectives to coordinate shorebird 

planning and projects with other migratory bird 

initiatives and specifically with the Intermountain 

West Joint Venture. The shorebird plan identifies 

eleven species of shorebirds that regularly breed in 

the region, as well as twenty-three additional species 

that are annual migrants. Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge is recognized in the plan as one of the 

seventy-nine managed shorebird sites.

N

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

marsh birds, such as certain grebes and bitterns. 

The overall goal of the plan is to ensure that the 

distribution, diversity and abundance of populations, 

habitats (breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding), 

and important sites of waterbirds are sustained or 

restored throughout their ranges in North America. 

The geographic scope of the plan covers twentyeight countries, from Canada to Panama, as well as 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 9

islands and nearshore areas of the Atlantic, Pacific, 

Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. As with the 

Intermountain West Joint Venture and Partners in 

Flight, this waterbird partnership includes federal, 

state, and provincial wildlife agencies, individuals, 

and nonprofit conservation organizations. Also, as 

with Partners in Flight and other migratory bird 

plans, the “North American Waterbird Conservation 

Plan” includes a goal to establish conservation action, 

and exchange information and expertise with other 

bird conservation initiatives. The plan also calls for 

establishment of Practical Units for Planning for 

terrestrial habitats; Western Montana, including Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, falls within 

the Intermountain West Region Practical Units for 

Planning.

R

When federally listed threatened or endangered 

species occur at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, management goals and strategies in their 

respective recovery plans will be followed. Currently 

no threatened or endangered species reside on the 

refuge; nevertheless, this may change as species are 

listed, or as listed species are discovered on refuge 

lands. The refuge may have incidental visits by 

various listed species. To ensure the impacts to any 

of these species were considered in this document, 

the Service conducted a biological evaluation of the 

actions in this CCP per section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (see appendix C).

S

“The Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy” (MFWP 2005) covers all 

vertebrate species known to exist in Montana, 

including both game and nongame species, as well 

as some invertebrate species, such as freshwater 

mussels and crayfish. From the early years of fish 

and wildlife management, the focus has been placed 

on game animals and their related habitats because 

most of the agency’s funding has been provided by 

hunters and anglers.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks does not intend 

to reduce its focus on important game species 

and maintains that conserving particular types of 

habitats will benefit a variety of game and nongame 

species. With this new funding mechanism and 

conservation strategy in place, MFWP believes that 

managing fish and wildlife more comprehensively is 

a natural progression in the effective conservation 

of Montana’s remarkable fish and wildlife resources 

(MFWP 2005). Although game species are included 

in MFWP’s conservation strategy, the priority 

is species and their related habitats “in greatest 

conservation need.” This means focus areas, 

community types, and species that are significantly 

degraded or declining, are federally listed, or where 

important distribution and occurrence information 

used to assess the status of individuals and groups 

of species are lacking. Because management of game 

species has been largely successful over the last 

100 years, most game species have populations that 

are stable or increasing, and fewer are identified 

as “in greatest conservation need” (forty-nine 

nongame, eleven game). MFWP’s conservation 

strategy uses five ecotypes to describe the broad 

areas of Montana’s landscape that have similar 

characteristics. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge is located in the intermountain/foothill 

grassland ecotype, a mosaic of private and public 

land that extends from the glaciated Flathead River 

Valley to the north, south to Centennial Valley, and 

east to Little Belt Foothills. This western Montana 

ecotype harbors more wildlife communities than any 

other in Montana.

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

conservation) geographic focus areas were identified 

for all terrestrial and aquatic areas of the state. 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is located 

within the Southwest Montana Intermontane Basin 

and Valley focus area. The Tier 1 priority species 

for this area include the western toad, common loon, 

trumpeter swan, bald eagle, greater sage-grouse, 

long-billed curlew, flammulated owl, Townsend’s bigeared bat, pygmy rabbit, great basin pocket mouse, 

gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Canada lynx. 

The “Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy” outlines five conservation 

concerns and strategies for the Southwest Montana 

Intermontane Basin and Valley Focus Area. The key 

concerns are:

■ habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity 

as a result of human population growth and 

development

■ invasive or exotic plant species

■ altered fire system

■ range or forest management practices

■ streamside residential development

Fisheries ProGraM, Vision For the Future

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

Service has played a vital role in conserving and 

managing fish and other aquatic resources since 

1871. Today, the Fisheries Program is a critical 

partner with states, tribes, other governments, 

other Service programs, private organizations, 

public institutions, and interested citizens in a larger 

effort to conserve these important resources. The 

nation’s fish and other aquatic resources are among 

the richest and most diverse in the world. These 

resources have helped support the nation’s growth by 

providing enormous ecological, social, and economic 

benefits. Despite efforts by the Service and others 
10 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

to conserve aquatic resources, a growing number 

are declining at alarming rates. Loss of habitat and 

invasive species are the two most significant threats 

to the diversity of aquatic systems. One-third of 

the nation’s freshwater fish species are threatened 

or endangered, 72% of freshwater mussels are 

imperiled, and the number of threatened and 

endangered species has tripled in the last 20 years. 

Clearly, there is increasing urgency to identify and 

carry out actions that will reverse these alarming 

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

In order to better conserve and manage fish and 

other aquatic resources in the face of increasing 

threats, the Service worked with partners to refocus 

its Fisheries Program and develop a vision outlined 

in the document, “Fisheries Program, Vision for the 

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

and its Fisheries Program is working with partners 

to restore and maintain fish and other aquatic 

resources at self-sustaining levels and to support 

federal mitigation programs for the benefit of the 

American public. To achieve this vision, the Fisheries 

Program will work with its partners to

■ protect the health of aquatic habitats,

■ restore fish and other aquatic resources, 

■ provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of 

healthy aquatic resources.

One of the objectives in this document states:

Objective 2.2: Restore declining fish and 

other aquatic resource populations before 

they require listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. The Fisheries Program will 

increase its support and assistance in 

stopping and reversing declines of native 

fish and other aquatic resources, including 

restoring fish passage and rebuilding 

populations.

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge has one 

of the only endemic adfluvial populations of Arctic 

grayling in the contiguous United States, along with 

a native population of Westslope cutthroat trout. 

An endemic population is native to the region and 

its distribution is relatively limited to a particular 

locality. This population of Arctic grayling are lakedwelling for most of the year, but use rivers and 

streams to spawn. Both of these populations are 

imperiled due to a significant loss of habitat, disease, 

and impacts from other nonnative fish species. In 

order to achieve this objective of restoring declining 

fish populations, the refuge will need to take 

management actions to enhance these species and 

their habitats, while ensuring that the purposes of 

the refuge are being met.

1.6 ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS AND 

THREATS

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is located 

within the Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper 

Columbia Rivers Ecosystem. This ecosystem 

lies within the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains 

physiographic provinces and includes a large part 

of Montana, northern Wyoming, and a small section 

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

the wildest and most unpopulated country in the 

contiguous United States occurs within this 185,000 

square mile area, including such significant protected 

areas as Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks, 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Bob 

Marshall Wilderness, and the Upper Missouri River 

Breaks National Monument. Wildlife in these areas is 

abundant and diverse. 

Threatened and endangered species are actively 

protected and managed within various areas of this 

ecosystem; those species include grizzly bear, gray 

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

piping plover, least tern, and water howellia. Some 

of these species, such as the grizzly bear and gray 

wolf, are only listed in certain areas. Both the gray 

wolf and grizzly bear have been observed on the 

refuge. Sitting astride the Continental Divide, the 

ecosystem gives rise to the Columbia and Missouri 

rivers. Three main habitat groups are predominant 

throughout the ecosystem: (1) mountain habitat, 

(2) river habitat, and (3) prairie habitat. Mountain 

habitat groups contain a number of habitat types. 

Arid lands in the valleys have mixed wheatgrass and 

fescue grasslands along with considerable acreage 

of sagebrush stands. Surrounding mountains are 

of moderate elevation and are cloaked with conifer 

forests. The highest elevations have Douglas-fir or 

spruce-fir forests or alpine vegetation. Gray wolves, 

grizzly bears, wolverines, and various species of trout 

occur in these habitat groups. River habitat groups 

are comprised of a mix of native prairie grass and 

sagebrush-steppe. Cottonwood- and shrub-dominated 

communities are also common. Many of the same 

animals that are present in the mountain habitat are 

present in the river habitat. Prairie habitat groups 

include woodlands and grass- or sage-dominated 

areas where adequate moisture for a forest canopy 

is not available. Higher elevations host subalpine 

communities and rock outcrops. Prairie grasslands 

or shrub-steppe dominate at lower elevations, with 

riparian areas along watercourses. Black-tailed 

prairie dogs, bald eagles, ferruginous hawks, and a 

diverse group of fish can be found in this habitat.

Key threats to the ecosystem include invasive plant 

species, conversion of native prairie to agriculture, 

and habitat fragmentation from development and 

population growth. Priorities for the Upper Missouri, 

Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia Rivers Ecosystem 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 11

Figure 3. Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia rivers ecosystem map.
12 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

include ensuring natural and healthy ecological 

processes for the area, and making sure that 

economic development complements environmental 

protection.

T

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is also part 

of an area designated as the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem (GYE), an area roughly the size of West 

Virginia which straddles the states of Montana, 

Wyoming, and Idaho. 

Within the GYE, the headwaters of three major 

river systems—the Yellowstone, the Snake, and the 

Green—support a renowned trout fishery and are the 

lifeblood of agriculture, towns, and cities. 

The 18 million acre GYE is one of the largest, 

relatively intact temperate zone ecosystems left on 

earth. This area includes Yellowstone and Grand 

Teton national parks, portions of seven surrounding 

national forests, Bureau of Land Management lands, 

three national wildlife refuges, and state and private 

lands. Vast, roadless landscapes continue to be the 

hallmark of the GYE, the source of its attraction as 

well as its ecological health. They include designated 

wilderness areas within the region's seven national 

forests, Red Rock Lakes National Wilderness, 

undeveloped portions of two national parks, and 

also the surrounding lands managed by a number of 

federal and state agencies which have, as yet, neither 

roads nor legal restrictions on road-building.

In the GYE’s natural tapestry, wildlife is a 

spectacular element, attracting worldwide interest 

and awe. The ecosystem is home to one of the largest 

herds of elk in North America, and is one of the few 

remaining areas in the contiguous United States 

where the magnificent grizzly bear still roams in 

significant numbers. The 

GYE serves as breeding 

and wintering ground for 

trumpeter swans, and is 

home to the largest freeranging herd of bison in the 

contiguous United States. 

The GYE’s relatively 

intact natural landscape 

appears to retain its full 

complement of vertebrate 

wildlife. Mountain lion and 

wolverine still roam its 

mountains, bighorn sheep 

scramble among its cliffs, 

moose browse its willows, 

and eagles grace the open 

sky (Greater Yellowstone 

Coalition 2006). 

Residential development is 

the greatest threat to this 

ecosystem—threatening 

ranching, destroying wildlife habitat, disrupting 

wildlife migrations, and compromising natural 

processes such as fire. 

1.7 PLANNING PROCESS

This final CCP for the refuge follows the 

Improvement Act and NEPA, and the implementing 

regulations of both acts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service issued its Refuge System planning policy 

in 2000. This policy established requirements and 

guidance for refuge and district plans—including 

CCPs and step-down management plans—to ensure 

that planning efforts follow the Improvement Act. 

The planning policy identified several steps of the 

CCP and environmental analysis process (see figure 

4), which begins with preplanning.

Table 1 lists the specific steps in the planning process 

for the preparation of this final CCP. The Service 

began the pre-planning process in August 2005 

with the establishment of a planning team. The 

planning team is comprised primarily of Service 

personnel from the refuge and representatives from 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Some additional 

contributors included other Service divisions, U.S. 

Geological Service, Montana State University, and 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (see appendix 

D). During pre-planning, the team developed a 

mailing list, internal issues, and a special qualities 

list. Over the course of pre-planning and public 

scoping, the planning team collected available 

information about the resources of the refuge and 

the surrounding areas. This information was first 

summarized in chapter 4 of the draft environmental 

assessment (EA). This information has been retained 

in this final CCP in chapter 3. During preplanning, 

the refuge hosted three separate biological 

workshops inviting eighteen individuals from various 

Figure 4. CCP and environmental analysis process steps.

1. PREPLANNING:

 Plan the Plan 2. INITIATE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

 AND SCOPING

 —Involve the public

8. REVIEW AND REVISE PLAN

 —Public involvement 

 when applicable

6. PREPARE AND ADOPT

 FINAL PLAN

 —Respond to public comment

 —Select preferred alternative 5. PREPARE DRAFT 

 PLAN AND NEPA 

 DOCUMENT

 —Public comment 

 and review

3. DRAFT VISION

 STATEMENT AND GOALS

 AND DETERMINE 

 SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

4. DEVELOP AND ANALYZE

 ALTERNATIVES

 —Create a reasonable range

 of alternatives including a

 no-action alternative

The

Comprehensive

Conservation

Planning Process and

NEPA Compliance

7. IMPLEMENT PLAN, 

 MONITOR, AND EVALUATE

 —Public involvement

 when applicable
Chapter 1 — Introduction 13

Table 1. Planning process summary for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

Date Event Outcome

August 16, 2005 Kickoff meeting CCP overview developed, planning team list 

developed, purposes identified, initial issues 

and qualities list developed, development of 

mailing list started.

September 20, 2005 Visitor services review Visitor services programs and facilities 

evaluated by education and visitor services 

staff. 

February 21, 2006 Biological review Gathered information from a team of 

researchers and biologists on the natural 

processes that formed and continue to influence 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

May 17, 2006 Biological review Worked with contracted U.S. Geological 

Survey researcher to evaluate current 

biological programs and needs.

June 12, 2006 Notice of intent Published notice of intent in Federal Register

to start public scoping.

August 1, 2006 Planning update First planning update sent to mailing list 

describing planning process and announcing 

upcoming public scoping meetings.

August 15, 2006 Public scoping meeting, 

Ennis, MT

Offered public opportunity to learn about the 

CCP and provide comments.

August 15, 2006 Vision and goals workshop Developed draft vision and goals statements.

August 16, 2006 Public scoping meeting, 

Dillon, MT

Offered public opportunity to learn about the 

CCP and provide comments.

September 9, 2006 Public scoping meeting,

Lima, MT

Offered public opportunity to learn about the 

CCP and provide comments.

September 11, 2006 Biological review Panel of biologists and researchers gathered 

to review and evaluate biological program and 

issues.

January 5, 2007 Focus group meeting 

(realty issues)

Staff and realty specialists discussed boundary 

and conservation easement program issues.

January 10, 2007 Alternatives netmeeting 

workshop

Developed draft alternatives table.

February 12, 2007 Objectives and strategies 

workshop

Finalized alternatives table, selected proposed 

action, and began writing objectives/strategies.

April 2007 Draft CCP Began writing draft CCP/EA.

July 11–25, 2008 Internal review of draft CCP Draft CCP is reviewed by Service, state, and 

other federal partners.

September 26, 2008 NOA of public draft CCP Notified the public that the CCP/EA was 

available for a 30-day review. 

October 8, 2008 Public meeting in Lima, Montana Offered public opportunity to learn about the 

draft CCP and provide comments.

October 9, 2008 Public meeting in Dillon, 

Montana

Offered public opportunity to learn about the 

draft CCP and provide comments.
14 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Table 1. Planning process summary for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

Date Event Outcome 

October 20, 2008 Extended comment period Provided the public an additional 30 days in 

which to comment on the draft CCP.

November 26, 2008 Comment period ends Public comments must be emailed or 

postmarked by this date.

January 8–9, 2009 Planning team meeting Based on substantive public and internal 

review comments, discussed needed revisions.

February 3, 2009 Meeting with refuge supervisor Discussed public comments.

March 2009 Final CCP prepared Prepared final CCP and made necessary 

revisions based on substantive public 

comments.

June 15, 2009 FONSI signed Regional Director approved alternative B as 

the proposed action and signed the Finding of 

No Significant Impact.

December 2009 Final CCP completed Finished editing final CCP for printing.

state and federal agencies who are experts in their 

fields. These groups discussed the challenges and 

opportunities identified by the refuge staff and the 

public and shared their expertise on options for 

managing the refuge in the future. A visitor services 

review was also conducted. 

In compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act, the general public is consulted through the 

scoping process, including public meetings and 

solicitation of comments. This provides opportunities 

for the public to share concerns and issues they 

would like addressed, while providing their ideas on 

how to best manage the refuge. 

Coordination With the PubLiC

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

and EA was published in the Federal Register on 

June 12, 2006. A mailing list of more than 250 names 

including private citizens; local, regional, and state 

government representatives and legislators; other 

federal agencies; and interested organizations was 

prepared during pre-planning (see appendix A). 

The first planning update issue was sent in July 

2006 to everyone on the mailing list. Information 

was provided on the history of the refuge and the 

CCP process, along with an invitation to the public 

scoping meetings. Public scoping meetings were 

also announced through state and local media. Each 

planning update included a comment form to give the 

public an opportunity to provide written comments. 

Emails were also accepted at the refuge’s email 

address: redrocks@fws.gov.

Three public scoping meetings were held within 

2 hours distance of the refuge office. There were 

thirty-three attendees, primarily local citizens, 

including surrounding ranchers. Following a 

presentation about the refuge and an overview of 

the CCP and NEPA processes, attendees were 

encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. 

Verbal comments were recorded, and each attendee 

was given a comment form to submit additional 

thoughts or questions in writing. 

All written comments had to be postmarked by 

September 15, 2006. A total of fifty-five additional 

written comments were received throughout the 

scoping process. All substantive comments were 

shared with the planning team and considered 

throughout the planning process.

The draft CCP and EA was released to the public on 

September 26, 2008 through a notice of availability 

published in the Federal Register. Copies of either 

the draft CCP and EA and/or a planning update 

were mailed to individuals on the planning mailing 

list. Initially the public was offered a 30-day review 

period. Numerous requests from the public and state 

representatives resulted in an additional 30 days 

being granted, for a total of 60 days for public review. 

Two public meetings were held on October 8 in Lima, 

Montana and on October 9 in Dillon, Montana. These 

meetings were announced in the planning update and 

through the local and statewide media. Over thirty 

individuals participated in these meetings. A short 

presentation was given on the draft plan, followed by 

an opportunity for participants to offer comments. 

All comments needed to be received or postmarked 

by November 26, 2008.

In addition to oral and written comments received 

during these public meetings, the planning team 

received over 100 additional written comments 

during the public review process. The planning 

team reviewed all comments both individually 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 15

and as a team. Numerous modifications, including 

clarifications, were made to this final document 

based on the public review. Responses to substantive 

comments are summarized in appendix A.

S

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

Fish and Wildlife Service’s region 6 director sent 

a letter to MFWP, inviting them to participate in 

the planning process. Since then, numerous state 

biologists have been involved in the planning process 

and have also participated in biological reviews of 

the refuge’s management program. At the start of 

the process, the offices of each of the three state 

members of Congress (then Senator Conrad Burns, 

Senator Max Baucus, and Representative Dennis 

Rehburg) were sent letters notifying them of the 

planning process and inviting them to comment on 

the plan. Four other Montana state senators and 

representatives and Governor Brian Schweitzer 

were sent similar letters. The state was provided 

copies of both the internal and public review drafts. 

Based on state comments, various changes were 

made to the final CCP. 

T

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

Wildlife Service’s region 6 director sent a letter 

to tribes identified as possibly having interest in 

participating in the planning efforts at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Those contacted 

were the Northern Cheyenne, Crow, Eastern 

Shoshone, and Arapaho tribal councils. The tribal 

councils did not submit responses to the region 6 

letter; nevertheless, the councils were provided 

planning updates and opportunities to comment. 

During public review of the draft CCP, we received 

a comment that several other tribes may have 

historically used the Centennial Valley and the 

refuge at one time. These tribes included the Nez 

Pierce, Confederated Salish and Kootenai, ShoshoneBannock, and the Blackfeet Nation. We provided 

each a copy of the public draft and offered 30 days in 

which to comment on the document. No comments 

were received.

PLan aMendMent and FinaL deCision

An intra-Service Section 7 evaluation was completed 

on the document by the Service’s Ecological 

Services office to evaluate impacts to threatened 

and endangered species (See appendix C). The 

Service’s region 6 regional director considered 

the environmental effects of each alternative and 

the public comments on the draft document and 

approved alternative B as Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge’s final 15-year comprehensive 

conservation plan. The decision is disclosed in a 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI) included in 

this CCP (appendix E). Implementation of the CCP 

will begin with the regional director’s signature and 

publication of the final CCP. The final compatibility 

determinations are found in this document under 

appendix F. This CCP provides long-term guidance 

for management decisions. It establishes goals, 

objectives, and strategies (chapter 4) needed to 

accomplish refuge purposes, and identifies the 

Service’s best estimate of future needs. 

This CCP details program planning levels that 

are sometimes substantially above current budget 

allocations and thus are primarily for Service 

strategic planning purposes. This CCP does not 

constitute a commitment for staffing increases, 

operation and maintenance increases, or funding for 

future land acquisitions.

2 The Refuge

Grass and sage habitats looking east into the Centennial Mountains.

Mike Parker/USFWS

This chapter explains the purposes, establishment, 

management history and the special values of Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the planning 

process, including the development of the vision and 

goals, and the planning issues.

2.1 ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION, 

AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY

It is impossible to speak of Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge history without first addressing 

the history of the Centennial Valley where the 

refuge lies, and the role the refuge has played in the 

recovery and continued conservation of trumpeter 

swans, other waterfowl, and one of the last remaining 

endemic population of adfluvial Arctic grayling in the 

contiguous United States.

The Centennial Valley was well known by American 

Indians long before the homestead era, as evidenced 

from the journal writing of explorer Osborne Russell. 

Upon entering the Centennial Valley in 1835, Russell 

wrote that the valley from which “flows the head 

stream of the Missouri ... was full of Buffaloe when 

we entered it and large numbers of which were killed 

by hunters ...We repeatedly saw signs of Blackfeet 

about us to waylay the Trappers ...We stopped 

at this place to feast on fat Buffaloe” (Russell and 

Haines 1965). 

The Centennial Valley provided good seasonal 

trapping and hunting grounds and was a favored 

route between the headwaters of the upper Big Hole 

River and the Yellowstone River. 

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

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

east-west running valley—the Centennial Valley—to 

commemorate the nation’s Centennial. Along with 

other ranches, the P&O Ranch summered livestock 

in the valley. In the late 1890s, the Centennial Valley 

was homesteaded. In addition, the valley and in 

particular this area that was to become a national 

wildlife refuge, was used by hunting clubs, with 

people traveling long distances to hunt waterfowl 

in the area (Beaverhead County History Book 

Association 1990).

The long winters and great distances to market made 

subsistence difficult at best, with few homesteaders 

remaining after the Great Depression. Many 

sold their land back to the Federal Resettlement 

Administration during the 1930s.

T

Winston E. Banko was refuge manager of Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge from 1950–57. Much 

of the following history is from his 1960 Monograph 

“The Trumpeter Swan; Its History, Habits and 

Population in the United States” (Banko 1960). 
18 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Like so many other species of wildlife in North 

American history, the trumpeter swan was exploited 

for economic reasons. This fact, perhaps more than 

any other, caused a decline in numbers and range of 

this species. By early accounts, the trumpeter was 

relatively abundant in North America but declined 

by the late 1800s because the plumage of these great 

birds was valued by early colonists as an article of 

frontier commerce. Their skins were used for the 

manufacture of powder puffs and clothing adornment 

with most of the early market in Europe. The quill 

feathers made for excellent pens.

During the late 1820s the traffic in swan skins 

apparently increased. C.P. Wilson, editor of the 

Hudson’s Bay Company publication, “The Beaver,” 

furnished notes regarding the Company’s trade in 

swan skins. He wrote, “In regard to the old sale lists 

... 5,072 skins were sold in London on 16th April, 

1828, and on the following 10th December 347,298 

goose, swan and eagle quills and wings were sold. On 

the 29th October that year the Company imported 

4,263 swan skins from York Factory and Mckenzie 

River Districts” (Banko 1960). 

In 1828, John James Audubon set down a significant 

account of an Indian swan hunt. These notes record 

“the taking of swans specifically for their plumage 

in the United States proper.” Audubon’s account 

describes the deliberate killing of at least fifty swans 

by Indians near the confluence of the Mississippi and 

Ohio rivers (in Kentucky), the skins of which were 

“all intended for the ladies of Europe” (Banko 1960).

Although the original status of early swan 

populations inhabiting the Centennial is obscure, 

their occurrence can be traced from early times. 

From the 1880s to 1910, the early existence of 

these birds in the area is outlined. This also agrees 

with information collected by George Wright and 

Ben H. Thompson, though the actual level of these 

populations was never recorded (Banko 1960).

Exploitation of swans continued in the Red Rock 

Lake area right up until establishment of the refuge. 

Some duck clubs in the area of today’s refuge were 

shooting the birds when opportunity presented itself. 

The Wetmores and the Hansons, local residents, 

were selling live captured birds for as much as $50 

apiece to zoos, parks, aviary owners, and wealthy 

buyers until at least 1919 (Giles et al. 2006). 

 The plight of the trumpeter swan was a symptom 

of the widespread assault on wetlands and the 

overharvesting of waterfowl, all of which was 

compounded by the drought of the early 1930s, 

classically known as the Dust Bowl era. 

Conservation-minded citizens wanted the 

government to save waterfowl and their habitat. 

Conservation giants Aldo Leopold and Ding Darling 

emerged to persuade the government that there 

was a problem, and to present a plan for acquiring 

wetland habitat. As newly appointed head of the 

Biological Survey, Darling hired J. Clark Salyer as 

the new chief of refuges, to select lands where new 

refuges could be established and wetlands could be 

restored to bring waterfowl back from the brink 

of extinction. The Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act, key legislation providing 

funding for federal acquisition of waterfowl habitat 

through the sale of the Federal Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp, was passed in 

1934 (Banko 1960).

In 1934 George Wright, Roger Toll, and Ben H. 

Thompson, all employees of Yellowstone National 

Park (YNP), were concerned about the plight of the 

trumpeter swan. The Red Rock Lake area was their 

last stronghold near YNP and for that matter in the 

contiguous United States. The U.S. Biological Survey 

had considered the area for refuge status in the early 

1920s, recognizing the value of the area to waterfowl 

(Sperry 1922). However, local duck clubs persuaded 

decision-makers not to proceed. George Wright and 

Ben Thompson persuaded Ding Darling to reconsider 

the Red Rock Lakes area in 1934. In 1935 Mr. Basyl 

Kercheval, of the U.S. Biological Survey, wrote a 

report and indicated that, “The economic situation is 

grave. A large part of the land is mortgaged. Taxes 

are delinquent in many cases. Livestock in very (sic) 

instance is mortgaged to various agencies for feed. It 

is conceded by every one that the Red Rock Lakes 

area has been the foremost breeding, nesting and 

resting place for migratory waterfowl with the state 

of Montana” (Kercheval 1935).

All of these efforts led to President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt establishing Red Rock Lakes Migratory 

Waterfowl Refuge (later named Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge on July 19, 1961) under 

Executive Order 7023, signed on April 22, 1935, “as 

a refuge and breeding ground for wild birds and 

animals.” On September 4, 1935, President Roosevelt 

enlarged the refuge under Executive Order 7172, 

“provided, that any private lands within the areas 

described shall become a part of the refuge upon the 

acquisition of title or lease thereto by the United 

States.”

Although trumpeter swans and other waterfowl 

populations have rebounded considerably from 

the time the refuge was established, the Service 

recognizes its continued role in conserving these 

populations. The refuge continues to provide critical 

nesting, breeding, and resting areas for migratory 

birds. Additionally, the refuge recognizes its role 

in meeting regional, national, and international 

migratory bird conservation objectives by 

participating in such collaborative efforts as the 

“North American Waterfowl Management Plan” 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife 

Service 1986) and the “Pacific Flyway Management 

Plan for the Rocky Mountain Population of 

Trumpeter Swans” (Subcommittee on Rocky 

Mountain Populations of Trumpeter Swans 2008).
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 19

A

The richness of the refuge’s wetlands, lakes, and 

streams were and continue to be of great value to 

a diverse suite of wildlife species including native 

Westslope cutthroat trout and one of the last known 

endemic populations of adfluvial Arctic grayling in 

the contiguous United States. 

Endemic adfluvial Arctic grayling.

McLaury/USFWS

This endemic Arctic grayling population has long 

been recognized by the Service as an important 

priority species on the refuge. A letter dated July 15, 

1941 from the Service states, “the streams on Red 

Rock Lakes Refuge are some of the more important 

grayling streams in the United States, and it is the 

desire of the Division of Wildlife Refuges to preserve 

these streams for this purpose.” This same letter 

discusses how the planting of all nonnative fish, 

particularly eastern brook trout, should be prohibited 

to protect grayling (Leach 1941). A letter dated June 

15, 1952 from the state of Montana to the Service 

describes the Red Rock drainage, which flows 

through the refuge, as a grayling sanctuary where all 

steps possible would be taken to preserve this unique 

population of grayling. It discusses how grayling 

and cutthroat trout were negatively impacted by 

the introduction of nonnative fish including rainbow 

trout, eastern brook trout, and brown trout (Allen 

1952). There are numerous other documents over 

the years, many generated by the Service including 

refuge managers, that describe a grayling sanctuary 

on the refuge and the importance of managing for the 

conservation of this species. Today, Arctic grayling 

in the Centennial Valley remain imperiled and are a 

species of concern in the state of Montana. 

O

The refuge’s conservation role has continued to 

expand over the years. This is particularly true in the 

conservation and recovery of imperiled migratory 

land birds, a management responsibility of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1990, the Partners 

in Flight program was launched in response to 

growing concerns about population declines of many 

land bird species that were not included in existing 

conservation initiatives. The overall objective of this 

initiative is to help species at risk while “keeping 

common birds common.” The refuge is an important 

area for numerous Service and state recognized 

species at risk, including Brewer’s sparrow and 

Swainson’s hawk. The refuge’s grassland, riparian, 

and shrub-steppe habitats are important nesting and 

feeding areas for these and numerous other resident 

and migratory land birds. Historically, efforts were 

made to monitor these populations and properly 

manage their habitats, however, much is left to 

be learned and done to ensure their survival and 

conserve these species. 

There are other numerous resident wildlife species 

that depend on the rich resources found on this 

refuge for all or part of their lifecycle. Many of 

these are state-managed species, such as the Shiras 

moose and Rocky Mountain elk. The refuge has 

a long history of cooperatively managing these 

native wildlife species to meet state and refuge 

management objectives. 

Land ProteCtion and aCquisition history

During the 74 years since the executive boundary 

was established, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

has continued to acquire lands by purchase from 

willing landowners and acceptance of donations.

The Service currently owns 48,955 acres within 

this approved boundary (see figure 5). Table 2 

summarizes the acquisition history and the means of 

acquisition between 1935 and 2008. 

CentenniaL VaLLey ConserVation 

easeMent ProGraM

The refuge expanded its conservation efforts in 

the Centennial Valley in March 2001 through the 

initiation of a Centennial Valley Conservation 

Easement Program. This work is outlined in an 

environmental assessment and land protection plan 

(USFWS 2001). The purposes of the Centennial 

Valley Conservation Easement Program are to

■ protect native wet meadows, wetlands, uplands, 

and mountain foothills from future conversions 

to second and recreational home uses;

■ protect habitat integrity by preventing 

fragmentation;

■ preserve key wilderness values and views 

throughout and adjacent to Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge;

■ promote landscape integrity in order to 

maintain, sustain, and enhance the historic 

plant, animal, and insect biodiversity of native 

prairie habitats and associated ranching 

heritage;

■ minimize invasive plant infestations from soil 

disturbance, road building, and increased traffic 

resulting from rural housing development;
20 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

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

map.
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 21

Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2008.

Date Acquired Acres Acquired Means of Acquisition

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

4/23/35 594 Reserved from Public Domain

12/2/35 160 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

12/5/35 929 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

12/6/35 212 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

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

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

12/17/35 160 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

12/18/35 880 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

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

12/31/35 480 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

1/14/36 360 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

1/20/36 352 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

1/18/36 254 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

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

7/30/36 60 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

10/10/36 680 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

4/2/37 320 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

6/10/37 202 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

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

7/7/37 519 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

8/11/37 231 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

8/19/37 517 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
22 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2008.

Date Acquired Acres Acquired Means of Acquisition

8/19/37 254 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

10/2/37 12 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

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

5/16/38 3 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

7/18/39 390 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

7/18/39 307 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

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

7/18/39 648 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

7/18/39 296 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

7/18/39 499 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

7/18/39 820 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

7/18/39 195 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

7/18/39 8 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

7/18/39 398 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

7/19/39 4 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

3/6/40 42 Acquired by Resettlement Administration

2/25/54 1 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

12/31/56 1 Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

9/30/76 6,855 Other

2/14/79 1 Other

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

2/2/88 431 Land and Water Conservation Fund

2/28/88 120 Land and Water Conservation Fund
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 23

Table 2. Land acquisition history of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 1935–2008.

Date Acquired Acres Acquired Means of Acquisition

2/1/90

4/4/90

4/9/90

2/3/91

5/20/91

4/14/94

4/30/97

10/10/99

10/11/99

12/15/07

2008

Total

320

280

352

320

320

960

480

20

20

2,159

1,200

48,955

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Gifted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

Gifted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and Federal Land 

Transaction Facilitation Fund

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and North American 

Wetlands Conservation Act

■ minimize, to a lesser extent, future demands 

on local government resources necessitated by 

providing services associated with increasing 

rural development. 

Today, the refuge works with landowners to manage 

nine conservation easements totaling 20,342 acres 

(see figure 6). Table 3 summarizes the acquisition 

history of this program since 2001.

ManaGeMent history

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is one of 

the most remote refuges in the contiguous United 

States. It is located in the Centennial Valley in 

southwestern Montana in Beaverhead County, 47 

miles west of West Yellowstone and 38 miles east 

of the town of Lima. This 48,955-acre refuge sits at 

6,670–9,400 feet above sea level and lies east of the 

Continental Divide near the uppermost reach of the 

Missouri drainage. 

Historically, management focused on protecting and 

enhancing the trumpeter swan population at the 

refuge. In the 1930s, the refuge and surrounding area 

was their last known breeding location. Management 

actions included winter feeding, transferring swans 

to other suitable habitats, managing wetland habitats 

for breeding swans, and minimizing illegal harvest 

and disturbance (especially during breeding). 

Trumpeter swans were studied intensively at the 

refuge, and much of what is known about their 

breeding biology was published in The Trumpeter 

Swan, written by former refuge manager Winston 

E. Banko (Banko 1960). Today, the refuge continues 

to support a robust population of trumpeter swans, 

but heroic population enhancement efforts, such 

as winter feeding and translocation are no longer 

necessary or appropriate for swan conservation, and 

have been phased out. The refuge continues to focus 

on providing quality wetland habitats for nesting 

swans. This has resulted in a steady increase in the 

number of trumpeter swans in the Centennial Valley 

since the mid-1990s.

The refuge has one of the most naturally diverse 

areas in the Refuge System. The refuge boasts 

the largest wetland complex within the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem, as well as expansive tracts 

of grassland and sagebrush-steppe habitats, and a 

small amount of midelevation forested areas. These 

habitats support over 230 species of birds, including 

peregrine falcons, bald eagles, short-eared owls, 

sandhill cranes, sage grouse, and numerous species of 
24 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Figure 6. Conservation easements within the Centennial Valley.
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 25

Table 3. Conservation easement acquisition history within the Centennial Valley, 2001–2008.

Year Acquired Means of Acquisition Total Acres

2001 Land and Water Conservation Fund 2,376

2002 Land and Water Conservation Fund 3,771

2003 Land and Water Conservation Fund 188

2003 Land and Water Conservation Fund 1,361

2003 Land and Water Conservation Fund 640

2004 Land and Water Conservation Fund 990

2004 Land and Water Conservation Fund 3,404

2005 Land and Water Conservation Fund 4,137

2006 Land and Water Conservation Fund 3,346

2008 Land and Water Conservation Fund 129

Total 20,342

waterfowl and waterbirds (see appendix G). Common 

mammals include Shiras moose, Rocky Mountain 

elk, mule and white-tailed deer, badger, coyote, and 

red fox. In recent years, wolves and grizzly bears 

have been documented using the refuge. There is 

also a remnant population of endemic adfluvial Arctic 

grayling that occurs on the refuge.

A full-time staff of five and various seasonal 

employees manage and study the refuge habitats and 

maintain visitor facilities. Domestic livestock grazing 

and prescribed fire are the primary management 

tools used to maintain and enhance upland habitats. 

Currently, four grazing cooperators are using refuge 

lands. Water level manipulation occurs in some areas 

of the refuge to improve wetland habitats. 

Approximately 12,000 people visit the refuge 

annually. Two refuge roads and three county roads 

that pass through the refuge account for the majority 

of visitor use. Visitors also use the trails at Sparrow 

Pond and Odell Creek to access the refuge. The 

refuge is open to limited fishing, with the majority of 

fishing occurring on Red Rock Creek where anglers 

can catch Arctic grayling, rainbow trout, Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout, and brook trout. In addition, the 

refuge is open to limited hunting of ducks, geese, 

coots, elk, pronghorn, moose, and mule and 

white-tailed deer. 

2.2 SPECIAL VALUES OF THE REFUGE

Early in the planning process, the planning team 

and public identified the outstanding qualities of 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Refuge 

qualities are the characteristics and features of the 

refuge that make it special, valuable for wildlife, 

and worthy of refuge status. It was essential during 

the planning process to identify these special values 

to ensure that they are conserved, protected, and 

enhanced. Refuge qualities can be unique biological 

values, as well as something as simple as “a quiet 

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

There are many attributes that make Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge unique and valued 

because it

■ is located in the middle of an important wildlife 

corridor linking the Greater Yellowstone and 

Bitterroot ecosystems (Merrill and Mattson 

2003, Servheen and Sandstrom 1993, Walker 

and Craighead 1997);

■ protects over 69,000 acres of the Centennial 

Valley in southwest Montana—the least 

developed valley of its size in the state;

■ encompasses the largest wetland complex in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem;

■ contains 3,300 acres of sandhills habitat—one 

of only two places this habitat can be found in 

Montana; 

■ represents one of the most diverse refuges in 

the United States, with forty-five identified 

vegetation associations according to the 

National Vegetation Classification System 

(Anderson et al. 1998);

■ plays an integral role in the contiguous 

restoration of trumpeter swans;

■ continues to provide critical nesting habitat 

for a tri-state flock of trumpeter swans (those 

nesting in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana);
26 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

■ supports one of the last endemic adfluvial 

population of Arctic grayling in the contiguous 

United States;

■ provides habitat for one of the highest-density 

wintering moose populations in Montana; 

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

people and wildlife throughout time; 

■ occurs in an area with rich paleohistory, early 

exploration, and settlement;

■ has historic buildings originally constructed by 

the Works Progress Administration; 

■ has potential for a broad range of partnerships 

that are integral to every aspect of refuge 

management; 

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

remote, peaceful, beautiful setting;

■ encompasses the 32,350-acre designated Red 

Rock Lakes Wilderness.

2.3 PURPOSES

Every refuge has a purpose for which it was 

established. This purpose is the foundation upon 

which to build all refuge programs, from biology and 

visitor services, to maintenance and facilities. The 

refuge purposes are found in the legislative acts or 

administrative orders that provide the authorities 

to either transfer or acquire a piece of land for a 

refuge. Over time, an individual refuge may contain 

lands that have been acquired under a variety of 

transfer and acquisition authorities, giving a refuge 

more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, and 

strategies identified in this CCP are intended to 

support individual purposes for which the refuge was 

established.

The legislative purposes for Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge include the following:

1. “As a refuge and breeding ground for wild 

birds and animals.” (Executive Order 7023, 

dated April 22, 1935)

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

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act 1929)

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

the protection of natural resources, (c) 

the conservation of endangered species or 

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

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

acceptance may be accomplished under the 

terms and conditions of restrictive covenants 

imposed by donors.” (Refuge Recreation Act 1962) 

4. “The conservation of the wetlands of the 

nation in order to maintain the public benefits 

they provide and to help fulfill international 

obligations contained in various migratory 

bird treaties and conventions.” (Emergency 

Wetlands Resources Act 1986)

5. “For the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources ... for the benefit of 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such 

acceptance may be subject to the terms of any 

restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition 

of servitude.” (Fish and Wildlife Act 1956)

6. “Wilderness areas ... shall be administered for 

the use and enjoyment of the American people 

in such manner as will leave them unimpaired 

for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, 

and so as to provide for the protection 

of these areas, the preservation of their 

wilderness character, and for the gathering and 

dissemination of information regarding their 

use and enjoyment as wilderness.” (Wilderness 

Act 1964)

2.4 VISION

A vision is a concept, including desired conditions 

for the future, that describes the essence of what the 

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

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

refuge management throughout the life of this CCP 

and beyond. The following is the vision statement 

developed by the planning team for Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge.

The majestic Centennial Valley of southwest 

Montana is an expansive mosaic of high-elevation 

wetlands, grasslands, shrublands, and forests 

framed by dramatic mountain peaks. Through 

partnerships and conservation programs, the 

valley has maintained its biological integrity 

and is a working landscape that remains largely 

undeveloped.

To this end, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge is a conservation leader in the valley 

working to maintain, mimic, and where 

appropriate, restore natural processes to create and 

sustain native habitat for migratory and resident 

fish and wildlife. Visitors have a sense of solitude 

and wildness that lifts their spirits and stirs their 

souls. This first-hand experience with the refuge 

encourages people to participate as stewards, not 

only of the refuge, but also of the natural resources 

in their own communities.

2.5 GOALS

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

of goals for the refuge based on the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act, the refuge’s 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 27

purposes, and information developed during project 

planning. The goals direct efforts toward achieving 

the vision and purposes of the refuge and outline 

approaches for managing refuge resources. The 

Service established six goals for the refuge.

Lake, Pond, and Marsh habitat GoaL

Provide habitat for breeding and staging migratory 

birds, native fishes, and resident wildlife that 

maintains the biological diversity and integrity of 

montane wetland systems.

R

Maintain the processes necessary to sustain the 

biological diversity and integrity of native riparian 

vegetation for migratory breeding birds, native 

fishes, and wintering ungulates.

Wet MeadoW, GrassLand, and shrub-stePPe

habitat GoaL

Provide structurally complex native meadow, 

grassland and shrub-steppe habitats, within a 

watershed context, for upland-nesting migratory 

birds, sagebrush-dependent species, rare plant 

species, and other resident wildlife.

A

Create and maintain aspen stands of various 

age classes within a mosaic of coniferous forest 

and shrubland for cavity-nesting birds and other 

migratory and resident wildlife.

Visitor serViCes and CuLturaL 

resourCes GoaL

Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, 

environmental education, interpretation, and 

outreach opportunities that nurture an appreciation 

and understanding of the unique natural and cultural 

resources of the Centennial Valley for visitors and 

local community members of all abilities, while 

maintaining the primitive and remote experience 

unique to the refuge. 

R

Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the 

protection of trust resources in the utilization of staff, 

funding, and volunteer programs. 

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. Substantive 

comments (those that could be addressed within 

the authority and management capabilities of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) were considered 

during formulation of the alternatives for future 

management. Challenges abound within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and these issues will have to 

be reviewed, changed, and added to as management 

actions are put into place and as environmental and 

social issues interact with refuge purposes and plans. 

The key issues identified during this planning process 

are summarized below.

H

Habitat loss is the greatest threat faced by North 

American wildlife. Maintaining the integrity of 

existing habitats and providing linkage zones 

between existing habitats is a key wildlife 

conservation strategy. Centrally situated between 

the Greater Yellowstone and Bitterroot ecosystems, 

two of the most intact, biologically diverse 

ecosystems in the contiguous United States, the 

refuge is ideally located to be a conservation leader 

to protect the Centennial Valley from fragmentation 

and residential development. 

Successful conservation leadership is attained 

through the development of partnerships. Working 

with conservation partners, local residents, and the 

Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, 

the refuge works to preserve the integrity of the 

Centennial Valley through conservation easements. 

These easements prevent further residential 

or commercial development while fostering 

the relationships necessary to pursue habitat 

improvements on adjacent private lands. The refuge 

also partners with state and other federal agencies, 

and nongovernmental organizations to address local 

and regional wildlife management challenges. For 

example, efforts to improve the current status of 

Arctic grayling in the Red Rock Creek watershed 

have led to partnerships with MFWP, The Nature 

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

Management Assistance Office. 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

Mike Parker/USFWS
28 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Grazing

Demonstrating good stewardship of refuge lands 

is another example of how the refuge can be a 

conservation leader. Managing refuge resources 

based on the best available knowledge should be 

the starting point for management actions. This 

does not ensure success or lack of controversy 

due to the uncertainties regarding relationships 

among wildlife, habitat, and management activities. 

For example, the current grazing program on the 

refuge draws considerable criticism. It is known 

that Centennial Valley grasslands evolved with 

grazing by large native ungulates such as bison. The 

refuge currently provides that disturbance via cattle 

grazing, a controversial practice on public lands in 

the American West. While several public comments 

were supportive of a scientifically-based grazing 

system designed to benefit wildlife, there was also 

support for the termination of the grazing program 

and repatriation of bison on the refuge. 

Currently, the refuge has an Upland Management 

Plan that was written in 1994. The selected 

alternative was “Adaptive Management by 

Prescription.” Although details of how this 

management alternative would be carried out are 

described, this plan was never fully actualized. 

The grazing program is currently run on what is a 

3-year grazing unit rest-rotation cycle with very 

little monitoring of grazing impacts on habitats. In 

addition, fences have been removed or allowed to 

deteriorate, resulting in large units that preclude 

“short duration—high intensity” grazing as 

prescribed in the 1994 plan. Changes in the grazing 

program must take place in order for this to be an 

effective management tool for habitat manipulation 

and wildlife benefit.

Red Rock Lakes Management

Wetlands in the Intermountain West region provide 

important habitat for migratory birds and other 

wetland-dependent wildlife. Similar to wetland 

habitats in other regions of North America, 

agriculture and development have resulted in the 

loss of approximately 57% of Intermountain West 

region wetlands to drainage (Ratti and Kadlec 

1992). The significance of this loss is magnified due 

to the region’s largely arid landscape. However, 

management of these habitats is hindered by the 

relative scarcity of information on the ecology of 

montane wetlands, making it difficult to predict the 

response of these habitats to management actions 

intended to improve habitat quality for migratory 

birds. Montane wetlands are a type of high-elevation 

wetland, located just below the subalpine region. 

Greater understanding of montane wetland ecology 

would therefore improve the ability of managers 

to make sound science-based decisions regarding 

management of these important flyway resources.

Refuge lakes and wetlands management is a broad 

priority encompassing Lower and Upper Red Rock 

lakes, Swan Lake, River Marsh, and associated 

wetland areas. River Marsh referred to in this 

document is the marshy areas along Red Rock 

Creek, between Upper and Lower Red Rock lakes. 

Species (such as swans, other waterfowl, ibis, grebes, 

gulls, and fishes) using this system of wetlands are 

inherently included in this priority. Current refuge 

objectives for wetland habitat management are to 

mimic disturbance processes believed necessary 

for maintaining ecological function of montane 

wetlands. The primary process is the dynamic wet/

dry hydrological cycle, a key driver of wetland 

productivity and vegetation community structure.

Lower Red Rock Lake and the lower River Marsh 

have been influenced by a water control structure 

(WCS) at the western boundary of the refuge since 

1930. There are concerns that the WCS may be 

negatively affecting the hydrological system of 

Lower Red Rock Lake and River Marsh. Increasing 

temperatures and decreasing precipitation have also 

raised concerns regarding reduced water resources 

in the future and the impact on refuge wetland 

habitats. There is a question as to whether this 

structure would need to be used as a management 

tool to capture water resources or if it should be 

removed.

Arctic Grayling

The restoration of wildlife populations and habitats 

has been a common theme of the planning process 

and public comments, and Arctic grayling are 

a particularly poignant example. The refuge 

population of Arctic grayling represents one of the 

only naturally occurring adfluvial populations in 

the contiguous United States. Currently, spawning 

numbers are very low. In addition, Arctic grayling 

are not spawning in most of their traditional 

spawning creeks (such as Tom Creek). Spawning only 

occurs in Red Rock and Odell creeks, putting this 

population at additional risk. 

Shiras Moose

Shiras moose, a subspecies of moose found in the 

central Rocky Mountains, commonly occur on the 

refuge. The state permits hunting of moose in 

Montana through a drawing for a limited number 

of permits, some of which are issued in the unit 

encompassing the refuge. Numerous comments were 

received from the public addressing the refuge’s 

moose management and hunting programs. Many 

believed that moose populations have declined, 

stating that it is more difficult to view a moose on 

the refuge than in the past. MFWP winter survey 

data indicate moose numbers are relatively high 

and increasing on the refuge. Conversely, recent 

assessment of key moose habitat on the refuge 

indicates that there may have been a reduction in 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 29

willow browse intensity. This change in browse 

activity could be due to an undetected decline of 

moose or a redistribution of moose during nonwinter 

periods. Like many ungulates, moose will move into 

areas that have been recently disturbed by fire. A 

wildland fire in the Centennial Mountains in 2003 

burned over 14,000 acres, stimulating new aspen 

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

capitalizing on this new growth during the summer, 

this would lead to their dispersion, a reduction 

in observation opportunities for visitors, and the 

perception of an overall decline in moose abundance. 

Refuge moose management is coordinated with 

the state to manipulate harvest for population 

regulation. Although the refuge comprises only 

a small proportion of the hunting district, a high 

percentage (approximately 90%) of moose harvested 

in the district are taken on refuge lands. Basic 

information regarding population status and trends, 

population structure, and landscape-level habitat 

use patterns is needed to assess the possible impacts 

of current management on both consumptive and 

nonconsumptive uses on the refuge.

Willow and Aspen Habitats

Herbivory (consumption of vegetation) frequently 

produces a landscape that would not have been 

created by the physical environment alone. Browsing 

by ungulates can reduce the survival and competitive 

reproductive capacity of trees and shrubs, resulting 

in alterations to the structure and dynamics of plant 

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

willows to be taller and have greater volume where 

moose densities were limited by predation (in the 

form of hunting). Similarly, elk overabundance has 

been linked to reduced regeneration of aspen in the 

Rocky Mountains (Romme et al. 1995). 

Winter surveys conducted by MFWP between 

1966 and 2009 show that winter moose abundance 

in and around the refuge has increased by more 

than 2% annually throughout the period surveyed. 

Elk populations in southwestern Montana have 

experienced similar population growth. High 

browse intensity on aspen and willow has been 

documented in portions of the Centennial Valley, 

including refuge riparian habitats. This has led to 

concerns regarding possible impacts on the breeding 

migratory land bird community. Many western land 

bird populations are sensitive to diminution of aspen 

and willow due to their reliance on riparian habitats, 

and many riparian bird species are experiencing 

regional declines. Both bird species composition and 

community diversity in riparian habitats are broadly 

associated with the diversity in height and thickness 

of woody vegetation. The reduction of structural 

diversity due to high levels of browsing may alter the 

attractiveness of riparian habitats to some birds.

There is general agreement among managers 

that browse intensity should be reduced in these 

habitats. However, there is uncertainty regarding 

the appropriate means to reach the desired habitat 

condition for breeding migratory land birds. 

Centennial Sandhills

The Centennial Sandhills are one of only two 

significant sandhill areas in Montana. It is the highest 

sandhill system in the northern Rocky Mountains. 

Five plant species found in the sandhills are listed as 

rare in Montana. Two of these plant species (Idaho 

painted milkvetch and Idaho evening-primrose) only 

occur in the Centennial Sandhills and the sandhills 

located in southeast Idaho. The continued existence 

of these rare plant species depends on the existence 

of early successional habitat, which is currently 

lacking in the Centennial Sandhills on the refuge. 

Fire and grazing are two tools that may be used to 

improve conditions for the rare plants. The sandhills 

also contain rare fauna. Four state mammal species 

of special concern have been documented; Preble’s 

shrew, black-tailed jackrabbit, Great Basin pocket 

mouse, and pygmy rabbit. Four Montana Partners in 

Flight priority II bird species (Casey 2000) also use 

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

Brewer’s sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. 

While much of the refuge’s history has been focused 

on reducing the negative impacts of human activities 

on habitats (through reduced grazing and water 

diversion, and elimination of haying), this philosophy 

has caused problems with the management of the 

Centennial Sandhills. The long-term reduction of 

disturbances (such as fire and grazing) has resulted 

in loss of early seral stage habitats, such as blowouts. 

Seral plant communities are transitory and occur 

between successions of habitats. Early seral sandhill 

habitat supports a variety of rare flora and fauna. 

This is evident by the species of plants and wildlife 

using the sandhills on neighboring lands managed by 

BLM. The refuge needs to determine the frequency 

and intensity of disturbance necessary to achieve a 

desired mosaic, while minimizing impacts on species 

such as sage grouse and Brewer’s sparrow, both 

dependent on late-seral sagebrush growth.

Centennial Sandhills, dominated by native sagebrush 

and bunchgrasses.

USFWS
30 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Mixed Conifer Management

Woodlands cover approximately 3,745 acres of the 

refuge. Little or no management has occurred in 

this habitat. Condition assessments and potential 

management actions need to be investigated.

Stream Restoration

There are several creeks and streams on the 

refuge that have been rerouted from their original 

streambeds. In addition, there are several streams 

where the riparian habitats have been degraded 

due to overgrazing, but have not been restored. 

Restoring these streams would be beneficial to fish 

and wildlife using the refuge.

Invasive Plant Species 

Integrated pest management is an important 

focus to minimize infestations, especially given 

the relatively natural state of the refuge. Efforts 

continue throughout the Centennial Valley to detect 

and eradicate new invaders, and control existing 

invasive plant populations such as common tansy 

and spotted knapweed. Although the refuge does 

have most native plant species represented, some of 

the areas historically heavily grazed have converted 

to nonnative grasses, such as Kentucky bluegrass. 

Other invasive grass species were planted for forage, 

such as smooth brome. The refuge will be challenged 

to eradicate these hearty, widespread invasive 

grasses and restore treated sites. 

Aquatic Nuisance Species

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is 

treasured for its natural beauty, biological diversity 

and plethora of recreational opportunities. The 

wetlands and creeks flowing from the refuge form 

the headwaters of the Missouri River which is of 

immeasurable economic importance to the United 

States. 

The unique ecological and economic values of the 

refuge are now being threatened by aquatic invaders, 

or aquatic nuisance species. These nonnative mussels, 

plants, snails, and other introduced species have the 

potential to severely impact the region’s wildlife, 

tourism, agriculture, hydropower, and businesses. 

The refuge currently is unaware if any aquatic 

nuisance species are present. Surveys, education, and 

prevention are needed to protect these important 

habitats.

Wilderness

Over 66% of the refuge (32,350 acres) is 

congressionally designated wilderness. This 

designation recognizes the remote setting and 

relatively untrammeled nature of the refuge, 

while protecting these very attributes for future 

generations. This designation does add complexity to 

the management of the refuge. Habitat management 

may seem “inefficient” at times due to wilderness 

restrictions that prohibit the use of mechanized tools 

commonly used elsewhere. However, the Wilderness 

Act was designed to protect the attributes of, and not 

the efficiencies of managing wilderness areas. 

Fire Program

A fire management plan (FMP) for the refuge was 

approved in 2002 to direct the refuge to manage 

wildland fires. The plan needs to be updated 

to incorporate partnering with BLM to reduce 

hazardous fuels around the community of Lakeview. 

Information is needed to carry out the use of 

prescribed fire on the refuge as a tool for habitat 

management. Prescribed fire has been implemented 

over the years primarily to reduce litter and 

hazardous fuels.

Visitor serViCes ProGraM issues

During the planning process it was clear that 

many people greatly appreciate the refuge for its 

wildlife, remoteness, and solitude. Designated both 

as a national wilderness area and national natural 

landmark, the refuge provides quiet, uncrowded 

wildlife-dependent recreation in a breath-taking 

setting. Many of the comments supported preserving 

the pristine character of the refuge.

Overall, many participants and visitors identified 

a need for greater public understanding and 

appreciation of the refuge and the recreational 

opportunities it offers. Many comments included poor 

directional signage, “unfriendly” boundary signage, 

inadequate brochures, outdated interpretive panels, 

confusing regulations, and minimal visitor center 

information. A number of other recreational issues 

became apparent during the planning process and 

deserve further discussion. Specific recreational 

concerns and issues are summarized as follows.

Hunting

Hunting for waterfowl and big game, including elk, 

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

is a popular activity for visitors. Certain portions 

of the refuge are closed to big game hunting. 

Waterfowl hunting is limited to Lower Red Rock 

Lake and adjacent areas. The remaining waterbodies 

are designated as sanctuaries for migratory 

waterbirds. All hunting seasons (except for moose) 

follow state regulations and limits. Moose season 

opens on October 15, which is later than the state 

season. There is no commercial guiding or trapping 

permitted. Hunting on the refuge is important not 

only as a wildlife-dependent recreational activity 

but as a management tool to control large game that 

become concentrated in protected areas, damaging 

habitat. 

The public expressed many different points of 

view on whether to continue to permit hunting on 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 31

the refuge. The greatest concern was over moose 

hunting. Many commentors believed that the moose 

population is being impacted by the eleven permits 

(on average) issued by the state each year for the 

hunting district in which the refuge is located. Some 

commentors requested that all moose hunting be 

stopped.

Overall, there are concerns about what species 

should be hunted, and with understanding the 

refuge’s goals and objectives with respect to 

management of game species. All commentors agreed 

that law enforcement is needed to better monitor and 

regulate this use.

The illegal shooting of game from roads is a major 

concern on the refuge and in the valley. Because of 

the expansive views, it is possible to drive up and 

down the road until an animal is spotted near the 

road. Instead of giving fair chase and moving off 

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

witnessed several times that individuals jump out of 

their vehicles and shoot from the road. Aside from 

being illegal, shooting from the road is unethical 

and unsafe for other hunters in the field and visitors 

driving the road.

Fishing

Fishing is a popular recreational activity on the 

refuge and is permitted on Red Rock, Odell, and 

Elk Springs creeks and Culver, MacDonald, and 

Widgeon ponds. Some of the most popular fishing is 

for nonnative, introduced species such as brook trout, 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and rainbow trout. The 

habitat alterations on the refuge, such as damming 

streams to create ponds, have supported these 

nonnative game fish. These habitat alterations and 

introduced fish have had a negative impact on the 

populations of endemic adfluvial Arctic grayling and 

Westslope cutthroat trout, both species of concern 

and found in refuge waters. Fishing for nonnative 

game fish has become a popular refuge activity. A 

few public comments requested expanding fishing 

opportunities on the lakes, created ponds, and other 

creeks but imposing restrictive regulations. There 

are concerns about potential impacts of increasing 

fishing pressure (especially on Upper Red Rock 

Lake) on native fish species, breeding and staging 

migratory birds, and the visitor experience. 

Pronghorn are native to the refuge.

Mike Parker/USFWS

Wildlife Observation and Photography

The breath-taking scenery and abundant wildlife 

make wildlife observation and photography two of 

the most popular visitor service activities on the 

refuge. Most visitors independently explore the 

refuge, but many visitors request guidance on the 

best areas to view wildlife. Many of these areas 

are along the roads which are not improved for 

parking. There are two interpreted sites on the 

refuge, but no interpreted trails. Trails on the refuge 

and trails to access other public lands are minimal, 

in poor condition, are not interpreted, or are not 

listed in the general brochure. The refuge does 

not have an auto tour route. Numerous comments 

received during public scoping were in support of 

identifying hiking trails and other infrastructure to 

make wildlife observation and photography easier. 

Most emphasized that activities should not impact 
32 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

wildlife habitats or wilderness values, including 

the undeveloped qualities (limited and primitive 

signs, minimal roads, and abounding wildlife) of the 

refuge.Wintertime wildlife viewing is particularly 

challenging, given the extreme winter weather and 

the seasonally maintained county gravel roads. 

Environmental Education, Interpretation, 

and Outreach

Environmental education programs are almost 

nonexistent. The closest schools are over 45 miles 

away and it can be challenging for buses to maneuver 

the county access roads during the school year. 

The refuge does not have an outdoor recreation or 

education specialist, and refuge-specific programs or 

kits are limited. The refuge’s website does provide 

information about the refuge, its management and 

resources, and wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities. It does not provide any interactive 

activities. The refuge’s remote location offers minimal 

opportunities to educate students about the refuge’s 

purposes, current management programs, issues, and 

the importance of conserving the Centennial Valley.

The refuge interpretive program is limited. A 

significant portion of the refuge is wilderness, and 

to protect the wilderness characteristic, signage and 

trails are limited. There are four kiosks located at the 

office, entrance areas along county roads, and Upper 

Lake campground. There are two interpreted sites 

on the refuge but no interpreted trails. The refuge’s 

general brochure has been updated and meets 

Service graphic standards. There is a need for an 

accurate fish and wildlife observation list that meets 

Service graphic standards. Interpretive displays in 

the visitor contact area found in the refuge office 

have recently been updated and expanded to provide 

information on the refuge’s role within the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Campgrounds 

The refuge has two primitive campgrounds, one at 

Upper Red Rock Lake (Upper Lake campground) 

and one at Lower Red Rock Lake (River Marsh 

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

areas are important for refuge visitors engaged 

in wildlife observation, photography, fishing, and 

hunting. The remote location of the refuge, minimally 

maintained county roads, and lack of local lodging 

facilities have made these campgrounds essential 

to those visitors who wish to stay for multiple days. 

Most campground visitors have come to the refuge 

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

hike or bike the Continental Divide trails found in 

and around the refuge. There was overwhelming 

support and concern from the public to keep these 

campgrounds open. The refuge campgrounds are 

unique in that they require little maintenance by 

refuge staff. Visitors keep campsites clean, collect 

their trash, and cause little disturbance to other 

campers and visitors. 

Cultural Resources

The refuge has conducted limited inventories for 

cultural resources primarily to comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The 

refuge has several historical structures, most of 

which are still being used, including the refuge office, 

staff housing, and maintenance facilities. It can be 

challenging to keep these structures functional while 

maintaining their historical characteristics.

Law Enforcement

The refuge has no law enforcement staff and is 

almost 5 hours from the nearest station with region 

6 Service law enforcement staff. While most visitors 

respect the refuge and its resources, there will 

always be those who will “step outside” the laws and 

regulations. It is very difficult to prevent or respond 

to these violations without law enforcement staff 

on-site. The main issues include off-road use, illegal 

camping and hunting, and trespass. Many public 

comments identified the need for law enforcement 

for all visitor service programs to protect wildlife, 

visitors, and wildlife habitat. 

Facilities, Staff, and Administration

The refuge is responsible for managing over 69,000 

acres, both in fee title and conservation easements, 

all within the Centennial Valley. Current staff, 

funding levels, and facilities available to manage this 

large land base is inadequate. The refuge currently 

has a full-time staff of five, including two managers, 

a biologist, an administrative assistant, and a 

maintenance worker. Supporting facilities include an 

office, four refuge houses, one maintenance building, 

a bunkhouse, and one outbuilding for storage. 

Although the refuge has been able to conduct many 

refuge programs through existing resources and 

partnerships, visitor services programs have been 

limited, and there have been missed opportunities 

for greater understanding, conservation, and 

enhancement of refuge resources. Some of the 

specific needs include: additional baseline data for 

some species, more effective management of refuge 

habitats, better monitoring of management actions, 

and orienting and educating visitors. In addition 

there is no on-site law enforcement presence to 

protect visitors, wildlife, and facilities. 

The refuge headquarters was recently expanded, to 

provide additional offices and a larger visitor contact 

area. Interpretive displays are being designed, 

highlighting the resources and wildlife that use 

this refuge and the Centennial Valley. Most of the 

remaining facilities are in need of repair, including 

the refuge residences, maintenance, other visitor 

facilities, signs, and fencing. The refuge has several 
Chapter 2 — The Refuge 33

historical structures including the refuge office, 

fire tower, maintenance buildings, and two refuge 

houses. All but the fire tower are occupied, used 

daily, and require maintenance to not only keep them 

functional, but to preserve their historical character 

and integrity. This can be costly and time-consuming. 

Currently, the office visitor contact area and 

restrooms are designated as universally accessible. 

The public also asked for proper maintenance of 

refuge facilities, but most requested that any changes 

to the refuge’s infrastructure be complimentary 

to the refuge’s rugged, undeveloped character. 

Due to a lack of private housing surrounding this 

remote refuge, most current refuge employees rent 

government housing. There are currently four refuge 

houses, built between the 1930s and 1950s. The lack 

of adequate housing has limited the recruitment of 

added staff and the expansion of refuge programs. 

Most refuge roads currently open to the public are 

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

county roads that provide access through the refuge 

are not recommended for passenger vehicles due 

to a lack of regular maintenance and inadequate 

drainage. There are areas with insufficient visitor 

parking throughout the refuge. Examples include 

Odell Creek trail and the willow fen, both popular 

with visitors.

Directional, interpretive, boundary, and entrance 

signs are also in need of updating.

3 Refuge Resources and Description

Staff conducting sage grouse surveys on lands adjacent to the refuge.

Mike Parker/USFWS

This chapter describes the characteristics and 

resources of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge. It specifically addresses physical, biological, 

cultural, and socioeconomic resources, as well as 

recreational opportunities. 

3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The following sections describe physical 

environmental resources that may be impacted 

by the implementation of the CCP. Physical 

characteristics include climate, physiography, 

geography, soils, water resources, and the effects of 

global warming. 

GLobaL WarMinG

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

in January 2001 requiring federal agencies under its 

direction that have land management responsibilities 

to consider potential climate change effects as part 

of long-range planning endeavors. The Department 

of Energy’s report, “Carbon Sequestration Research 

and Development,” 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.”

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 sequestration 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—grasslands, forests, wetlands, 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 

fire—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 to replace the burned-up biomass. 

This vegetation sequesters an approximately equal 

amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Dai et al. 

2006).

Several other effects of climate change may need to 

be considered in the future:

■ Habitat available in lakes and streams for coldwater fish such as trout and grayling could be 

reduced.
36 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

■ Climate change could alter water resources 

available to refuge wetland and riparian 

habitats.

■ Forests may change, with some plant species 

shifting their range northward or dying out and 

other trees moving in to take their place.

■ Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding 

habitat because of more frequent droughts.

■ Changes in plant and animal cycles could 

put the migration and nesting cycles of some 

bird species out of synchronization with the 

availability of their plant food resources and 

animal prey.

CLiMate

The climate in the Centennial Valley is characterized 

by long, cold winters and short, mild summers. 

Climatic data have been collected by refuge staff 

at Lakeview, Montana (6,690 feet mean sea level) 

since July 1, 1948. The data presented below were 

analyzed through December 31, 2005. These data 

were submitted to and compiled by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Western 

Regional Climate Center. Information and data (such 

as precipitation and temperature) presented below 

are based on this long-term data set as analyzed by 

refuge staff. 

Annual precipitation is highly variable, both 

temporally and spatially, in the Centennial Valley. 

Mean annual precipitation at Lakeview, Montana, 

is 19.69 inches (range: 10.26 inches in 2002 to 27.0 

inches in 1970). Mean annual precipitation has 

declined significantly between 1948 and 2005 (see 

figure 7). In addition, precipitation in the months of 

December and January has declined significantly 

during this same time period (see figure 7); no other 

months showed statistically significant changes in 

precipitation. May and June are typically the wettest 

months. Precipitation during these months comprises 

27% of the annual average.

Air temperature is similarly variable throughout the 

Centennial Valley. Mean annual air temperature at 

Lakeview, Montana is 34.8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 

(range: 31.49° in 1985 to 37.68° in 1981) (see 

figure 8). January is typically the coldest month 

(mean air temperature 11.21°F) and July is the 

warmest month (mean air temperature 58.59°F). 

Mean annual air temperature between 1948 and 

2005 did not change significantly. However, mean 

temperatures in March and April have increased 

significantly (see figure 8); no other months showed 

significant changes during this time period. This 

indicates that spring temperatures are warmer 

sooner than in recent decades. The increase in March 

and April temperatures is similar to the pattern 

observed in western North America and may be a 

result of climate change.

PhysioGraPhy and GeoLoGy

The information contained in this section was taken 

from “Centennial Valley: A Journey Through Time 

1820–1930 Volume 1” (Centennial Valley Historical 

Society 2006) and information obtained from Dr. Ken 

Pierce. A detailed geologic history of the Centennial 

Valley Region was written by Mr. Rob Thomas for 

the Centennial Valley Historical Society. Portions 

of Mr. Thomas’ narrative are rewritten here with 

the permission of the Centennial Valley Historical 

Society (Thomas 2000).

The Centennial Mountains and the adjacent 

Centennial Valley are very recent topographic 

features that formed from extension and uplift of the 

earth’s crust over the last 2 million years. The crust 

of the earth in the Centennial region was heated, 

causing it to rise, spread, and crack into mountains 

and valleys. The resulting uplift of the land (and 

formation of the Centennial Mountains) exposed 

rocks that record over 2.5 billion years of Earth 

history. 

The oldest rocks exposed in the Centennial region 

are metamorphic and igneous rocks (known by 

geologists as “basement” rocks) that formed from 

the high pressures and temperatures produced by 

collisions of continents between 2.7 and 1.7 billion 

years ago (Archean and early Proterozoic eons) 

(O’Neill and Christiansen 2004). Roughly during 

this time, the Centennial region was part of an area 

geologists call the Dillon Block. The basement rocks 

of the Dillon Block continued to erode until about 600 

million years ago (late Proterozoic Eon). At this time, 

the western part of the North American continent 

began to break apart to form a new ocean basin.

Approximately 520 million years ago (Cambrian 

Period), a global sea-level rise flooded the Centennial 

region with shallow water, covering the eroded 

basement rocks with oceanic sedimentary deposits. 

During the Cambrian period, the North American 

continent was located near the Earth’s equator; as 

such, the water was tropical and teemed with animal 

and plant life. The hard shells of the organisms that 

lived in these waters were buried and cemented 

together to form thousands of feet of sedimentary 

rock called limestone. This limestone can be observed 

today on the steep light-colored walls on the northfacing side of the Centennial Mountains.

 Over the next 320 million years, fluctuations in sea 

level caused the deposition of marine and nonmarine 

sediment in the Centennial region. The intermittent 

tropical waters that covered the Centennial region 

finally withdrew about 200 million years ago (Jurassic 

period). Marine and nonmarine deposition resumed 

again during the remainder of the Mesozoic era, but 

the marine waters were contained in an interior 

seaway that was north/south trending (connecting 

the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean). The 

mountains along the western margin of this interior 
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 37

Figure 7. Significant declines in annual, December, and January precipitation totals between 1948 and 2005 (Service 

data).

10

15

20

25

30

1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

y = -0.0673x + 152.63

R2

 = 0.076

P = 0.042

Total Annual Precipitation

Lakeview, MT 1949-2005

Annual Precipitation (in)

Year

y = -0.0181x + 37.109

R2

 = 0.0846

P = 0.030

Total December Precipitation

Lakeview, MT 1948-2005

Year

Mean December Precipitation (in)

0

2

4

6

8

10

1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

y = -0.0236x + 48.026

R2

 = 0.0938

0

2

4

6

8

10

1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

P = 0.022

Year

Mean January Precipitation (in.)

Total January Precipitation

Lakeview, MT 1948-2005

Mike Parker/USFWS
38 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Figure 8. Mean annual, March, and April air temperatures at Lakeview, Montana, between 1949 and 2005. 

Significant increases are shown for the months of March and April (Service data).

Mean Annual Temperatures

Lakeview, MT 1949-2004

Year

Mean Annual Temperature ( F)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

y = 0.0062x + 22.712

R2 = 0.0032

P = 0.58

o

Mean March Temperatures

Lakeview, MT 1949-2005

Year

y = 0.1395x - 253.01

R2 = 0.211

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

P < 0.01

Mean March Temperature ( F) o

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

y = 0.0591x - 82.865

R2

 = 0.062

P = 0.087

Mean April Temperatures

Lakeview, MT 1949-2005

Year

Mean April Temperature ( F) o

Mike Parker/USFWS
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 39

seaway consisted, in part, of a chain of volcanoes. The 

collision of the contiguous crust and the Pacific Ocean 

floor caused the production of liquid rock (magma and 

lava) in a process called subduction. 

Approximately 80 million years ago (Cretaceous 

Period), the sedimentary rocks that were deposited 

above the basement rocks were compressed by 

this collision between the contiguous crust and 

the Pacific Ocean floor, forming features known as 

thrust faults. In the Centennial region, the basement 

rocks were also included in this folding and faulting, 

which helped to expose these deeply buried rocks 

at the surface. As the compression continued during 

the Cretaceous period, streams and alluvial fans 

carried gravel eastward away from the mountains 

and toward the interior seaway. The mountains also 

migrated eastward over time, causing the gravel to 

be buried and crushed by the weight of the overlying 

rock. The weight of the moving mountains caused the 

cobbles to be cemented back together—geologists 

call these deposits the Beaverhead Group. The 

deposits are well exposed near Lower Red Rock 

Lake.

The last 50 million years (Cenozoic Era) marks a 

transition from compression to extension of the 

Earth’s crust and ultimately the formation of the 

valley (or basin) and range topography that are the 

Centennial Valley and Centennial Mountains today. 

This formation of the valley and range topography 

of the Centennial region started at least 17 million 

years ago (Miocene Epoch). This type of topography 

is formed when the crust of the Earth rises and is 

pulled apart or extended to form linear mountains 

and valleys along high-angle fractures in the crust 

called normal faults. The Odell Creek Fault is an 

example of a normal fault in the Centennial Valley.

Over the last 4 million years, westward movement 

of the North American continent caused the 

Yellowstone hot spot to move eastward and formed 

west to northwest trending mountains, like the 

Centennial Mountains (Sears and Fritz 1998, Thomas 

et al. 2000). The Centennial Mountains present today 

may have started to uplift as recently as 2 million 

years ago (Pliocene Epoch). The timing of the uplift 

is constrained by the Huckleberry Ridge Tuff, a 

ground-hugging volcanic ash flow that erupted from 

the Yellowstone and Island Park area around 2.05 

million years ago (Christiansen 2001, Lanphere et 

al. 2002). The distribution pattern of this particular 

ash flow suggests that the Centennial Mountains 

could not have existed at the time of the eruption. 

As a result, the Centennial Mountain range has 

probably risen over 5,000 feet in the last 2.0 million 

years (Sonderegger et al. 1982). The faults in the 

area remain active today, with an average of forty 

earthquakes recorded each year in the Centennial 

Valley (Michael Stickney, director, Earthquake 

Studies Office, Montana Bureau of Mines and 

Geology, Butte, Montana; personal communication 

through R.C. Thomas, 2006).

The topography of the Centennial region was 

significantly modified by glacial action over the last 

200,000 years (Pleistocene Epoch). Alpine glaciers 

deeply eroded the mountains to produce the rugged 

landscape of the high country and deposited glacial 

outwash gravels that built large alluvial fans along 

the northern flank of the Centennial Mountains (for 

example, the Odell Creek alluvial fan) (O’Neill and 

Christiansen 2004). 

The Red Rock lakes are pluvial lakes (formed 

from rainfall) that formed during the last glacial 

period due, in part, to increased moisture. The 

lakes have shrunk as the climate became warmer 

and drier during the last 10,000 years. As the 

sandy shorelines of the lakes became exposed, the 

sand was windblown into sand dunes, forming the 

sandhills area in the northeastern corner of the 

Centennial Valley. Hot springs activity in the valley 

is the result of groundwater that is heated by the 

high geothermal gradient in the area. The heated 

groundwater migrates to the surface following active 

faults. During this glacial period, the valley was 

home to an array of Pleistocene mammals, including 

mammoths, camels, bison, horses, and saber-toothed 

cats. Many of these animals went extinct near the 

end of the Pleistocene Epoch. The first humans were 

in the valley by at least 10,500 years ago, as shown 

by radiocarbon dating of artifacts found in the valley 

(Albanese et al. 1995).

The refuge has collected weather data for over fifty years.

Mike Parker/USFWS

S

Information contained in this section is taken from 

a soil survey (Nielson and Farnsworth 1965) that 

was conducted by the Soil Conservation Service in 

cooperation with Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge. The survey was completed in 1965.
40 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Characteristics of the soils on the refuge are 

extremely varied due to changes in parent material, 

vegetation, and the effect of climactic forces such as 

wind, water, and ice. Topography and time have also 

had important influences. Soils range in texture from 

loamy sand in the Breca series to heavy clay of the 

Castle series. The better drained soils on the fans are 

predominately loamy-textured containing variable 

amounts of gravel, cobble, and stone. Soils in the 

glaciated and mountainous region vary considerably 

in depth and have a high percentage of rock fragment 

in the profile. The soil in the Centennial Mountains 

east of the Odell Creek drainage consists principally 

of carbonitic mineral. The mountainous area west 

of Odell Creek is both igneous and sedimentary in 

origin, and the soils are more clayey with less lime 

carbonate. The soils north of the Red Rock lakes 

become more sandy and have considerably less 

gravel in the profile.

Eleven soil association descriptions were developed 

for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge as 

reported in the 1965 soil survey report.

Group 1. Peat and Marsh associations:

These are very poorly drained soils on the 

bottomlands that lie adjacent to the open-water areas 

and live streams. These are represented in the soils 

survey by marshland, peat and muck, Centennial 

clay, and alluvial lands, and have a 5–12 inch layer of 

peat over a clay mineral soil that is strongly gleyed 

(greenish-gray in color and oxygen-deprived due to 

high water content).

Group 2. Lamoure and Ching associations:

These are imperfectly to poorly drained soils on the 

bottomlands that are not as wet as the soils in group 

1. The soils are deep and vary in texture from clay 

to sandy loam. They are calcareous (consisting of or 

containing calcium carbonate), slightly to moderately 

alkaline, and have water tables within moderate 

depths of 2–5 feet from the surface. The soils common 

to this group are Bug sandy loam, Centennial clay, 

Ching loam, and Lamoure loam.

Group 3. Arvada and Beckton associations:

These are imperfectly drained saline-alkaline soils 

that occur on the bottomlands but usually occupy a 

slightly higher position than the associated soils in 

groups 1 and 2. The soils are fine-textured and have 

a high sodium saturation at shallow depths, which 

makes them strongly alkaline and toxic to many 

plants. Strong columnar or prismatic structure in 

the subsoil is common to these sodic soils (containing 

sodium). They are frequently found in complex with 

many of the imperfectly drained soils in group 2.

Group 4. Breca and Breece associations:

These are well-drained sandy soils that occupy the 

fans and dune topography to the north of the Red 

Rock lakes. The majority of the soil is loamy sand in 

texture and erodes very easily if not protected with 

vegetative cover. They are rapidly permeable and 

responsive to light showers.

Group 5. Sangrey and Big Elk associations:

These are well-drained soils that occupy the 

footslopes and fans at the base of the Centennial 

Mountains. They are predominately loamy-textured 

and contain variable amounts of gravel, cobble, and 

stone. They are the most maturely developed of all 

the soils in the survey. Other soils common to this 

group are the Melville, Adel, and loamy type of 

Breece. The Adel and Breece soils are less developed 

than other soils in this group.

Group 6. Castle soil associations:

These are imperfectly to well-drained heavy clay 

soils that occupy both smooth fans and buckled or 

slumped landscapes in the very southwest portion of 

the refuge. They are limited in area and very slowly 

permeable.

Group 7. Hanson and Raynesford associations:

These are well-drained, high lime soils that occupy 

the fans, footslopes, and glacial moraines to the 

south and east of Upper Red Rock Lake. They are 

predominately loamy textured and have a high 

percentage of limestone, gravel, and cobble in the 

profile. The Snowcrest soils in this group have a thick 

dark surface.

Group 8. Gilispie and Merino associations:

These are well-drained upland soils that are <20 

inches deep to igneous rock (primarily Rhyolite with 

some Basalt scarps). They occupy moderately steepto steep-rolling upland and occur in the northeast 

portion of the survey area, close to Elk Lake.

Group 9. Skaggs soil associations:

These are well-drained upland soils that are <20 

inches deep to limestone rock and have a high 

percentage of rock outcrop. They occupy steep to 

very steep mountainous areas to the east and south 

of Upper Red Rock Lake.

Group 10. Loberg-Little Horn associations:

These are well-drained forest soil areas that 

occupy steep north-facing slopes of the Centennial 

Mountains. Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine are the 

dominant tree species. The soils are predominately 

more than 20 inches deep and are both loamy- and 

clayey-textured, having variable amounts of gravel, 

cobble, and stone. Other soils common to this group 

are the Whitefish soils on the glacial moraines, 

Wishard, Sapphire, Carnet, and Worock series.

Group 11. Rockland areas:

These are very steep mountainous areas having more 

than 50% rock outcrop that occupy the steep scarps 

of the Centennial Mountains.
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 41

Water resourCes

The refuge is located in the upper end of the Red 

Rock River watershed. This watershed is the 

headwaters of the Missouri River. The refuge 

encompasses approximately 25,000 acres of natural, 

enhanced, and created wetlands. Upper and Lower 

Red Rock lakes have a combined surface water area 

of approximately 6,300 acres. These two lakes, along 

with Swan Lake and River Marsh area, are remnants 

of a post-glacial lake that is believed to have covered 

most of the valley floor at one time (Ken Pierce, 

geologist emeritus, USGS, Bozeman, MT; personal 

communication, 2005). This wetland complex has 

many sources of surface and groundwater inputs. 

Spring runoff plays an important role in the 

hydrology of the mountain creeks that flow into this 

wetland complex (see figure 9). Major sources of 

input into Upper Red Rock Lake include Red Rock 

and Tom creeks. In addition, Elk Springs Creek 

(which originates from Elk and Picnic springs) 

ultimately provides surface water to the Upper Red 

Rock Lake after the water flows through Swan Lake. 

River Marsh, a wetland area that connects Upper 

and Lower Red Rock lakes, receives surface water 

input from Teepee Creek. Lower Red Rock Lake has 

Odell Creek as a major source of input. The outlet of 

Lower Red Rock Lake, known as Red Rock River, 

flows west toward Lima Reservoir and eventually 

becomes the Beaverhead River.

Most Upper Red Rock Lake tributaries have 

their origins to the south at the eastern end of the 

Centennial Mountains. Red Rock Creek begins at 

an elevation of about 8,400 feet mean sea level (here 

this creek is known as Hell Roaring Creek) and flows 

north and west about 13 miles to the eastern shore of 

Upper Red Rock Lake. Tom Creek, about 6.2 miles 

long, originates at an elevation of 7,910 feet mean 

sea level and flows northwesterly toward its junction 

with the eastern shore of Upper Red Rock Lake. 

Picnic Creek originates at two large springs on the 

eastern boundary of the refuge. In the late 1800s, 

homesteaders dammed Picnic Creek, creating Culver 

Pond; this pond was enlarged by the refuge in 1959 

to 27 acres. Widgeon Pond (132 acres), which was 

created by impounding Picnic Creek downstream 

of Culver Pond in 1964, flows into Elk Springs 

Creek. MacDonald Pond (5 acres) was created by 

impounding Elk Springs Creek near the spring 

heads. Elk Springs Creek flows into Swan Lake and 

then into Upper Red Rock Lake. 

Odell Creek, the major source of surface water 

input for Lower Red Rock Lake, originates at an 

elevation of 9,200 feet mean sea level and flows north 

approximately 12 miles to the eastern shore of the 

lake. Other sources of input into Lower Red Rock 

Lake that originate in the Centennial Mountains and 

flow north into the valley include Humphrey, Duff, 

and Matsingale creeks. 

There are a few surface water inputs that flow 

from the north side of the Centennial Valley into 

this wetland complex. Teepee Creek originates on 

lands owned by the state of Montana and flows onto 

the refuge. This creek is an important source of 

groundwater recharge to the lands north of River 

Marsh (Steve Custer, professor, Earth Sciences, 

Montana State University, Bozeman MT; personal 

communication, 2006). In addition, Metzel Creek 

flows into Red Rock River just west of Lower Red 

Rock Lake. This creek is also an important source to 

the high water table that exists north of Lower Red 

Rock Lake. 

Odell Creek north of county road.

W. Steve Sherman/USFWS

Water riGhts

When Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in 1935, with a checkerboard of acquired 

private land and land reserved from public domain, 

there were numerous notices of appropriation that 

had been filed in the county courthouse. Early 

inspection reports documented evidence of ditches 

and headgates built to put water to use. Apparently, 

those facilities were allowed to deteriorate and 

refuge staff did not irrigate most of the areas for 

approximately 30 years.

In the 1960s the refuge manager and region 1 

regional office engineers researched the water 

rights appurtenant to lands within the boundary 

and compiled a list of water rights. At the same 

time, refuge staff began to rehabilitate the existing 

irrigation systems. According to data files at Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, between 1963 

and 1971 stream measurement devices were installed 

and points of diversion were surveyed. There are 

records of measured water use for the years 

1963–1971.

Most of the refuge was designated as a wilderness 

area in 1976. There are no records of water use 

for irrigation after 1973. Many of the diversion 

structures were removed before the actual 

designation of wilderness (Gene Stroops, former 

Red Rock Lakes refuge manager; personal 

communication, 2005).
42 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Figure 9. Representative flow rates for Red Rock, Odell, and Tom creeks at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge (Service data).

0

35

70

105

140

175

4/1 4/21 5/1 5/21 5/31 6/30 9/28 10/28

2001 2003 2004

Red Rock Creek

cubic feet per second 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5/1 5/10 5/19 5/28 6/6 6/15 6/24 7/3 7/12 7/21 7/30 8/8 8/17 8/26 9/4 9/13 9/22 10/1 10/10 10/19 10/28

1995 1999 2003

Tom Creek

cubic feet per second

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

5/1 5/9 5/17 5/25 6/2 6/10 6/18 6/26 7/4 7/12 7/20 7/28 8/5 8/13 8/21 8/29 9/6 9/14 9/22 9/30 10/8 10/1610/24

2001 2003 2004

Odell Creek

cubic feet per second

Mike Parker/USFWS
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 43

Lower Red Rock Lake Water Control Structure

The original water control structure (WCS) was 

built in 1930 by MFWP to stabilize the water level 

of Lower Red Rock Lake. In 1957 the Service 

constructed a second structure just upstream of the 

original WCS. A dam safety inspection in 1982 found 

several serious problems. The Service developed 

a plan to rehabilitate the WCS and change the 

operation to meet biological requirements. That plan 

included raising the lake’s water level 2 feet for part 

of the year. 

A new water right was needed to cover the additional 

storage. Anticipating objections from downstream 

water users whose rights were filed earlier than 

Red Rock Lakes rights, the Service worked with the 

Water Users Irrigation Company (Lima Reservoir) 

and East Bench Irrigation District to develop a 

memorandum of understanding acknowledging 

that the additional water to be stored was actually 

their water, which would be held temporarily by the 

refuge. In the memorandum of understanding, the 

Service agreed to coordinate with them about the 

timing of releases. Rehabilitation of the structure 

was completed by Ducks Unlimited in 1988. 

Tucks Slough

This project was constructed in 1989 by Ducks 

Unlimited. Anticipating that an application for a 

new water right would receive objections from 

downstream users, the Service filed an application 

to change the place and purpose of use of 9.5 cubic 

feet per second of existing Red Rock Creek water 

rights from irrigation to storage. After a contested 

case hearing, the Montana Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation (DNRC) approved 

the application and a permit was issued. As part of 

the change process, 750 acres were permanently 

retired from irrigation to offset the consumptive use 

associated with the new ponds.

Montana Statewide Water Rights Adjudication 

(Basin 41A)

In 1982 the Service filed use rights for 32,952 acrefeet for open-water areas and 25,979 acre-feet for 

marsh areas. These amounts were calculated from 

surface acreage multiplied by 3.3 foot average depth 

for open water and 1 foot average depth for shallow 

water and marsh habitat. In addition, based on the 

early notices of appropriation appurtenant to the 

acquired lands, claims were submitted for 32,073 

acre-feet for irrigation of 12,829 acres for fish and 

wildlife purposes. There were several other minor 

claims as well.

As of 2004, only 9% of basin 41A (located in the 

drainage area above the Clark Canyon Reservoir) 

has been examined in preparation for issuing a 

temporary preliminary decree. The Service could 

have waited for the state process to be completed. 

However, given the potential for objections alleging 

abandonment of irrigation rights, and little ability 

to protect streamflows for fish and riparian (river) 

purposes under state law, the Service opted 

to negotiate for federal reserved water rights. 

Negotiations began in 1984 and were discontinued in 

early 1986, due to personnel changes and conflicting 

priorities for the state and federal parties. In 1997 

the state of Montana requested that negotiations 

be resumed. Numerous meetings, technical work, 

and coordination with local water users culminated 

in approval of the Water Rights Compact (compact) 

between the state of Montana and the United States 

of America, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and Red Rock 

Lakes Wilderness. The compact was signed by the 

state, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the 

U.S. Department of Justice in 1999. A second bill 

correcting errors in the consumptive use table was 

passed in the Montana legislature in 2001.

Technical Work

Before and during negotiations, Service hydrologists 

installed gauges, and refuge staff took water 

measurements for 3 years. Hydrologic analysis 

predicted high, average, and low flows for each creek 

and the frequency with which those flows occurred 

(see figure 9). The Service’s Montana Fish and 

Wildlife Management Assistance Office, confirmed 

that the minimum streamflows identified by MFWP 

for Red Rock, Odell, and Tom creeks were sufficient 

to support Arctic grayling (Kaeding and Boltz 

1999). Water rights claimed by upstream users were 

evaluated by DNRC to determine how much water 

was actually being used. In some cases, owners 

agreed to reduce their claims to reflect actual use. 

Several owners also signed management agreements 

describing how a refuge request for water from 

upstream users would occur.

Major Compact Provisions

The compact includes the following major provisions:

1. Protects natural flows of all streams for 

wildlife habitat maintenance and enhancement, 

subordinate to diversion rights actually existing 

in 1999.

2. Maintains senior minimum streamflows of 1.4 

cubic feet per second in Tom Creek, 11 cubic 

feet per second in Odell Creek, and 15 cubic feet 

per second in Red Rock Creek.

3. Recognizes the natural outlet elevation of 

6607.5 feet mean sea level for Lower Red Rock 

Lake.

4. Confirms consumptive use rights for 

maintenance of refuge lakes, marshes, and 

ponds.
44 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

5. Confirms existing uses of 8 acre-feet for the 

campground spring, 8 acre-feet of groundwater 

for residence and headquarters use, and 1.5 

cubic feet per second from Shambow Creek for 

irrigation of the headquarter lawn.

6. Confirms that the Service retains the right 

to develop an additional 8 acre-feet of 

groundwater for future headquarters and 

visitor use. 

7. Allows for future diversion of 3,000 acre-feet 

from Odell Creek for irrigation purposes.

8. The compact specifies that there will be no 

changes in use for natural and minimum 

flows, and that changes in consumptive use 

are constrained to the purposes of the refuge. 

Any changes must be made in accordance with 

applicable state law.

9. Montana DNRC imposed an administrative 

closure on the drainage basins above the refuge 

and will not issue any new ground permits >35 

gallons per minute and 10 acre-feet per year. 

Small stock and domestic use from springs and 

wells are exempt from the closure.

10.The Service retains the right to object to 

inaccurate claims in the preliminary decree and 

may also petition courts for relief in the event of 

a conflict over water.

A

Air quality is a global concern. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency has lead 

responsibility for the quality of air. Through the 1990 

Clean Air Act, the agency sets limits on the amount 

of pollutants that can be discharged into the air. 

Nationally, more than 170 million tons of pollution 

are emitted annually into the air within the United 

States borders, 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 natural processes. The agency 

has identified six principal pollutants that are the 

focus of its national regulatory program: lead, carbon 

monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, 

and particulate matter. 

Air quality problems in Montana are usually related 

to urban areas in mountain valleys or river valleys 

that are sensitive to temperature inversions. 

Particulate matter and carbon monoxide are the air 

pollutants that have the greatest adverse impact 

on Montana’s air quality. Particulate matter is a 

measure of tiny liquid or solid particles in the air that 

are respirable in the lungs. In the area of the refuge, 

carbon from automobiles (including all-terrain 

vehicles and snowmobiles) and diesel engines; soot 

from slash burning, forest fires, fireplaces, and wood 

stoves; and dust associated with windblown sand and 

dirt from roadways and fields may all contribute to 

particulate matter. The major sources of particulate 

matter are vehicles traveling on unpaved roads and 

forest fires.

The refuge has a designated Class I air quality area 

as defined under the Clean Air Act of 1977. Air 

quality in the area of the refuge is considered good, 

with no nearby manufacturing sites or major air 

pollution sources. Throughout the year, occasional 

widespread regional smoke caused by large-scale 

forest fires located to the west (in Idaho, Oregon, 

Washington, and Montana) and annual agricultural 

burning that occurs in Idaho (just south of the 

Centennial Mountains) causes haze, which results in 

reduced visibility. The small particles and aerosols 

resulting from these fires are carried long distances 

in the air and cause haze in this remote location. 

Emissions from snowmobiles have been an issue in 

nearby Yellowstone National Park. A wintertime 

study of snowmobile emissions indicated that 

particulate emissions from two-stroke snowmobile 

engines have a potential for visibility impacts in 

the Yellowstone National Park airshed (Sive et al. 

2003). Investigations would need to be conducted 

to determine if air quality and visibility are being 

impacted by snowmobile use.

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The following sections describe the biological 

resources that may be impacted by the 

implementation of the CCP. Biological characteristics 

include vegetation communities, birds, mammals, 

insects, reptiles, and amphibians. Unless otherwise 

noted, much of the following information is from 

unpublished Service data located in files at the refuge 

office. 

Figures 10 and 11 show the location and composition 

of the various habitat types and vegetation 

communities described in this section and found on 

the refuge, as defined by the National Vegetation 

Classification System (Anderson et al. 1998). Data 

for these figures were collected during 2005–07 by 

refuge staff (Newlon 2007). 

S

Shallow lake (lacustrine) wetland habitats are defined 

as >20 acres in total area and having more than 30% 

cover of emergent vegetation. These habitats often 

exhibit alternative stable states (Bayley and Prather 

2003). One state is characterized by hypereutrophic 

conditions (excessive nutrient concentration), turbid 

water, and pelagic (open water) phytoplankton 

(microscopic plants). The second state, and the 

current state of refuge lacustrine habitats, is 

characterized by clear water and submerged aquatic 

vegetation (SAV). Within the refuge, lacustrine 

wetlands cover more than 6,300 acres of habitat 

(USFWS 1999a) (see figure 12). 
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 45

Figure 10. Habitat types found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
46 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

The most abundant SAV species in refuge lacustrine 

habitats, in order of decreasing magnitude, are 

Richardson’s pondweed, sago pondweed, and 

shortspike watermilfoil (Paullin 1973); however, the 

abundance of SAV species is highly variable. For 

example, the abundance of shortspike watermilfoil 

in Lower Red Rock Lake has varied in abundance 

from <2% of species composition in 1955–56 (Beed 

1957) to nearly 60% in 2002 (USFWS 2004). Canadian 

waterweed comprised nearly 40% of the SAV 

community in Lower Red Rock Lake during 1955–56 

(Beed 1957) but was reduced to trace amounts by 

2002 (USFWS 2004). Confounding the shifts in 

Lower Red Rock Lake SAV communities are the 

series of water control structures built at the lake’s 

outflow beginning in 1930. 

Although many factors determine the distribution 

of plant species within lacustrine habitats, water 

depth is perhaps the most significant. Water depths 

of refuge lacustrine habitats typically do not exceed 

7 feet, with the exception of Widgeon Pond. At the 

greatest water depths experienced on the refuge, 

SAV may be sparse, especially in more turbid 

waters. SAV species that can be found at depths 

>2.5 feet include whitestem, flatstem, and sheathed 

pondweeds, Canadian waterweed, coon’s tail, and star 

duckweed. At shallower water depths (<2.5 feet), 

sago, pondweeds (Richardson’s, Fries’, small, and 

fineleaf), shortspike watermilfoil, common stonewort, 

longbeak buttercup, quillworts, wapato, and slender 

niad are common. Emergent vegetation in refuge 

lacustrine habitats is dominated by hardstem bulrush 

islands within Lower Red Rock Lake (more than 60 

acres). Beaked sedge and broadleaf cattail can also be 

found on these islands. Within Swan Lake and River 

Marsh, islands of beaked sedge are prevalent. Rush, 

spike rush, American sloughgrass, smartweed, and 

common mare’s-tail commonly germinate on exposed 

mud flats during low-water years. 

Characteristic Wildlife

Native fishes found in lacustrine habitats include 

Arctic grayling, mountain whitefish, Westslope 

cutthroat trout, burbot, white sucker, longnose 

sucker, and mottled sculpin. Of these species, Arctic 

grayling and Westslope cutthroat trout have been 

listed as species of concern by the state of Montana. 

However, Westslope cutthroat trout in Upper Red 

Rock Lake are primarily hybrids with Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout and rainbow trout (Mogen 1996). 

Nonnative fishes introduced to refuge lacustrine 

habitats include Yellowstone cutthroat trout, rainbow 

trout, and brook trout. Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

are considered a species of concern by the state of 

Montana within its native habitat, primarily the 

Yellowstone River and tributaries. 

Waterbird species use lacustrine habitats on the 

refuge primarily for foraging, with the exception 

of nesting that occurs within the bulrush islands 

of Lower Red Rock Lake. Species nesting in these 

islands include trumpeter swan, canvasback, 

redhead, lesser scaup, coot, grebes (pied-billed, 

western, Clark’s, red-necked, eared, and horned), 

Franklin’s gull, Forster’s tern, white-faced ibis, 

double-crested cormorant, and great blue and 

black-crowned night-herons. Marsh wrens and 

yellow-headed blackbirds are also common nesters 

on the bulrush islands. American white pelicans are 

commonly seen on the refuge, although no breeding 

colony exists.

Mammals common to lacustrine habitats include 

muskrat, mink, and river otter. Additionally, little 

brown bats commonly forage over lacustrine habitats 

at night. Blotched tiger salamander is the primary 

amphibian of these habitats. 

S

Seasonally flooded (palustrine) emergent wetlands 

are typically flooded each spring and dominated by 

persistent emergent vegetation (plants which grow 

underwater but have their tops above water), often 

on peat-forming soils. The frequency and duration of 

flooding is highly variable and a major determinant 

of vegetation communities in this dynamic habitat. 

Soil characteristics (physical and chemical) are also 

important. More than 9,000 acres of the refuge are 

palustrine emergent wetlands (USFWS 1999a).

Relatively homogenous stands of beaked sedge 

represent over 80% of palustrine emergent wetlands 

on the refuge. These extensive areas of seasonally 

flooded sedge are largely associated with Upper 

Red Rock, Lower Red Rock and Swan lakes, and 

River Marsh. Moving upslope, much of the sedgedominated habitat is surrounded by the second most 

common palustrine emergent wetland vegetation 

on the refuge, Baltic rush. As noted for lacustrine 

habitats, other emergent vegetation species 

often germinate on exposed mud flats during lowwater years. These include spike rush, American 

sloughgrass, smartweed, and common mare’s-tail. 

Characteristic Wildlife 

Palustrine emergent wetlands provide extensive 

habitat for breeding migratory waterbirds. Species 

known to nest in this habitat include trumpeter 

swan, canvasback, redhead, lesser scaup, ruddy 

duck, mallard, northern shoveler, blue-winged 

and cinnamon teal, gadwall, northern pintail, coot, 

sandhill crane, Wilson’s snipe, sora, Virginia rail, 

American avocet, marsh wren, and northern harrier. 

Other birds common to palustrine habitats, but which 

typically nest in drier areas, include willet, Wilson’s 

phalarope, spotted sandpiper, and killdeer.

Mammal species common to palustrine emergent 

habitats on the refuge include meadow and montane 

voles, muskrat, and mink. Striped skunk, coyote, and 
 Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 47

Figure 11. Vegetation classifications found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
48 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 49

Figure 12. Wetland types found in Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
50 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

red fox also commonly forage in these habitats. These 

habitats also support all of the amphibian and reptile 

species that occur on the refuge: western toad, boreal 

chorus and Columbia spotted frogs; blotched tiger 

salamander; and western terrestrial garter snake. 

S

Soils in these habitats range from poorly drained 

peat or muck meadows, saline (salty) to calcareous 

(containing accumulations of calcium and magnesium 

carbonate). The refuge has three major wetland 

shrub communities: shrubby cinquefoil dominated, 

low-statured willow dominated, and tall-statured 

willow dominated. 

Shrubby Cinquefoil

The shrubby cinquefoil community is dominated by 

this low-statured (<2 feet in height) shrub with low 

to moderate (10%–60%) canopy cover. Topography in 

these wetlands is often hummocky (small scattered 

knolls or mounds). The surface is saturated through 

early summer, but the water table typically drops 

by mid- to late summer. Dominant graminoids (grass 

and grass-like plants) include Baltic rush, tufted 

hairgrass, clustered field sedge, and mat muhly. 

Forbs (broad-leaved herbaceous plants) are diverse 

and may be abundant with up to 35% cover. Common 

forb species include meadow zizia, weak groundsel, 

pleated gentian, meadow thistle, and wild chives. 

Dandelion, Rocky Mountain iris, and Kentucky 

bluegrass may be common to abundant in stands that 

have been heavily impacted by grazing.

Low-statured Willow

Low-statured willow habitats on the refuge are 

dominated by the low (<3 feet in height) Wolf’s 

willow. Willow canopy cover is typically moderate 

to high (30%–80%). Soils are generally histosols, 

entisols, or mollisols (Hansen et al. 1995). This 

habitat occurs on both subirrigated (created by 

an elevated water table) flats and adjacent to lowgradient streams. Generally, this habitat remains 

saturated until late summer. Other shrubs present 

include bog birch and diamondleaf willow. The 

understory is a dense graminoid layer dominated 

by beaked sedge, Baltic rush, and tufted hairgrass. 

Forb cover is low and slender cinquefoil, northern 

bedstraw, and largeleaf avens are common.

Tall-statured Willow

Tall-statured willow habitats are dominated by 

Booth’s and Geyer willows, with Booth’s willow 

having higher canopy cover. Total willow canopy 

cover ranges from 10%–30%. On the refuge, these 

habitats are found along streams as well as in an 

extensive willow fen (an area of low, flat, marshy 

land) in the southeastern portion of the refuge. Along 

streams, soils are generally from alluvium, whereas 

willow fen soils are derived from peat. These sites 

generally remain saturated throughout the growing 

season. The understory is dominated by graminoids, 

typically tufted hairgrass, northern reedgrass, 

and various sedge species. Forbs are diverse but 

often have low canopy cover (10%–20%). Common 

forb species include largeleaf avens, wild chives, 

fringed willow herb, slender cinquefoil, elephanthead 

lousewort, and false lily of the valley. In all three 

shrub-dominated habitats, disturbed areas typically 

also have smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and 

Canada thistle.

Characteristic Wildlife

Shrub-dominated wetlands on the refuge support 

a diverse breeding bird community. According to 

refuge surveys, the most common species include 

yellow warbler, song sparrow, common yellowthroat, 

white-crowned and Lincoln’s sparrows. Common 

mammal species include moose, elk, white-tailed 

deer, striped skunk, meadow and montane voles, and 

long-tailed weasel. Amphibian and reptile species 

observed include western terrestrial garter snake, 

western toad, boreal chorus and Columbia spotted 

frogs, and blotched tiger salamander. Native fishes 

found in refuge creeks include Arctic grayling, 

Westslope cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, 

white sucker, longnose sucker, and mottled sculpin. 

Nonnative fishes include brook trout, rainbow trout, 

and Yellowstone cutthroat trout.

© Cindie Brunner

Short-eared owl
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 51

Wet MeadoWs

Wet meadow habitat occurs over 7,000 acres of the 

refuge. Topography of wet meadows on the refuge 

varies from level to undulating or hummocky. 

Soils are poorly drained loam, sandy loam, or clay. 

These habitats are dominated by a dense layer of 

graminoids (sedges, rushes, and grasses) with low 

to moderate forb diversity and low forb canopy 

cover. These areas are flooded early in the growing 

season, but soils are dry by mid-summer. Dominant 

graminoids include Baltic rush, clustered field sedge, 

and mat muhly. Tufted hairgrass is common on areas 

with moderate moisture, whereas basin wildrye, 

Sandberg bluegrass, and meadow and foxtail barley 

are common on drier or more alkaline sites. Forb 

coverage and diversity varies with moisture gradient 

and level of disturbance, mainly grazing. Native forbs 

in portions of this habitat with moderate moisture 

include northern bedstraw, darkthroat shooting 

star, pleated gentian, meadow zizia, meadow thistle, 

slender thelypody, hooded lady’s tresses, weak 

groundsel, and hookedspur violet. Rocky Mountain 

iris, common dandelion, and Kentucky bluegrass 

are common in areas influenced by grazing. Bare 

ground is rare. The amount of residual cover is 

variable depending upon the species composition 

and subsequent vegetative growth of the previous 

growing season. Differences in species composition 

and moisture gradients result in a mosaic of 

relatively short (<1 foot in height) and relatively tall 

(>2 feet in height) vegetation. On average, vegetation 

is <20 inches in height by late summer.

Montane wet meadows, a type of high-elevation 

wetland, undergo a rapid wet/dry cycle, with 

complete flooding in the spring and early summer 

followed by two to three months of little to no 

precipitation. Groundwater flow, surface runoff, and 

spring/early summer precipitation are important 

water sources for these habitats (Windell et al. 1986). 

Hydrologic cycles in these habitats are strongly 

influenced by snowpack, and water table levels can 

undergo extreme fluctuations both within a single 

growing season and annually (Svejcar and Riegel 

1998). Variation in the depth to water table has a 

strong influence on plant species distribution (AllenDiaz 1991, Castelli et al. 2000, Dwire et al. 2006). Soil 

characteristics are also important drivers of plant 

species composition and distribution, in particular 

the soil redox potential (Dwire et al. 2006). Soil 

redox potential is the ability of the soil to gain or 

lose electrons. When soils are inundated with water, 

pore spaces in the soil are depleted of oxygen, and an 

anaerobic soil layer develops. The soil redox potential 

varies temporally and spatially and is strongly 

tied to water table depth (Castelli et al. 2000). The 

composition and distribution of plant species reflects, 

in part, their tolerance of these anaerobic conditions.

The majority of wet meadow habitats on the refuge 

are grazed by cattle 1 out of every 3 years. Cattle 

typically arrive in mid-July and remain until mid- to 

late September. Nonnative plants, including smooth 

brome, Canada thistle, and Kentucky bluegrass, have 

invaded portions of this habitat, particularly areas 

that were historically-hayed. Prescribed fire has been 

used to reduce cover of smooth brome. 

Characteristic Wildlife

Wet meadow habitats on the refuge support a 

diverse breeding bird community, including longbilled curlew, willet, sandhill crane, northern harrier, 

short-eared owl, Savannah sparrow, and western 

meadowlark. Common mammal species include 

pronghorn, coyote, striped skunk, meadow and 

montane voles, long-tailed weasel, and American 

badger. Amphibian and reptile species observed 

include western toad, boreal chorus and Columbia 

spotted frogs, blotched tiger salamander, and 

western terrestrial garter snake.

Garter snakes are the only reptiles known to inhabit 

the refuge.

Mike Parker/USFWS

S

Upland shrub-steppe habitats, or habitats where 

both shrubs and grasses share dominance, occur on 

over 9,200 acres of the refuge. Several shrub-steppe 

habitats occur on the refuge, with areas dominated 

by threetip sagebrush. These habitats typically have 

<20% sagebrush canopy cover. Threetip sagebrush 

is very localized in Montana, occurring only in the 

extreme southwestern portion of the state. This 

species typically occurs on gentle alluvial slopes 

or benches with moderately deep soils (Mueggler 

and Stewart 1980). Other common species include 

green rabbitbrush, fringed sagewort, and spineless 

horsebrush. Bunchgrasses dominate the understory 

with an average of 70% cover. Idaho fescue, needle 

and thread, and prairie Junegrass are the most 

common bunchgrass species. Typically, <10% of the 

soil is bare. Forb cover and diversity are low with 

silvery lupine, spiny phlox, sticky geranium, rosy 

pussytoes, old man’s whiskers, and common yarrow 

being the most common. Mountain big sagebrush 

shrublands occur on the southern edge of the refuge 

on the foothills of the Centennial Mountains, as 

well as within snowmelt drainages and north-facing 
52 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

aspects. Again, grasses are the most common plant 

form in the understory with Idaho fescue, basin 

wildrye, western needlegrass, and nodding brome 

being the most common. Forb coverage and diversity 

are moderate with sticky geranium, flax, and slender 

cinquefoil being common. Basin big sagebrush 

shrublands occur only within the Centennial 

Sandhills (see “Centennial Sandhills” in the next 

section). Two shrub-steppe habitats, mountain 

silver sagebrush and greasewood, are considered 

wetland habitats. Silver sagebrush shrublands occur 

on alluvial fans on the refuge and typically have 

<20% sagebrush canopy cover. An alluvial fan is a 

sedimentary deposit where a fast-flowing stream 

has flown into a flatter plain. Idaho fescue, basin 

wildrye, and western wheatgrass are the dominant 

understory species. Greasewood shrublands also 

occupy alluvial fans on saline or alkaline soils. 

Most examples occur on the north and south sides 

of Lower Red Rock Lake. Grasses dominate the 

understory and include basin wildrye, western 

wheatgrass, Nuttall’s alkaligrass, inland saltgrass, 

and Sandberg bluegrass. 

Grasslands on the refuge occur primarily north of 

Lower Red Rock Lake and make up over 2,000 acres. 

The bunchgrass, Idaho fescue, has by far the most 

coverage at over 1,500 acres. On more alkaline soils, 

basin wildrye, Nuttall’s alkaligrass, and Sandberg 

bluegrass are common. Forb coverage and diversity 

is variable depending upon soil moisture and type. 

Silvery lupine, rosy pussytoes, and common yarrow 

are the most widely occurring forbs.

Soil type is the primary determinant of vegetation 

distribution. Secondarily, fire and herbivory are 

important drivers of sagebrush and grassland 

structure, composition, and seral stage. Highintensity fires can result in replacement of sagebrush 

species by subdominant shrubs such as green 

rabbitbrush, rubber rabbitbrush, and spineless 

horsebrush. With heavy grazing by livestock during 

the growing season, native bunchgrasses associated 

with Idaho fescue-dominated grasslands can be 

reduced or replaced by nonnative rhizomatous 

grasses such as smooth brome and Kentucky 

bluegrass. Rhizomatous plants have underground 

horizontal stems which send up shoots from 

underground.

Grassland and shrub-steppe communities on the 

refuge are relatively intact and contiguous. The 

largest disturbance to these habitats resulted from 

seeding of nonnative forage for hay production, which 

occurred before refuge ownership. These haying 

operations resulted in the replacement of native 

vegetation with nonnative, rhizomatous grasses, 

particularly smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and 

meadow foxtail. Other invasive species, including 

cheatgrass, Canada thistle, and common tansy, occur 

in localized patches throughout these communities.

Characteristic Wildlife 

Grassland and shrub-steppe habitats provide 

important nesting habitat for numerous migratory 

land birds, waterbirds, and raptors. These habitats 

also provide critical calving and fawning grounds 

for native ungulates and support a relatively intact 

predator and prey community. The value of these 

habitats to wildlife is enhanced by their relatively 

unfragmented character. Common birds of shrubsteppe and grassland habitats include Brewer’s 

sparrow, vesper sparrow, western meadowlark, 

Savannah sparrow, long-billed curlew, greater 

sage-grouse, and short-eared owl. Mammal species 

occurring in this habitat include white-tailed 

jackrabbit, coyote, badger, red fox, pronghorn, elk, 

mule deer, and Wyoming ground squirrel. Gray 

wolves have also been observed in these habitats. 

Amphibian and reptile species include western 

terrestrial garter snake, blotched tiger salamander, 

and boreal chorus frog. 

CentenniaL sandhiLLs

The Centennial Sandhills (sandhills) cover the 

northeastern portion of the Centennial Valley and 

make up over 3,500 acres of refuge habitat. This is 

44% of the 7,907 total acres that occur in the valley. 

These well-vegetated, relatively stable sand dunes 

are in various states of activity. The western dunes, 

located outside of the refuge boundary, are the most 

active and topographically varied, whereas those 

on refuge lands to the east are well stabilized with 

less topographic relief. Soils in the sandhills are 

highly erodible, well-drained, and sandy. Vegetative 

communities in these sandhills occur nowhere else 

in Montana (Lesica and Cooper 1999). Basin big 

sagebrush is the dominant shrub with 5%–40% 

canopy cover. Such dominance of basin big sagebrush 

is rare in Montana (Morris et al. 1976). Threetip 

sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, green rabbitbrush, 

and spineless horsebrush are other common shrubs. 

Bunchgrass canopy cover ranges from 5%–90% 

with needle and thread dominant and Idaho fescue 

codominant in some portions. Other common grasses 

include prairie Junegrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and 

thickspike wheatgrass. Forbs have 5%–45% cover 

and moderate to high diversity. Hoary tansyaster, 

silvery lupine, granite prickly phlox, buckwheat, 

silverleaf phacelia, tarragon, slimflower scurfpea, 

and brittle pricklypear are common. 10%–70% of 

the soil surface is bare sand, although the nonnative 

pale madwort is common in some portions of the 

sandhills, subsequently reducing the amount of bare 

sand. Several rare plant species are found in areas of 

open sand in early seral portions of this habitat. Two 

species are critically imperiled (painted milkvetch 

and sand wildrye), and one species (Fendler cat’seye) is imperiled in Montana due to limited range and 

habitat in the state. The status of a fourth species, 

pale evening primrose, is currently under review 

by the network of Natural Heritage Programs. 
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 53

The sandhills contain several unique vegetation 

associations, one of which, the threetip sagebrush 

and needle and thread grass vegetation association, 

is critically imperiled globally (MTNHP 2002).

Characteristic Wildlife

The Centennial Sandhills support several sagebrush 

obligate breeding birds, including Brewer’s sparrow 

and sage thrasher. They require sagebrush to 

survive. Greater sage-grouse use the sandhills from 

early spring through fall; early refuge records show 

how grouse migrated to lower elevations for winter, 

including the western Centennial Valley and Camas 

Flats in Idaho. Other common breeding species 

include vesper sparrow, western meadowlark, longbilled curlew, and willet. Mammal species observed 

in the sandhills include four mammal species of 

concern in Montana: Preble’s shrew, black-tailed 

jackrabbit, pygmy rabbit, and Great Basin pocket 

mouse (Hendricks and Roedel 2001). Other common 

mammals include white-tailed jackrabbit, coyote, 

badger, red fox, pronghorn, elk, mule deer, Wyoming 

ground squirrel, northern pocket gopher, and several 

shrew species. Gray wolf has also been observed 

in this habitat. Amphibian and reptile species 

observed in the sandhills include western terrestrial 

garter snake, blotched tiger salamander, and boreal 

chorus frog. Several invertebrate species have been 

observed in the sandhills, including four species of 

tiger beetle and several butterfly species including 

Rocky Mountain parnassian, sooty hairstreak, and 

the common branded skipper (Hendricks and Roedel 

2001). 

There is minimal aspen habitat within the refuge 

boundary.

Mike Parker/USFWS

A

Aspen communities comprise approximately 280 

acres on the refuge and occur as relatively small 

patches located within wetlands in the southeastern 

portion of the refuge near Upper Red Rock Lake, 

within mixed stands of aspen and conifer, and as 

larger patches on the fringe of Douglas-fir forests on 

the southern edge of the refuge. These larger patches 

are typically associated with old earthflows and 

landslides on the northern flank of the Centennial 

Range. The vegetation in these communities is 

variable, ranging from two-layered quaking aspen 

overstory and grassland understory communities 

(quaking aspen and mountain brome, quaking aspen 

and pinegrass) to multilayered quaking aspen and tall 

forb; and quaking aspen and tall willow vegetation 

associations. The upper elevation limit for aspen 

within the Centennial Valley is about 8,500 feet.

Reproduction in these aspen communities is most 

likely vegetative via root suckering, forming clonal 

(genetically identical) stands. Aspen are shade 

intolerant and regeneration cannot occur under 

a dense tree canopy (Jones and Debyle 1985). 

Historically, many of these stands were maintained 

through disturbances, such as fire, that removed 

the overstory and promoted root suckering. Largescale declines of aspen across the western United 

States have been widely distributed, likely caused 

by a combination of factors, including global climate 

change, high levels of ungulate herbivory, and conifer 

encroachment due to fire suppression (Brown et al. 

2006).

Recent work suggests that aspen loss at the scale of 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has averaged 

10% in the last 50 years—much less than previous 

studies have suggested (Brown et al. 2006). Much 

local variability exists in changes in aspen extent, 

likely based on biophysical setting and climatic 

conditions (Brown et al. 2006). In the Centennial 

Mountains of Idaho, vegetation models show a 

75% decline in aspen coverage since the mid-1800s 

(Gallant et al. 2003). A 45% decline in coverage of 

aspen, and mixed aspen and conifer stands over 

the past 50 years was estimated in the Gravelly 

Mountains of southwestern Montana (Wirth et 

al. 1996). A recent study conducted on the refuge 

found successful aspen regeneration throughout the 

twentieth century along the sagebrush-grassland 

and forest ecotone (a transition zone between two 

different plant communities) (Sankey et al. 2006). 

Preliminary results of a second study conducted in 

the Centennial Valley show some aspen expansion, 

but most sites exhibited loss of aspen due to conifer 

encroachment (Korb et al. 2008). Fire suppression 

has likely promoted the encroachment of Douglas-fir 

into aspen stands, potentially reducing their extent. 

Surveys conducted by The Nature Conservancy 

(on file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge) showed that where aspen are successfully 
54 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

regenerating, aspen stems are undergoing moderate 

to heavy browsing by elk and moose, with few stems 

growing above browse height. 

Characteristic Wildlife

Aspen is often considered a keystone species, and 

aspen habitats, aside from riparian corridors, are 

the most biologically diverse habitats in the Rocky 

Mountains (Dobkin et al. 1995). Several bird species 

breed in aspen woodlands more than in any other 

habitat (Dobkin et al. 1995, Finch and Reynolds 

1987, Turchi et al. 1995, Winternitz 1980), and 

some species may be aspen obligates (Finch and 

Reynolds 1987, Turchi et al. 1995). Aspen habitats 

are particularly important to cavity-nesting 

birds such as woodpeckers (Dobkin et al. 1995, 

Martin et al. 2004). The susceptibility of aspen to 

fungal heartrot creates ideal conditions for cavity 

excavation, creating nesting and roosting sites for 

several bird and mammal species (Dobkin et al. 

1995). Bird species that breed in aspen habitats on 

the refuge include red-naped sapsucker, northern 

flicker, hairy woodpecker, American three-toed 

woodpecker, American kestrel, tree swallow, house 

wren, ruffed grouse, warbling vireo, lazuli bunting, 

western tanager, and great gray owl. Aspen stands 

on the refuge also provide valuable browse for native 

ungulates (moose, elk, and mule deer). Gray wolves 

have also been observed in these areas. Amphibian 

and reptile species include western toad, boreal 

chorus and Columbia spotted frogs, and western 

terrestrial garter snake.

ConiFerous WoodLands and Forests

Coniferous woodlands (evergreen trees having <60% 

canopy cover) and forests (evergreen trees having 

>60% canopy cover) cover over 3,500 acres on the 

refuge. The primary natural disturbance in these 

habitats is fire. Several sawmills operated in the 

Centennial Valley during the early 1900s, but the 

extent of logging that occurred in the area that is 

now part of the refuge is unknown. 

At the forest and grassland ecotone, open woodlands 

dominated by Douglas-fir occur. Understory 

vegetation is dominated by mountain big and threetip 

sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Idaho fescue. 

Historically, these woodlands underwent frequent 

(annually to every few years) low-severity fires, 

which killed sapling and small-diameter trees and 

maintained the open tree canopy. Since settlement of 

the Centennial Valley, fires in these woodlands have 

been actively suppressed because most homes and 

other buildings occur in this habitat. Cattle grazing 

occurs in these woodlands, reducing fine grassy fuels. 

As a result, tree densities have increased and forests 

have expanded into the adjacent sagebrush and 

grassland habitat (Heyerdahl et al. 2006, Korb 2005, 

Sankey et al. 2006). 

Open woodlands (tree canopy cover <60%) of limber 

pine are found on mostly south- and southwest-facing 

slopes. The ground is mostly bare and gravelly, and 

understory vegetation is sparse. Scattered common 

juniper and bluebunch wheatgrass are the most 

common understory species although their coverage 

is typically <10%. Fire is infrequent due to the lack 

of fuels. Trees in these sites may be several hundred 

years old (Cooper 1999).

Coniferous forests flank the north-facing slopes 

of the Centennial Mountains, ranging in elevation 

from 6,700 to 9,600 feet. Common tree species 

include Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, 

Engelmann spruce, whitebark pine, and limber 

pine. Shrubs make up a minor component of the 

vegetative community with mountain snowberry 

and common white spiraea. The undergrowth can 

be sparse depending upon tree canopy cover. The 

forb understory can be diverse, but no species are 

particularly common except heartleaf arnica, timber 

milkvetch, and western showy aster. Western 

meadowrue, showy aster, northern valerian, and 

mountain sweet-cicely are common forbs on more 

mesic (moderately moist) sites. In more open forests, 

the understory is dominated by graminoids, with 

Geyer’s sedge and pinegrass being most common. 

Douglas-fir dominates the tree canopy at elevations 

up to 8,200 feet. Historically, these areas of relatively 

mesic, lower-elevation forests experienced mixedseverity fires; supporting both frequent (years to 

decades) low-severity fires, which typically killed 

individual or small clumps of small-diameter trees, 

and infrequent (1 to many centuries), high-severity 

crown fires, which killed large areas (thousands of 

acres) of canopy trees (Korb 2005, Schoennagel et al. 

2004). Accordingly, the fire systems in these forests 

are the most complex and least understood of the 

major fire systems in Rocky Mountain forests. A 

complex interaction of both fuels and climate affect 

the frequency, severity, and size of fires under mixedseverity fire systems (Schoennagel et al. 2004). 

Historic fire suppression efforts in these forests were 

likely few due to their remoteness; thus, current 

conditions in these forests are likely to be within 

their historic range of variability. 

Above 7,200 feet, moist, high-elevation forests are 

dominated by subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and 

lodgepole pine. These forests experience infrequent 

(1 to many centuries), high-severity, stand-replacing 

crown fires (Schoennagel et al. 2004), and the thin 

bark of these tree species make them easily killed 

by fire. Tree density is high in these forests and tree 

canopy typically exceeds 70%, thus undergrowth 

vegetation is sparse and fuels are few.

A small (19 acres) seasonally flooded Engelmann 

spruce forest exists on the south shore of Upper Red 

Rock Lake. Soils within this association typically 

remain wet well into the growing season. Old growth 

Engelmann spruce dominates the canopy. The 
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 55

understory is dominated by a moderate cover of 

field horsetail and a dense layer of moss. Other forbs 

include arrowleaf ragwort, starry false lily of the 

valley, and claspleaf twistedstalk. This forest type is 

rare in southwest Montana. 

Characteristic Wildlife

Birds of coniferous forests and woodlands on the 

refuge include northern goshawk, bald eagle, greathorned owl, dusky grouse, Clark’s nutcracker, gray 

jay, Steller’s jay, hairy woodpecker, olive-sided 

flycatcher, hermit thrush, ruby-crowned kinglet, 

mountain chickadee, brown creeper, yellow-rumped 

warbler, dark-eyed junco, western tanager, pine 

siskin, and Cassin’s finch. Mammal species that 

inhabit coniferous forests on the refuge include elk, 

mule deer, moose, black bear, grizzly bear, wolverine, 

mountain lion, lynx, marten, short-tailed weasel, 

golden-mantled ground squirrel, yellow-bellied 

marmot, and red tree squirrel. Gray wolves have 

also been observed in these areas. Amphibians and 

reptiles of these habitats include western toad, boreal 

chorus and Columbia spotted frogs, and western 

terrestrial garter snake.

3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

This area is rich in both prehistoric and historical 

resources. A comprehensive cultural resource 

inventory has not been completed. Only site-specific 

inventories for construction projects, such as 

buildings have been done. The area is rich in cultural 

resources, and a comprehensive inventory would help 

the refuge in protecting these sites.

PrehistoriC resourCes

Due to its unique location offering access to wetland 

and mountain ecotones, Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge has likely supported native people 

for the last 12,000 years. The area has abundant 

natural springs and game along with stone suitable 

for tool manufacture, including obsidian, ignimbrite, 

cherts, and Quadrant quartzite. The east–to–west 

trending valley and low pass over the Continental 

Divide would also have been a natural travel route. 

Because of deep winter snow, it is likely that summer 

use by prehistoric peoples was more common (Taylor 

1991).

Little excavation work has been conducted near the 

refuge so models for understanding the culture of 

native peoples are not well-developed. Being situated 

at the Continental Divide, Red Rocks Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge borrows from both the Basin Plateau 

Model and Plains Model. In the Basin Plateau Model, 

artifacts and other technologies are similar to the 

region west of the refuge. In the Plains Model, the 

known cultures are archaeologically similar to those 

in the region east of the refuge. According to a major 

survey of federal lands in the Centennial Valley 

conducted by BLM, prehistoric people inhabited 

promontories along the Red Rock River and in the 

forested timberline along south slopes. Springs at 

the base of the slopes, near the valley floor, have 

also been documented to be important locations for 

prehistoric people. 

The valley has several prehistoric sites recorded as 

part of reviews for federal projects. Artifacts found 

in the valley are from known time periods including 

Folsum (10,500 BP), Hannah (3,000 BP), and late 

Prehistoric period (500 AD to 1800 AD). More 

archaeological work may reveal information on how 

past peoples lived in the valley.

H

Osborn Russell, a trapper who visited the area in 

1835, noted the presence of the Blackfeet tribe. 

Russell followed a well-established trail that was 

known to Lewis and Clark in their 1805 visit to the 

area north of the Centennial Valley. The trail follows 

the Blacktail drainage and crosses the Centennial 

Valley. In 1938 Julian Steward noted the presence of 

Shoshone in the Centennial Valley although, by this 

time, it is difficult to discern whether this area was 

part of their aboriginal homelands (Russell 1965). 

In 1876, in honor of the nation’s 100th birthday, the 

valley was named Centennial Valley by Ms. William 

Orr (Beaverhead County History Book Association 

1990). Reports of abundant waterfowl, fish, game, 

water, and feed for livestock spurred homesteading 

efforts. Between 1876 and 1892, development within 

the refuge went from one cabin to twenty-one 

ranches and cabins, including a post office, which 

was the seed for present-day Lakeview. This growth 

was spurred by the Utah and Northern Railway 

linking Monida to Idaho and Utah in 1880, and to 

Butte in 1881 (Ferrel et al. 1981). A stage route 

linking Monida with West Yellowstone also influenced 

development, including that at Picnic Springs and 

Shambow Pond. An article published in August 1902, 

reported, “the Monida and Yellowstone stage line 

has carried over 12,000 passengers to Yellowstone 

National Park this season and are having all they 

can handle every day” (Beaverhead County History 

Book Association 1990). Hunting clubs were also 

established on the shores of Upper and Lower Red 

Rock lakes. 

One of several pre-establishment duck hunting clubs.

USFWS
56 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Transportation route development elsewhere, 

drought, long winters, and great distances to 

market made life difficult in the Centennial Valley. 

By the Great Depression of the 1930s, few ranchers 

remained in the valley. Many sold their land back to 

the Federal Resettlement Administration during 

the 1930s. The refuge supports several historic 

homesteads left by the early Anglo settlers including 

the Shambow, Buck, and Hanson homesteads.

In 1935, the Bureau of Biological Survey (a precursor 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) sent Basyl 

Kercheval to conduct an evaluation of the area’s 

natural resources in which he suggested these 

lands should become a migratory bird refuge. 

The tremendous natural resources and impacts of 

unregulated hunting and collecting of waterfowl, 

especially trumpeter swans, helped spur the 

establishment of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge. He stated, “The economic situation is grave. 

A large part of the land is mortgaged. Taxes are 

delinquent in many cases. Livestock in very (sic) 

instance is mortgaged to various agencies for feed. It 

is conceded by every one that the Red Rock Lakes 

area has been the foremost breeding, nesting and 

resting place for migratory waterfowl with the state 

of Montana” (Kercheval 1935). Soon after, on April 

22, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established 

Red Rock Lakes Migratory Waterfowl Refuge 

(renamed Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

on July 19, 1961).

The refuge was critical in protecting the last known 

trumpeter swan population in the world. Long 

before the refuge was established, concern for the 

trumpeter swan was apparent as noted in a letter to 

the Dillon Tribune on August 21, 1895; “It is wicked 

the way the young swan are being caught at the 

Red Rock Lakes. A man from Lima has made three 

trips and we are told by good authority he got from 

25 to 30 young ones to sell. This ought to be put a 

stop to or we will soon have none of the sacred birds 

on our lakes” (Beaverhead County History Book 

Association 1990).

The Works Progress Administration constructed the 

original shop/office, barn, residence, oil storage shed, 

and fire tower from 1936–38. All of the buildings 

have undergone some modifications with the office 

undergoing major renovations over the years. 

Although several other buildings and structures 

have been added to the headquarters site, it is still 

considered eligible for inclusion into the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

© Bob Savannah

Trumpeter swan

3.4 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

In addition to refuge status, lands may have 

additional designations which overlay refuge status.

WiLderness

Congress designated 32,350 acres of the refuge as 

Red Rock Lakes Wilderness in 1976 (see figure 13). 

The wilderness is one of seventy-one such areas 

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 

1964, Congress passed and the president signed 

the Wilderness Act, which established the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. The legislation set 

aside certain federal lands as wilderness areas. Four 

federal agencies of the United States government 

administer the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, which includes 702 designated areas and 

more than 107 million acres. Wilderness, as defined 

by the Wilderness Act, is untrammeled, undeveloped 

and natural, and offers outstanding opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreation. The Refuge 

System manages refuge wilderness to secure an 

enduring resource of wilderness and to accomplish 

refuge purposes in a way that preserves wilderness 

character. People value wilderness for its wildlife, 

scenery, clean air and water, opportunities for 

solitude, and a sense of connection with nature. 

Wilderness policy permits hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, interpretation, hiking, backpacking, crosscountry skiing, canoeing, and kayaking on national 

wildlife refuges where these activities are deemed 

compatible with the purposes of the refuge. 
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 57

Figure 13. Designated wilderness within the acquisition boundary of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
58 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

WiLderness reVieW

A wilderness review is the process used to determine 

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. Land or waters 

that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness 

are identified in a CCP and further evaluated to 

determine whether they merit recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. To be designated 

a wilderness area, lands 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 

primitive and unconfined types 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 

historic value

As stated earlier, 32,350 acres of the refuge are 

already designated as wilderness. This encompasses 

over 66% of the refuge. The planning team examined 

other portions of the refuge for inclusion into the 

wilderness area. Expanding this wilderness area 

into other portions of the refuge would make 

management and enhancement of the refuge 

difficult. This could result in a net loss of habitat and 

continued spread of invasive plants. The planning 

team is not recommending any further additions or 

expansions to this existing wilderness boundary.

N

The National Natural Landmarks Program was 

established in 1962 by the Secretary of the Interior 

“to identify and preserve natural areas that best 

illustrate the biological and geological character 

of the United States, enhance the scientific and 

educational values of preserved areas, strengthen 

public appreciation of natural history, and foster 

a greater concern for the conservation of the 

nation’s natural heritage” (36 CFR 62.1(b)). It is 

the only natural areas program of national scope 

that identifies and recognizes the best examples of 

biological and geological features in both public and 

private ownership. To date, there are about 600 sites 

designated as national natural landmarks.

Portions of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

were designated as a national natural landmark in 

May 1976. Designation was granted because the 

refuge contains a “series of relatively undisturbed, 

high-altitude ecosystem types, representative of 

pre-settlement conditions in this region including 

various wetland types as well as upland meadows 

and forests.” The evaluation also commented on 

the outstanding waterfowl production that occurs 

on the refuge, as well as the occurrence of several 

“uncommon species” at the time of designation (some 

of the uncommon species include peregrine falcon, 

and bald and golden eagles).

R

Research natural areas are part of a national 

network of reserved areas under various ownerships 

where natural processes are allowed to predominate 

and which are preserved for the primary purpose of 

research and education. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service administratively designates research natural 

areas on refuges. Currently, there are 210 research 

natural areas on national wildlife refuges. Research 

natural areas have these objectives:

■ to help in the preservation of examples of all 

significant natural ecosystems for comparison 

with those influenced by people

■ to provide educational and research areas for 

scientists to study the ecology, successional 

trends, and other aspects of the natural 

environment

■ to serve as gene pools and preserves for rare 

and endangered species of plants and animals

On Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the 

Douglas-fir forest that occurs on Sheep Mountain 

was designated a research natural area. The entire 

research natural area is 85 acres in size.

Wilson’s phalarope.

Steve Sherman/USFWS

Imp B A

The National Audubon Society’s Important Bird 

Area Program concentrates on identifying and 

documenting the top important bird sites throughout 

all fifty states. For a site to be designated as an 

Important Bird Area (IBA), it must, during at least 
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 59

some part of the year, contain critical habitat that 

supports (1) significant numbers of an endangered 

or threatened species such as piping plover, redcockaded woodpecker, or Kirtland’s warbler; (2) 

a watch list species such as black rail, cerculean 

warbler, or Henslow’s sparrow; (3) a species with a 

limited range such as tricolored blackbird, yellowbilled magpie, or brown-capped rosy-finch; or (4) 

a significantly large concentration of breeding, 

migrating, or wintering birds, including waterfowl, 

seabirds, wading birds, raptors, or land birds. 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge received 

designation as an Important Bird Area by the 

American Bird Conservancy in July 2001. Since that 

time, the National Audubon Society has assumed 

responsibility for this program. More than 230 

species of birds have been documented on the refuge, 

which is well known for its breeding trumpeter 

swans and other wetland species. An estimated 2,000 

pairs of Franklin's gulls nest here, as do more than 

200 pairs of white-faced ibises. A pair of peregrine 

falcons and three pairs of bald eagles have nested 

on the refuge for many years. Thirteen species of 

breeders (long-billed curlew, olive-sided flycatcher, 

Cassin’s finch, trumpeter swan, bald eagle, northern 

harrier, Swainson’s hawk, peregrine falcon, Wilson’s 

phalarope, short-eared owl, Williamson's sapsucker, 

red-naped sapsucker, and willow flycatcher) 

are of global conservation concern. Numerical 

data are unavailable for most of these species; 

however, trumpeter swan numbers more than meet 

requirements for classifications as an IBA.

3.5 PUBLIC USES 

Visitors to Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

enjoy a variety of activities, including priority public 

uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. Figure 14 shows the location of public 

use areas at the refuge.

The annual number of visits to the refuge is around 

12,000. This estimate is loosely based on visitors 

entering the visitor contact station, campground 

sign-in sheets, and general observation. The small 

visitor contact station, housed with administrative 

offices, is open Monday through Friday. Information, 

regulations, and universally accessible restrooms are 

available. 

The refuge has a general brochure that contains 

a refuge map, describes the refuge and its 

management, identifies habitats and common wildlife, 

lists recreational activities, and cites regulations. 

Two other leaflets provide information for visitors 

who are hunting or observing birds. These two 

leaflets are produced by the refuge and do not meet 

Service graphic standards. Brochures are generally 

available at the visitor contact station, Upper Lake 

and River Marsh campgrounds, and at kiosks located 

at headquarters, the eastern side of the refuge, and 

on Elk Lake Road.

Upper Lake campground.

USFWS

H

Various forms of hunting are allowed in selected 

units of the refuge. Hunting seasons can start as 

early as August for archery seasons and generally go 

through the end of November. Species hunted include 

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

ducks, coots, and geese. Certain areas are closed to 

hunting to provide resting and feeding habitat for 

migratory birds, to protect refuge facilities, and to 

separate user groups. The limited moose hunting 

(currently an average of eleven permits annually) 

on the refuge is confined to the willow fen area 

(southeastern corner of the refuge) and begins 

later than the state regulations. Boat launches are 

provided on Lower Lake for waterfowl hunters.

FishinG

Fishing primarily focuses on three introduced trout 

species (rainbow, brook, and Yellowstone cutthroat). 

Native sport fish species include Arctic grayling, 

mountain whitefish, and Westslope cutthroat 

trout, although the latter has hybridized with 

the introduced Yellowstone cutthroat. The Arctic 

grayling and Westslope cutthroat are both species 

of special management concern. Fishing generally 

follows state regulations, with some areas closed to 

fishing seasonally or year-round. Fishing is allowed 

on Red Rock, Odell, and Elk Springs creeks, and 

Culver, MacDonald, and Widgeon ponds. 

WiLdLiFe obserVation and PhotoGraPhy

Wildlife observation and photography is the most 

popular public use on the refuge. Most visitors 

view wildlife from the public roads and refuge 

campgrounds. There are two designated hiking trails, 

but no auto tour route or overlook. Foot travel is 

permitted throughout the refuge, except at Shanbow 

Pond which is closed to the public all year. Visitors 

are encouraged to take a hike into the wilderness. 
60 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Boat launches are provided at Upper Lake and River 

Marsh campgrounds, and Lower Red Rock Lake, to 

allow visitors to explore the refuge and the wildlife 

by canoe or kayak during certain times of the year.

E

Staff-led environmental education, outreach, and 

interpretation programs are very limited, with 

refuge staff conducting talks or tours on an “asrequested” basis. Due to the refuge’s distance 

from local schools (minimum 45 miles, one way) 

and remote location, there is minimal contact with 

students in the surrounding communities. Visitors 

may explore the refuge independently and are 

provided some interpretation of refuge resources 

through informative panels in four kiosks located 

at the headquarters, Upper Lake campground, east 

entrance, and along Elk Lake Road. There are also 

displays, interpretive panels, and maps in the visitor 

contact area in the headquarters office. Interpretive 

panels are also located at Shambow Pond and the 

sandhills.

CaMPinG

Due to its remote location, the refuge provides two 

campgrounds for visitors to participate in wildlifedependent recreational activities on and off the 

refuge. River Marsh campground is located at 

Lower Red Rock Lake and the other campground 

is at Upper Red Rock Lake. Both are primitive 

sites with toilets, fire rings, and some picnic tables. 

Water is only available at Upper Lake campground. 

One campsite at the Upper Lake campground is 

universally accessible, but the outhouses are not.

3.6 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

A socioeconomic study prepared by BBC Consulting 

(2007) is the source for the information in this 

section.

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is open 

to the public and offers hunting, fishing, and wildlife 

observation and photography. These recreational 

opportunities attract outside visitors and bring 

in dollars to the community. The refuge primarily 

draws visitors from nearby Henry’s Lake in Idaho, 

but some come from Yellowstone National Park to 

the east. Ancillary visitor activity, such as spending 

on food, gasoline, and overnight lodging in the local 

area, provides local businesses with supplemental 

income and increases the local tax base. Management 

decisions regarding visitor services, expansion of 

services, and habitat improvement measures may 

either increase or decrease visitation to the refuge 

and thus affect the amount of visitor spending in the 

local economy.

S

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is located 

in Beaverhead County in southwestern Montana, 

near the Idaho border. The study area also includes 

neighboring Madison and Gallatin counties as well 

as Fremont County, Idaho, because they are in 

close proximity to the refuge and could potentially 

be affected by management decisions. Gallatin 

County is different than the other counties because 

it has a much greater population and larger urban 

centers located farther from the refuge; however, 

it is included in the study area because the city of 

West Yellowstone, located in the southern arm of 

the county near the refuge, serves as a base for 

overnight accommodation and commercial activity 

among visitors to the refuge. Fremont County in 

Idaho is also included because many visitors to the 

refuge stay in the area surrounding Henry’s Lake 

and in towns to the south.

PoPuLation and deMoGraPhiCs

The estimated 2005 population of the four-county 

study area was almost 106,500. Due to the large 

urban center of Bozeman and surrounding 

communities, Gallatin County is by far the most 

populous county in the region, with a population of 

78,200 in 2005; followed by Fremont County, Idaho 

(12,200); Beaverhead County, Montana (8,800); and 

Madison County, Montana (7,300). The population 

of the study area grew by over 26% between 1990 

and 2000, from 75,800 to 95,700. The population of 

Montana grew by 13% from 800,000 to 900,000 over 

the same period. Future growth rates for the study 

area and the state overall are expected to follow 

historical trends.

About 32% of the population in 1990 was between 

35 and 64 years old, while that same demographic 

constituted 37% of the population in 2000. Gallatin 

County, with a large student population, and 

Fremont County, Idaho, have younger populations, 

with a median age of 32 in 2000, compared to a 

median age of 39 in Beaverhead County, and 43 in 

Madison County.

E

Employment in the four-county study area grew 

significantly between 2001 and 2005, from 43,000 to 

50,800, an increase of 18%. Gallatin County had by 

far the largest workforce with 42,102 employees, 

followed by Beaverhead County (3,380); Fremont 

County, Idaho (2,890); and Madison County (2,390). 

Estimates from 2005 calculated the unemployment 

rate for Fremont County at 3.9%, Beaverhead 

County at 3.4%, Madison County at 3.1%, and 

Gallatin County at 2.8%. These compare favorably to 

a statewide unemployment level of 4% in Montana 

and Idaho.
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 61

Figure 14. Public use areas to be implemented at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
62 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 63

The study area primarily employs individuals in 

retail trade, accommodations and food services, and 

educational services. Retail establishments employed 

15% of the workforce, while accommodation and food 

services, and educational services each employed 

14% of the workforce. The agricultural industry in 

the study area is small, employing only 2% of the 

workforce. 

These data are largely driven by the large workforce 

of Gallatin County. When Beaverhead, Madison, and 

Fremont counties are examined alone, significantly 

greater proportions of the workforce are employed 

in agriculture (6.8%) and public administration 

(13.5%), and a significantly smaller proportion of the 

workforce is employed in educational services (9.4%).

Current Conditions

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge affects 

the local economy through the visitor spending it 

generates and the employment it supports. The 

refuge currently supports five full-time permanent 

employees. 

The refuge sees approximately 12,000 visitor days 

annually, of which an estimated 85%, or 10,200 visitor 

days, are not from the local area. Considering that 

expenditures can vary greatly among campers, 

lodgers, and passers-by, it is estimated that on 

average, a visitor to the refuge will spend $25 in 

the local area per day, for an annual total of about 

$260,000.

3.7 OPERATIONS

This section covers staffing, facilities, and 

partnerships for the refuge.

S

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge has 

been managed as a “stand alone” refuge since its 

establishment in 1935. Over the past 70 years, there 

have been a wide variety of staffing levels. In fiscal 

year 2009, the refuge was provided base funding for 

one full-time permanent refuge manager (GS-13), one 

full-time permanent assistant refuge manager (GS11), one full-time permanent biologist (GS-11), one 

full-time permanent maintenance worker (WG-8), 

and one full-time permanent administrative assistant 

(GS-7) (see table 4). In recent years, the refuge has 

used grants and other “soft” funding sources in order 

to hire temporary staff (such as seasonal biological 

technicians) and cover the cost of volunteer services. 

Over the past 5 years, temporary staffing levels have 

varied depending on the amount of funding acquired 

through “soft” funding sources. Temporary staff 

have been essential for collecting biological data, 

maintaining equipment and facilities (for example, 

signs, buildings, and fences), and orienting and 

educating refuge visitors. The hiring of temporary 

staff has been invaluable to accomplishing biological 

and visitor service goals each year.

Staff located at the refuge headquarters are 

responsible for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge as well as the Centennial Valley Conservation 

Easement program (see the section “Centennial 

Valley Conservation Easement” that follows). 

Table 4. Current base funded staff at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana, 2009

Staff Group Position

Management Refuge manager, GS-13, 

assistant refuge manager, 

GS-11

Biology Wildlife biologist, GS-9/11

Administration Administrative assistant, 

GS-7

Maintenance Maintenance worker, WG-8

Total Salaries and Benefits = $406,612

FaCiLities

The refuge used the Works Progress Administration 

(WPA) between 1936 and 1938 to build one log home, 

one log administrative and maintenance building 

(since converted solely to an administrative and 

visitor contact station), two log storage barns, and 

one metal fire tower. The refuge has since added 

several structures to help with management and 

operation activities. These additional structures 

include three 3-bedroom residences, one 4-bedroom 

bunkhouse, one metal maintenance shop, three 

vehicle and equipment storage structures, one trailer 

pad, and one 2-bedroom cabin. These structures were 

obtained through land acquisitions or built by the 

refuge staff. 

The infrastructure for these buildings includes two 

wells (supplying potable water to the residences, 

administrative building, bunkhouses, and 

maintenance shop) and seven operational septic 

systems. The refuge also has an operable cistern 

that draws water from Shambow Creek. This was 

the main source of water for the residences until 

1956 when a well was established. The cistern now 

serves as a back-up water supply system and is used 

occasionally by the refuge staff. The cistern was 

also used to supply water to the surrounding town 

of Lakeview. The current year-round population 

of Lakeview is between six and nine, including the 

refuge staff and their families. 

There are several unused log buildings and 

structures that were obtained through various land 

acquisitions. Several of these serve as reminders of 

the homesteading era (for example, the Buck and 

Hanson homesteads), and the Compañeros house 
64 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

is eligible for listing under the National Historic 

Preservation Act.

There are numerous water control structures, 

diversion ditches, culverts, and cattle guards (of 

various ages and condition) located throughout 

the refuge. There are approximately 12 miles of 

public and service roads maintained by the refuge 

staff and 23 miles of county-maintained roads that 

bisect the refuge. The South Valley Road (also 

known as Red Rock Pass Road) is maintained 

during the winter only from Monida, Montana, 

to the refuge headquarters. Depending on local 

weather conditions, this road can be impassable for 

several days to months at a time during the late fall, 

winter, and early spring. No other county roads are 

maintained during the winter months.

CentenniaL VaLLey ConserVation easeMent

and Land aCquisition ProGraMs

Most valleys and foothills in the greater Yellowstone 

Area and near the Centennial Valley are being 

developed or subdivided to provide homes for people 

wanting to live in more rural settings. During the 

1960s, demographers documented that for the 

first time in American history, higher proportions 

of people were leaving cities for rural areas than 

were making the return trip (Fuguitt 1985). 

“Exurbanization” accelerated in the 1990s, drawing 

people still further out into the rural West. In the 

1990s, the West’s “beachfront property”—rural lands 

adjacent to national parks and forests—were the 

fastest growing areas (Rudzitis 1996). In the Greater 

Yellowstone area, fully one-third of all private lands 

have already been subdivided for development, 

with a majority of new lots located outside existing 

towns (Harting and Glick 1994). In Gallatin County, 

17,000 acres of farmland were subdivided between 

1993 and 1999. Madison Valley recorded 16,000 acres 

subdivided into 685 lots between 1994 and 

1998—most of this into 20-acre “ranchettes” (Johnson 

1999). Even in counties with slow growth rates, loss 

of agricultural land continues. The state of Montana, 

as a whole, is consuming land four times faster than 

the population growth rate (U.S. Census Bureau 

1999). 

The Centennial Valley, in which the refuge lies, 

remains biologically intact and has not been 

converted to housing developments. Almost 150,000 

acres in the Centennial Valley are privately owned, 

and the majority of this land remains as large 

working ranches. The Service recognized a unique 

partnership opportunity and in 2001 the Service 

approved the Centennial Valley Conservation 

Easement Program. Through this program, willing 

landowners are compensated for a perpetual 

easement that keeps their lands from being 

subdivided and developed, while still permitting 

them to use their ranch lands and retain their way 

of life. Since this program began, the refuge has 

acquired perpetual conservation easements on 

20,342 acres from nine landowners (see figure 6). 

There are approximately 20,000 acres of additional 

ranch lands in the Centennial Valley protected by 

perpetual easements acquired by nongovernmental 

organizations. Given the current trends of low 

cattle prices and a strong market for scenic western 

properties, the remaining unprotected Centennial 

Valley ranches may be vulnerable to sale and 

subdivision for development. 

To achieve Service goals for fish, wildlife, and 

habitats (including providing large tracts of 

unfragmented habitats), the Service will pursue 

acquisition or protection, or both, of inholdings 

from willing sellers within the approved refuge and 

Centennial Valley conservation easement boundaries 

using both fee title and perpetual conservation 

easements (USFWS 2001). Key areas to acquire and 

protect include, but are not limited to

■ lands that protect and augment existing large 

tracts of undeveloped and unfragmented 

habitats;

■ lands that would protect wetland or riparian 

habitats, or both (such as those along Red Rock 

Creek);

■ lands that would protect source waters into the 

refuge to maintain or improve water quality and 

quantity of the refuge’s wetland habitats, such 

as Alaska Basin and Red Rock Creek. (Note: 

the reach of Red Rock Creek through the area 

known as Alaska Basin is the largest input of 

water into the refuge remaining unprotected. It 

is key spawning habitat for Arctic grayling and 

arguably the most important input of water into 

the refuge’s wetland complex). 

Staff located at the refuge headquarters are 

responsible for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge and for managing and monitoring lands 

protected under the Centennial Valley Conservation 

Easement program. No additional staff or 

operational funding was added to the refuge when 

the conservation easement program was established 

in 2001.

PartnershiPs

The refuge has a history of fostering partnerships 

that help the refuge accomplish its mission and goals. 

The refuge actively sought and fostered partnerships 

with organizations and individuals with whom a 

common goal was shared. These partners include 

county, state, and federal agencies; nongovernmental 

organizations and conservation groups; schools, 

colleges, and universities; and local landowners and 

private citizens. Private lands and significant acres 

of federal and state lands surround the refuge. These 

neighboring landowners and agencies have been and 

will continue to be partners in achieving the refuge’s 

vision in the Centennial Valley, while sharing ideas 

and resources.
Chapter 3 — Refuge Resources and Description 65

The refuge’s partners have assisted in wildlife 

and habitat management, visitor services and 

recreational opportunities, land protection and 

acquisition, fire protection, law enforcement, and 

community outreach. Several of these relationships 

have developed into formalized partnerships 

with written agreements or memorandums of 

understanding, while others remain more informal.

The refuge office, one of several historical structures.

Laura King/USFWS

4 Management Direction

Refuge wetland complex.

USFWS

The Service selected the management direction 

described in this chapter after determining that it 

does the following:

■ best achieves the refuge’s purposes, vision, 

and goals, and helps fulfill the Refuge System 

mission

■ maintains and, where appropriate, restores 

the ecological integrity of the refuge and the 

Refuge System, and addresses the significant 

issues and mandates 

■ is consistent with principles of sound fish and 

wildlife management 

This chapter also discusses objectives and strategies 

that will be implemented to help refuge staff achieve 

the CCP goals. 

4.1 MANAGEMENT FOCUS

■ There will be improved management of wetland 

habitats for trumpeter swans and other 

waterfowl and wetland birds. Management will 

focus on maintaining high wetland productivity 

through infrequent drawdowns of modified 

and created wetlands to benefit breeding and 

migrating waterfowl.

■ There will be improved management of riparian 

habitats to benefit migratory birds and Arctic 

grayling. There will be restoration of some 

modified wetlands (including Culver and 

McDonald ponds) back to riparian corridors.

■ Management actions (such as prescriptive 

grazing and prescribed fire) will only occur 

on the refuge to achieve specific habitat and 

wildlife objectives, and will include increased 

and improved oversight, monitoring, and 

research conducted to assess if management 

objectives are being met.

■ Visitor service programs will be improved 

to provide a quality visitor experience 

while promoting an increased awareness 

and understanding of refuge resources and 

management programs, which will result in 

garnering support for the Refuge System and 

the conservation of Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge and the Centennial Valley. 

■ In addition to the current staff of five and the 

existing facilities, the following will be needed 

to fully implement this plan:

R one permanent full-time GS-9 wildlife 

biologist and at least three temporary 

biological science technicians

R one permanent full-time GS-7 range 

technician

R one permanent WG-6 seasonal maintenance 

worker 

R one temporary visitor services specialist

R one temporary office assistant 
68 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

R one of the seven permanent staff will 

be required to carry law enforcement 

credentials

R Due to expanded refuge programs all grade 

levels for current staff will be evaluated

R up to four new residences for current and 

added staff

R three additional concrete pads to 

accommodate recreational vehicles needed to 

recruit seasonal volunteers

4.2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, 

STRATEGIES, AND RATIONALE

This section discusses goals, objectives, and 

strategies that serve as the steps needed to achieve 

the CCP goals.

A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not 

define measurable units.

An objective is a concise statement that indicates 

what is to be achieved, the extent of the 

achievement, who is responsible, and when and 

where the objective should be achieved.

The rationale for each objective provides context, 

such as background information, assumptions, and 

technical details. 

The strategies describe the actions needed to achieve 

the objectives.

Lake, Pond, and Marsh habitat GoaL

Provide habitat for breeding and staging migratory 

birds, native fishes, and resident wildlife that 

maintains the biological diversity and integrity of 

montane wetland systems. 

Target Species for Lake, Pond, and Marsh Habitat

To direct management actions for the greatest 

benefit of trust species in refuge lake, pond, and 

marsh habitat, we reviewed several federal, state, 

and nongovernmental lists to determine birds of 

conservation concern that use these habitats during 

breeding and migration. Five migratory bird species 

were selected as target species: trumpeter swan, 

lesser scaup, American wigeon, Franklin’s gull, and 

Wilson’s phalarope. Managing lake, pond, and marsh 

habitats for these species will (1) ensure diverse 

and productive habitats for target species and other 

native wildlife, (2) support Service conservation 

priorities and mandates, and (3) support national 

and regional interagency conservation plans such as 

the “Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky 

Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans.” The 

target species were selected based on: 

■ All five species use the refuge for some portion 

of their breeding cycle.

■ Trumpeter swan, lesser scaup, American 

wigeon, and Wilson’s phalarope are Service 

focal species (USFWS 2005).

■ Wilson’s phalarope is a bird species of 

conservation concern (USFWS 2002b).

■ Trumpeter swan and Franklin’s gull are statelisted sensitive species in Montana (MTNHP 

and MFWP 2006).

■ Trumpeter swan, Franklin’s gull, and Wilson’s 

phalarope are listed as priority level III or 

higher by Montana Partners in Flight (Casey 

2000).

Trumpeter Swan Objective

Trumpeter Swan Objective 1: Following objectives 

put forth by the “Pacific Flyway Management Plan 

for the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter 

Swans” (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain 

Trumpeter Swans 2008), the refuge will work to 

ensure there are nineteen nesting pairs and 140 

adults and subadult trumpeter swans during the 

breeding season, on average, in the Centennial Valley 

by 2013.

Strategies

— Continue seasonal closures of important 

breeding habitats to minimize disturbance to 

trumpeter swans and other waterbirds during 

nesting and brood rearing periods.

— Continue year-round closures of natural lakes 

to fishing and hunting for the benefit of staging 

and migrating trumpeter swans and other 

waterbirds (Swan and Upper Red Rock lakes).

— Continue to manage wetlands using infrequent 

drawdowns to improve productivity of these 

habitats for breeding, staging, and migrating 

trumpeter swans.

— Continue to coordinate the annual fall survey of 

the tri-state component of the Rocky Mountain 

population of trumpeter swans.

— Continue to conduct annual nest and brood 

surveys of the refuge and surrounding 

Centennial Valley to monitor trumpeter swan 

production.

— Continue to work with cooperators to address 

factors affecting key demographic rates of tristate trumpeter swans, such as adult survival.

Rationale 

Trumpeter swans were once abundant across most 

of North America, but were reduced to a population 

of less than 120 known individuals by 1936 (Banko 

1960). From this population low point, through 

diligence and hard work by many, trumpeter swans 

have recovered remarkably. In 2005, there were 

nearly 35,000 known trumpeter swans in North 

America, with breeding populations in fifteen 

states across the native range of the species. The 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 69

Rocky Mountain population of trumpeter swans, 

which includes swans that nest and winter in the 

Centennial Valley, reached a record high of 5,228 

birds in 2005. This population winters in the tri-state 

area of southwestern Montana, southeastern Idaho, 

and northwestern Wyoming. The population nests 

in two general areas. The largely nonmigratory 

tri-state subpopulation nests primarily in the 

Centennial Valley of southwestern Montana, 

Yellowstone National Park, and southeastern Idaho. 

A migratory population segment, the interior Canada 

subpopulation, nests in Alberta, British Columbia, 

Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Saskatchewan. 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge played 

a pivotal role in the contiguous restoration of 

trumpeter swans, and the Centennial Valley 

continues to be one of the most productive swan 

habitats in the tri-state area of Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming. From the inception of the refuge in 1935 

to the winter of 1992–93, winter feeding of trumpeter 

swans occurred on the refuge, with the initial goals 

of increasing swan production in the surrounding 

area and improving the refuge’s ability to protect 

the small population from illegal harvest. Winter 

feeding was one of a suite of actions taken to restore 

trumpeter swans that included translocation, captive 

rearing, and intensive field studies to provide a 

better understanding of swan ecology.

Trumpeter swan management on the refuge is 

currently focused on providing productive and 

undisturbed wetland habitats during critical 

breeding, staging, and migrating periods. This 

includes a recent change in water level management 

of Lower Red Rock Lake and River Marsh, which 

supports more nesting swans than any other 

habitat on the refuge. Beginning in 1988, after the 

construction of the existing WCS at the outflow 

of Lower Lake, water management called for a 

Lower Lake water level of 6609.0 mean sea level 

(msl) during early spring. This level results in most 

residual emergent wetland vegetation being flooded 

to a level that makes it unavailable to overwater 

nesting waterfowl. These high water levels were 

commonly maintained into June and in some years 

much longer, essentially shifting the ecology of 

Lower Lake from a highly productive wetland to a 

less productive shallow lake. Other potential negative 

effects of high spring water levels on waterfowl 

during the prebreeding and breeding periods include 

reduced availability of foodstuffs, including aquatic 

invertebrates (Murkin and Kadlec 1986) and roots 

and tubers. High water levels may also delay the 

onset of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) growth 

by limiting light penetration and causing lower 

water temperatures, negatively affecting foraging 

waterfowl. Trumpeter swans may be particularly 

sensitive to elevated water levels in the early spring. 

Tubers are an important carbohydrate-rich food 

source for trumpeter swans, especially during late 

winter and early spring (Anderson and Low 1976, 

Paullin 1973, Squires and Anderson 1995). Although 

little is known of the nutrient dynamics of breeding 

trumpeter swans, many temperate breeding 

waterfowl are dependent upon stored endogenous 

fat reserves obtained during early spring for clutch 

formation (Alisauskas and Ankney 1992). Reduced 

availability of tubers could prevent prebreeding 

swans from attaining adequate endogenous reserves. 

While it is obvious that a population must 

successfully reproduce to sustain itself, reproductive 

success, per se, may not be the most significant 

factor affecting population growth. Reproduction 

is considered ‘costly’ to individuals due to the 

increased mortality risks associated with breeding 

and caring for young. This results in a trade-off 

between reproductive effort and adult survival, 

and suggests that individuals must balance the 

immediate cost of reproducing in a given year and 

the probability of future reproductive success. For 

short-lived bird species this typically results in most, 

or all, individuals breeding each year regardless 

of conditions—their chance of surviving to breed 

again is low, so they have little choice but to breed 

in an effort to maximize their lifetime reproductive 

success. They have to put all their proverbial “eggs 

in one basket.” However, in long-lived bird species, 

individuals are likely to survive for multiple breeding 

seasons; therefore, they can optimize their lifetime 

reproductive success by not breeding at all, or 

abandoning their brood, during poor years, surviving 

to breed in years where the likelihood of fledging 

young is greater. For trumpeter swans, which can 

live greater than 20 years in the wild, maximum 

fitness can be achieved by foregoing breeding in 

a poor year, waiting until better conditions are 

available to attempt nesting and rearing of young. 

This can result in seemingly extreme variation 

in annual production in long-lived species in 

variable environments, like trumpeter swans in the 

Centennial Valley. It is also believed that this is why 

population growth is most sensitive to changes in 

adult survival of long-lived species (Gaillard et al. 

Trumpeter swans.

Maryanne Mott/USFWS
70 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

2000, Ricklefs 1977, Schmutz et al. 1997). Given this 

understanding of how long-lived species have evolved 

a life-history strategy that maximizes adult survival, 

it is imperative that trumpeter swan management 

considers factors affecting key demographic rates 

like juvenile and adult survival in addition to annual 

reproductive success. 

Natural Lakes Objective

Natural Lakes Objective 1: Maintain Upper Red Rock 

and Swan lakes in a SAV-dominated stable state 

(>35% and 60% SAV canopy cover, respectively) 

throughout the life of the CCP, for the benefit of 

migratory birds and native fishes.

Strategies

— Review existing water quality data to provide 

an understanding of the natural variation to be 

expected in Upper Red Rock and Swan lakes. 

— Develop a monitoring protocol with an 

emphasis on factors that could alter 

phosphorous and nitrogen levels, as well as 

turbidity (for example, upland management in 

the surrounding watershed).

Rationale 

Shallow lakes often exist in one of two stable 

states. The first, and current state of Upper Red 

Rock and Swan lakes, is a relatively clear water, 

SAV-dominated condition. The second state is 

characterized by turbid water and algal domination. 

These two states seem to fall along a continuum of 

abiotic and biotic factors such as total phosphorous 

concentrations (Bayley and Prather 2003) and the 

presence of zooplankton grazers (Jeppesen et al. 

1998), respectively. Several of these factors can be 

altered by human actions higher in the watershed. 

The refuge’s natural lakes 

provide foraging and broodrearing habitat for a diverse 

group of waterfowl and 

waterbirds. Maintaining these 

lakes in a SAV-dominated 

condition increases the value 

of the lakes to foraging birds. 

Greater plant biomass directly 

benefits predominantly 

herbivorous species such as 

trumpeter swan (Mitchell 

1994, Squires and Anderson 

1995), as well as increases 

the abundance and diversity 

of invertebrates (Krull 1970, 

Voigts 1976, Zimmer et al. 

2000) for breeding ducks 

(Baldassarre and Bolen 2006) 

and largely carnivorous 

species such as eared grebe 

(Cullen et al. 1999), Franklin’s gull (Burger and 

Gochfeld 1994), and Wilson’s phalarope (Colwell and 

Jehl 1994).

Upper Red Rock Lake also supports one of the last 

endemic populations of adfluvial Arctic grayling in 

the contiguous United States (Kaya 1992, Unthank 

1989). This population migrates into Red Rock Creek 

during the spring to spawn and lives the remainder 

of the year in Upper Red Rock Lake (Gangloff 1996, 

Nelson 1954). There is limited evidence that a small 

component of the population migrates into Odell 

Creek during the spring to spawn (Gangloff 1996, 

Nelson 1954), although a recent Service survey 

indicated most Arctic grayling that spawn in Odell 

Creek spend the entire year in the creek. Aquatic 

invertebrates are a significant food source for lakedwelling Arctic grayling (Kruse 1959, Leonard 1939); 

therefore, this unique population of Arctic grayling 

will also benefit from maintaining Upper Red Rock 

Lake in its current SAV-dominated condition. 

Water-quality monitoring will be conducted to 

ensure the management of adjacent habitats would 

not adversely affect the lakes. Grazing and fire are 

known to increase the nutrient cycling of nitrogen 

and phosphorous (Burke et al. 2005, Hauer and 

Spencer 1998, McEachern et al. 2000). Management 

of upland habitats adjacent to Upper Red Rock or 

Swan lakes could result in elevated levels of these 

nutrients. Elevated levels of phosphorous and 

nitrogen can lead to increases in algae and turbidity 

in shallow lakes, which may ultimately lead to 

significant losses of SAV communities (Egertson 

et al. 2004).

Created wetland, North Tuck Slough.

USFWS
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 71

Managed Wetlands Objectives

Managed Wetlands Objective 1: Manage Shambow, 

Shorebird, Shoveler, Sparrow, and Tepee Creek 

ponds and Sparrow Slough with alternate, infrequent 

drawdowns to provide approximately 132 acres 

of semipermanent palustrine emergent habitat 

with 30%–50% flooded emergent canopy cover for 

the benefit of breeding target species and other 

migratory birds over the life of the CCP. 

Managed Wetlands Objective 2: Over the life of the 

CCP, divert water to North Tuck Slough from 

Red Rock Creek only in years when snow-water 

equivalent is above the 30-year average by the last 

day of snow-pack accumulation, as measured by 

the SNOTEL site (SNOpack TELemetry), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. This will provide 103 acres 

of semipermanent palustrine emergent habitat 

with 30%–50% flooded emergent canopy cover for 

breeding migratory bird habitat, while protecting 

riparian corridors on Red Rock Creek.

Strategies

— Conduct a drawdown every 7 years (on 

average), in an alternating cycle, on managed 

wetlands, throughout the life of the CCP.

— Begin monitoring emergent wetland vegetation 

to ensure the objective is being met, within the 

first year of implementation of the CCP. 

— Fill North Tuck’s Slough, via the Hansen 

diversion, as prescribed. 

— Throughout the life of the CCP, monitor Red 

Rock Creek for Arctic grayling fry upstream of 

the Hansen diversion weekly when diverting 

water to North Tuck’s Slough. The diversion 

will be closed when Arctic grayling fry are 

observed (see Arctic Grayling Objective 1). 

Rationale

Periodic drawdowns will be undertaken to increase 

productivity of these managed wetlands. Maintaining 

relatively static and high water levels, as has been 

done with the wetlands in recent history, lowers 

wetland productivity. Static water levels create 

anaerobic conditions within wetlands, thereby 

limiting decomposition and nutrient cycling (Brinson 

et al. 1981). The natural drought cycle of prairie 

glacial wetlands allows for infrequent aeration of the 

bottom substrate and decomposition of accumulated 

detritus (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986). Less is known 

about the effects of drought on montane wetlands, 

but key physical processes (such as decomposition 

of detritus and release of soluble nutrients) should 

function in much the same fashion. Therefore, 

drawdowns in managed wetlands are frequently 

recommended in order to mimic the natural drought 

cycle and stimulate the decomposition of accumulated 

detritus and nutrient cycling (Payne 1992). 

Persistent deep water in wetlands also alters plant 

communities. Many species of wetland plants do 

not germinate in deep water and cannot survive if 

continuously flooded (Bishop et al. 1979, Harris and 

Marshall 1963, Kadlec 1962, Weller 1999). As a result, 

there are greater open-water areas, which reduces 

populations of aquatic invertebrates and lowers bird 

diversity (Weller and Spatcher 1965, Weller 1981). 

Although this open-water marsh stage is selected by 

various bird species such as American coot, lesser 

scaup, ruddy duck (Murkin et al. 1997), and grebes 

(Cullen et al. 1999, Muller and Storer 1999, Storer 

and Nuechterlein 1992), it represents a phase of 

the natural cycle marshes undergo, not a climax 

community. Drought conditions “reset the clock” for 

an open-water-stage marsh by lowering water levels, 

which results in exposed mud flats that stimulate 

plant germination. When reflooding occurs, dense 

stands of inundated emergent vegetation persist for 

a brief period before being flooded out. The period of 

open water, interspersed with emergent vegetation 

in roughly equal amounts, is known as the hemimarsh. Maximum bird numbers and the greatest 

diversity of dabbling duck species are associated 

with the hemi-marsh stage (Kaminski and Prince 

1981, Murkin et al. 1997, Weller and Spatcher 1965). 

The continued flooding during the hemi-marsh stage 

results in the return of the marsh to the open-water 

stage. 

Managed Wetlands Objective 3: Remove impoundments 

on Elk Springs Creek and the upper reach of Picnic 

Creek that create MacDonald and Culver ponds, 

respectively, within 15 years of CCP approval, to 

restore approximately 1.7 miles of riparian habitat 

for spawning Arctic grayling, migratory birds, and 

native ungulates (see Arctic Grayling Objective 1).

Managed Wetlands Objective 4: Throughout the life 

of the CCP, maintain Widgeon Pond at full pool to 

maintain the trumpeter swan nesting territory and 

provide lacustrine habitat for Arctic grayling during 

nonbreeding periods of their life-cycle.

Managed Wetlands Objective 5: Restore a spawning 

population of Arctic grayling in Elk Springs and 

Picnic creeks within 15 years of the plan’s approval 

(see Arctic Grayling Objective 1).

Strategies

— Conduct drawdowns on Culver and MacDonald 

ponds during the first 5 years of the plan and 

monitor trumpeter swan response.

— Until restoration is complete, maintain 

the current infrastructure on Culver and 

MacDonald ponds to allow water-level 

manipulations to (1) establish stream channels, 

(2) restore native riparian vegetation, and (3) 

provide the option of flooding out nonnative 

invasive plants such as Canada thistle.
72 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

— Use stream sections below each of the proposed 

restorations as representative sites (such as 

width to depth ratio, sinuosity, and riparian 

vegetation species composition and canopy 

cover) to determine when restoration has been 

successfully completed.

— Define Arctic grayling spawning habitat based 

on cobble size, steam stretch classification 

(riffle, pool, run), and water temperature and 

velocity to ensure suitable spawning habitat is 

provided in each restored stretch. 

— Update the WCS at Widgeon Pond to a design 

that will prevent emigration or immigration of 

fish. 

— Replace the culvert on Culver Road to make 

fish movement to the headwaters of Elk 

Springs Creek easier.

— Remove nonnative fish from Picnic Creek and 

Widgeon Pond, throughout the life of the CCP.

— Use remote-site incubators (Kaeding and 

Boltz 2004) in Elk Springs and Picnic creeks to 

reestablish Arctic grayling populations. 

— Restore Pintail Ditch. This will also preclude 

diversion of water to the West Pintail 

Ditch wetlands. Move the recently installed 

fish screen on Pintail Ditch to the Hansen 

Diversion, which is used to fill North Tuck 

Slough from water diverted from Red Rock 

Creek.

Moose depend on refuge riparian areas for winter 

survival.

Mike Parker/USFWS

Rationale 

Arctic grayling in Montana represent a glacial 

relict population from the Wisconsinan Ice Age 

(Redenbach and Taylor 1999). Two endemic Arctic 

grayling populations are known to persist in 

Montana: a fluvial (river-dwelling) form in the Big 

Hole River and an adfluvial (lake-dwelling and 

stream spawning) form in Upper Red Rock Lake, 

and two lakes in the Big Hole river drainage. These 

populations represent the last endemic populations 

of adfluvial Arctic grayling in the contiguous United 

States, although populations have been established 

in greater than thirty lakes throughout western 

Montana (MFWP 1996). Adfluvial Arctic grayling 

spend the nonbreeding season in lake habitats, while 

using lake tributaries for spring spawning activities. 

Early accounts by homesteaders show that Arctic 

grayling were common throughout the lakes and 

streams of the upper Centennial Valley (Unthank 

1989). The population began to decline in the 1930s 

(Vincent 1962), likely due to a combination of factors 

such as introduction of nonnative fish (such as brook 

trout), water diversion, Lima and Clark Canyon 

dams that block fish from historic habitat, and heavy 

grazing of riparian corridors (Unthank 1989). Upper 

Red Rock Lake Arctic grayling currently only spawn 

in Red Rock and Odell creeks, although historically 

they spawned in other Upper Lake tributaries. 

Restoring Elk Springs Creek and the upper reach 

of Picnic Creek will provide approximately 1.7 miles 

of stream habitat that was traditional spawning 

habitat for Arctic grayling. To create a lake and creek 

complex to meet the life-history needs of adfluvial 

Arctic grayling, Widgeon Pond, an impoundment 

downstream of Culver Pond on Picnic Creek, will 

be maintained. The Picnic Creek and Widgeon Pond 

complex will be managed specifically for Arctic 

grayling, which will include the removal of nonnative 

fish. This complex will provide a local Arctic grayling 

population for other reestablishment projects in the 

valley. Widgeon Pond is also large and deep enough 

that it could possibly support a Westslope cutthroat 

population as part of the pond’s fishery.

Additionally, refuge willow habitats support one 

of the highest density winter moose populations in 

Montana (Warren and O’Reilly 2005). The population 

has been steadily increasing by about 2% annually 

for the period 1966–2008 (USFWS 2008a). There 

is evidence that the population is demonstrating 

density-dependent habitat limitation (Ferguson et 

al. 2000). The increase in winter moose population 

has been concurrent with a significant decline in 

productivity, as measured by the ratio of calves to 

adults in annual surveys (Warren and O’Reilly 2005). 

Intense browsing of willow (Keigley and Frisina 

2001, O’Reilly 2006) and aspen (Richard Keigley, 

research ecologist, USGS, personal interview, 2008) 

by ungulates has been observed within the refuge. 

This evidence suggests that the moose population 

may be limited by winter habitat. Restoring Elk 

Springs Creek and the upper reach of Picnic Creek 

will increase the available winter habitat for moose 

on the refuge by approximately 40 acres.

The proposed removal of MacDonald and Culver 

ponds will eliminate 10–20 acres (varies depending 

upon ice cover) of winter waterfowl habitat. These 

ponds were historically used to feed wintering 

trumpeter swans. Winter feeding at the refuge 

occurred from 1935 to 1992, and was an important 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 73

component of early trumpeter swan conservation 

efforts. The feeding program was terminated as 

part of a program to expand the winter range of the 

increasing population of trumpeter swans (USFWS 

1992). According to “Midwinter Waterfowl Survey” 

results (USFWS 2008), the average number of 

wintering trumpeter swans on the two ponds during 

the 5 years before termination of winter feeding 

(1988–1992) was 348.1 ± 13.4 (mean ± SE), with 

peak numbers over 800 individuals. The ponds now 

provide winter habitat for 40.5 ± 7.8 swans, 117.0 

± 10.6 ducks, and 2.1 ± 1.0 geese, based on 10-year 

averages (USFWS 2008b). Restoring Elk Springs 

Creek and the upper reach of Picnic Creek will 

eliminate waterfowl winter habitat but will further 

efforts to expand the winter range of trumpeter 

swans. 

Lower Red Rock Lake and River Marsh Objective

Lower Red Rock Lake and River Marsh Objective 1: 

Increase the percent coverage of pondweeds and 

Canadian waterweed, collectively, to >40% in Lower 

Red Rock Lake and River Marsh within 10 years of 

CCP approval. 

Strategies

— Follow the “Adaptive Resource Management 

Plan for Lower Red Rock Lake, Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana” 

(USFWS 2004), throughout the life of the plan.

— Maintain the WCS for the life of this CCP, 

unless it is determined that removal is 

warranted due to negative effects on the 

hydrological system.

— Conduct periodic (every 4–7 years) drawdowns 

during the summer and fall of Lower Red Rock 

Lake to increase productivity of the system for 

the benefit of nesting target species and other 

waterbirds. 

— In years when no drawdowns occur, maintain 

Lower Red Rock Lake water levels during the 

fall, within the constraints imposed by climatic 

variability and the existing WCS, at 6607.5 

feet above msl for the benefit of staging and 

migrating waterfowl.

— Conduct ecological experiments to improve 

the understanding and management of the 

WCS and surrounding hydrological system, 

throughout the life of the CCP.

— Continue to monitor waterbird response to 

variation in habitat and climate, including 

trumpeter swan production and lesser scaup 

survival and recruitment. 

— Continue to monitor SAV, climate, and water 

levels annually, throughout the life of the CCP.

— Unless necessary to conduct ecological studies, 

the WCS will be left open during the spring 

and early summer for the benefit of nesting 

trumpeter swans and other waterfowl.

Rationale

Historical survey data and the relative forage quality 

of SAV were the criteria used to determine the 

desired species composition of Lower Red Rock Lake 

and River Marsh. The SAV community is currently 

dominated by shortspike watermilfoil (USFWS 

2008c). Historical records show this species was 

always present but that other species were also well 

represented. A 1922 field report (Sperry 1922) stated 

shortspike watermilfoil was abundant in Lower Red 

Rock Lake, as well as several pondweed species, 

star duckweed, and quillwort. Also recorded in the 

report were one large bed of Canadian waterweed 

and several large beds of arumleaf arrowhead. 

Importantly, these observations were made before 

any form of WCS was placed on Lower Red Rock 

Lake. 

A wooden WCS was built on the western outflow 

of Lower Red Rock Lake in 1930 by the state of 

Montana. This structure was in place for over 20 

years before the first refuge survey of the SAV 

community in 1955–56 (Beed 1957). The greatest 

percent species composition measured during that 

initial survey was Canadian waterweed at 39%, 

followed by pondweeds (18%), and algae (12%). 

Shortspike watermilfoil was scarce in Lower Red 

Rock Lake (<2%). The wooden structure was 

replaced in 1957 with a concrete WCS with a sill 

height elevation of 6,607 feet above mean sea level. 

This new structure was built without headgates, 

preventing the refuge from being able to manipulate 

water levels. 

The SAV community of Lower Red Rock Lake 

changed little during the 15 years after the 

construction of the 1957 WCS. Paullin (1973) found 

that shortspike watermilfoil comprised 2%–17% 

of the aquatic vegetation during 1956 to 1971, 

while pondweeds comprised 18%–42% over that 

same period. However, the proportion of Canadian 

waterweed and arumleaf arrowhead decreased 

during this period, the former from 60% to <1% and 

the latter from 8% to 1.3%. Paullin (1973) attributed 

the decline of Canadian waterweed to overgrazing 

by trumpeter swans and macro-nutrient depletion. 

The decline of arumleaf arrowhead is likely related to 

the termination of seeding by the refuge. Arumleaf 

arrowhead was seeded in the lakes by staff for 

several years after refuge establishment.

The sampling plan established by Paullin (1973) 

was continued on an annual basis until 1985. By 

this time, the species composition of vegetation 

comprised of shortspike watermilfoil increased to 

34%, while that of pondweeds remained within its 

historical range, also at 34%. The 1957 WCS was 

replaced in 1987 with a WCS that facilitated water 

level manipulations via six adjustable headgates 
74 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

with a sill height of 6,604 feet above mean sea 

level. Unfortunately, SAV surveys of Lower Red 

Rock Lake were not conducted between 1986 and 

2001. When SAV surveys were conducted in 2002, 

shortspike watermilfoil had increased to 57% species 

composition, while pondweeds declined to 12%. The 

Service believes that this result can be partially 

explained by recent Lower Red Rock Lake water 

levels. The 7 years preceding this most recent survey 

were marked by high water levels (>6,607 feet above 

mean sea level) maintained in Lower Red Rock Lake 

throughout the summer. Relatively high static water 

levels during the growing season would likely favor 

shortspike watermilfoil, a species more common in 

lacustrine habitats. Additionally, consistently high 

water levels may negatively affect pondweeds, 

which are known to produce especially heavy seed 

crops under drought conditions (Muenscher 1936, 

Sharp 1951). Sago pondweed, an especially favored 

waterfowl food (Kadlec and Smith 1989, Kantrud 

1990), ostensibly lacks competitive ability in 

increased water levels (Harris and Marshall 1963).

Maintenance of high water levels in the spring 

may also directly affect breeding waterfowl. 

Potential negative effects of high spring water 

levels include reduced availability of foodstuffs, 

including macroinvertebrates (Murkin and Kadlec 

1986) and roots and tubers, to waterfowl during 

the prebreeding and breeding periods. High water 

levels may also delay the onset of SAV growth by 

limiting light penetration and causing lower water 

temperatures, also negatively affecting foraging 

waterfowl. Trumpeter swans may be particularly 

sensitive to elevated water levels in the early 

spring. Tubers are an important carbohydrate-rich 

food source for trumpeter swans, especially during 

late winter and early spring (Anderson and Low 

1976, Paullin 1973, Squires and Anderson 1995). 

Although little is known of the nutrient dynamics 

of breeding trumpeter swans, many temperate 

breeding waterfowl are dependent upon endogenous 

reserves obtained during early spring for clutch 

formation (Alisauskas and Ankney 1992). Reduced 

availability of tubers could prevent prebreeding 

swans from attaining adequate endogenous reserves. 

For the above stated reasons, the WCS will be open 

during the spring and early summer to allow, within 

the constraints of the existing WCS, a naturally 

fluctuating hydrological cycle.

In the summer and fall, periodic lowering 

(drawdowns) of water levels on Lower Red Rock 

Lake will be undertaken to increase productivity 

of the wetland complex. Maintaining relatively 

static and high water levels, as has been done 

with the Lower Lake in recent history, lowers 

wetland productivity. Static water levels create 

anaerobic conditions within wetlands, limiting 

decomposition and nutrient cycling (Brinson et al. 

1981). Persistent, deep water in wetlands also alters 

plant communities. Many species of wetland plants 

do not germinate in deep water and can not survive 

if continuously flooded (Bishop et al. 1979, Harris 

and Marshall 1963, Kadlec 1962, Weller 1999). As a 

result there are greater open-water areas, reducing 

aquatic invertebrates and lowering avian diversity 

(Weller 1981, Weller and Spatcher 1965). Therefore, 

periodic lowering of water levels in managed 

wetlands is frequently recommended to mimic the 

natural drought cycle, stimulating the decomposition 

of accumulated detritus, nutrient cycling, and 

germination of wetland plants (Payne 1992).

Lower Red Rock Lake fall and winter water levels 

will be maintained at or near historic levels most 

years. Maintaining fall lake levels at or near 6607.5 

msl will increase the amount of flooded habitat 

available for migrating birds. Increased water levels 

at this period will also provide greater winter habitat 

for muskrats (Bishop et al. 1979, Errington 1961), an 

endemic wetland species of interest due to their role 

in creating open areas within emergent vegetation 

(Weller and Fredrickson 1973) and providing nesting 

platforms for trumpeter swans (Banko 1960). Lastly, 

higher water levels in the early fall will ensure that 

fish utilizing the Lower Lake during the summer will 

be provided with routes to suitable winter habitat.

In addition to meeting specific seasonal habitat 

needs of wildlife, higher water levels in the fall also 

meet certain management objectives. The existing 

memorandum of understanding with downstream 

water users states “that whenever possible, storage 

in Lower Red Rock Lake will only occur during the 

period of October through June.” Moreover, higher 

water levels during these periods will benefit refuge 

visitors. Canoeing on the Lower Lake is permitted 

from September 1 to freeze-up, and waterfowl 

hunting begins near the end of September and is only 

allowed on Lower Lake within the refuge. 

Waterfowl hunter on Lower Red Rock Lake.

R. Madsen/USFWS

Recent trends in local climate (increasing 

temperatures and decreasing precipitation) have 

raised concern for the future of refuge water 

resources. If these trends continue, the current WCS 

may provide important management capabilities to 

protect wetland habitats. For this reason, the Service 

will maintain the current structure; however, if 

studies determine that the current WCS negatively 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 75

affects the hydrology of the system, the structure 

may be removed.

R

Maintain the processes necessary to sustain the 

biological diversity and integrity of native riparian 

vegetation for migratory breeding birds, native 

fishes, and wintering ungulates. 

Arctic Grayling Objectives

Arctic Grayling Objective 1: Following similar 

restoration goals put forth by the “Montana Fluvial 

Arctic Grayling Restoration Plan” (MFWP 1995), 

the refuge will work to ensure at least three refuge 

streams contain adfluvial Arctic grayling spawning 

populations by 2013. The refuge will also work with 

the state of Montana to reestablish additional Arctic 

grayling spawning populations in other Centennial 

Valley creeks throughout the life of the plan.

Strategies

— Continue the systematic monitoring of the 

remaining grayling spawning population located 

in Red Rock Creek to assure its status and 

survival.

— Initiate site specific plans that will maintain 

or reestablish viable self-sustaining grayling 

spawning populations in the three major stream 

systems on the refuge; Red Rock, Odell, and 

Elk Springs creeks.

— Create an adfluvial grayling brood stock within 

Widgeon Pond (see Managed Wetland Objective 

5).

— Design and implement a monitoring program 

that will measure abundance and population 

demographics of spawning Arctic grayling to 

determine the success of grayling recovery 

throughout the refuge.

— Continue to manage the health of riparian 

habitats and natural stream corridors to 

maintain stream connectivity for migrating 

adult grayling, and to benefit annual production.

— Where appropriate, remove nonnative fishes 

from refuge lakes and streams to minimize 

competition with native fishes, throughout the 

life of the CCP. 

— Continue to work with cooperators to address 

factors affecting key population demographics 

of adfluvial Arctic grayling, such as adult and 

young-of-the-year survival.

— Work with the state and neighboring 

landowners to address impacts to off-refuge 

Arctic grayling habitat upstream of the refuge.

Rationale

Arctic grayling once existed throughout the 

Upper Missouri River drainage, with two distinct 

life-history forms known to occur in Montana. 

Fluvial (river dwelling) Arctic grayling were once 

widespread in this drainage but currently persist 

only in the Big Hole River. One of the only known 

populations of endemic adfluvial (lake dwelling, but 

use streams to spawn in) grayling in the contiguous 

United States reside in the Centennial Valley of 

southwestern Montana. Historic records indicate that 

these fish spawned in the tributary streams of Upper 

and Lower Red Rock lakes (Nelson 1954, USFWS 

1978), tributaries to the main stem Red Rock River 

below Lower Red Rock Lake (Nelson 1954), and in 

streams entering nearby Elk Lake (Lund 1974). More 

recent surveys determined that adfluvial grayling 

spawning use is currently limited to Red Rock and 

Odell creeks (Mogen 1996, Kaeding and Boltz 1999, 

Kaeding and Boltz 2004), primarily on the refuge. 

Concern for the survival of the adfluvial Arctic 

grayling population led to the development of a 

management plan, in cooperation with MFWP, 

to reestablish self-sustaining grayling spawning 

populations in refuge tributaries other than Red 

Rock Creek. A component of this plan is the 

establishment of an Arctic grayling brood stock in 

one or more refuge ponds. This brood stock would 

provide an egg source for restoring grayling to other 

Centennial Valley streams. Restoring other selfsustaining adfluvial grayling spawning populations 

on the refuge and in other Centennial Valley 

streams would reduce the risk of a natural disaster 

eliminating this life-history form, which is currently 

limited to three small populations.

Maintaining healthy riparian habitats with freeflowing stream systems not only improves the quality 

of life for the land-based wildlife dependent on such 

habitats, but these conditions also provide access 

to reaches of streams where lake dwelling grayling 

prefer to spawn. Naturally functioning stream 

corridors transport sediment properly and prevent 

bank erosion, thereby continually cleaning the 

stream gravels and improving spawning conditions 

for grayling. This results in greater numbers of 

grayling fry produced each year, ultimately adding to 

the size and health of the refuge grayling population.

Most streams of the Upper Centennial Valley, and 

the refuge in particular, contain suitable habitat for 

spawning grayling. Therefore, factors affecting the 

quality and quantity of non-breeding habitat may be 

responsible for the absence of spawning populations 

in streams. For example, limited overwintering 

habitat, high summer water temperatures, and 

competition with nonnative fishes in the Red 

Rock lakes are frequently raised as causes of 

grayling mortality. If these factors, independently 

or synergistically, are reducing survival of adult 

grayling, declines in the number of spawning 

grayling would be expected. 

Artic Grayling Objective 2: Provide relatively shallow 

(<16 inches) gravel and pebble (0.1–2.4 inches) 
76 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

dominated, moderate flow (0.9–3.0 feet per second) 

habitat for spawning Arctic grayling (Sempeski and 

Gaudin 1995) on Odell and Red Rock creeks within 

the refuge, over the life of the CCP. 

Strategies

— Determine current spawning grounds within 

Odell and Red Rock creeks within the refuge, 

and identify any immediate threats to these 

areas within 2 years of CCP approval.

— Restore irrigation ditches that influence 

the hydrology of streams currently used for 

spawning by Arctic grayling, while retaining 

ditches needed for grassland restoration efforts.

— Throughout the life of the CCP, work with 

adjacent landowners to reduce effects of cattle 

grazing on upstream sections of Red Rock 

Creek to protect and improve Arctic grayling 

spawning habitat. Encourage establishment 

of seasonal grazing and fencing systems. 

Encourage landowners to avoid trailing cattle 

through streams during peak spawning, and 

during fry movement and dispersal.

— Use visual assessments to examine the 

hydrologic function and riparian habitat quality 

of refuge streams in terms of the level of bank 

erosion, vegetation cover, and sedimentation, 

throughout the life of the CCP. 

— Work with adjacent landowners to reevaluate 

the current condition of spawning habitat 

contained in streams (particularly Red Rock 

and Odell) upstream of the refuge boundary. 

Rationale

The refuge provides habitat for one of the last known 

endemic populations of adfluvial Arctic grayling 

in the contiguous United States. Historically, this 

species spawned in numerous tributaries of Lower 

and Upper Red Rock lakes. Currently, spawning 

occurs only in Odell and Red Rock creeks. Threats to 

Arctic grayling include water quality (sedimentation 

and nutrients), as well as water quantity. High 

overbank flows can strand spawning Arctic grayling 

on streambanks, whereas low flows can result in 

increased sedimentation and water temperatures 

(Nelson 1954). Competition with and predation by 

introduced fish species, especially brook and rainbow 

trout, has also impacted Arctic grayling populations. 

Water diversions used for irrigation purposes 

through the 1970s resulted in direct mortality 

of adult spawning Artic grayling and fry as they 

returned to the lakes. Finally, livestock grazing, both 

historic and current, has had a detrimental effect 

on Arctic grayling spawning habitat by removing 

vegetation and increasing sediment and nutrient 

loads, as well as trampling of Arctic grayling eggs 

and fry in the stream gravels.

Shiras Moose Objective

Shiras Moose Objective 1: Maintain at least 2,000 acres 

of willow-dominated riparian habitat at moderate to 

low browse levels for greater than eighty wintering 

Shiras moose throughout the life of this plan. 

Eighty moose is within 20% of the 1990–2009 average 

of moose observed wintering on the refuge. 

Strategies

— Continue to exclude cattle used for prescriptive 

grazing from willow-dominated riparian areas.

— Continue to monitor browse levels in willowdominated riparian habitats.

— Continue to cooperate with MFWP to conduct 

annual aerial surveys of wintering moose and 

setting of harvest regulations.

— Investigate seasonal use of willow-dominated 

riparian habitats by native ungulates.

— Explore seasonal movements of moose that 

winter on or near the refuge to determine 

connectivity with surrounding areas.

Rationale

Floodplain riparian habitat provides relatively 

stable and important wintering habitat for moose 

in the Rocky Mountains (Dorn 1970, Houston 1968, 

Poole and Stuart-Smith 2004, Stevens 1970). The 

Centennial Valley in southwest Montana contains 

the largest wetland complex in the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem, and the associated riparian 

habitat supports one of the largest and highestdensity wintering Shiras moose populations in the 

central Rocky Mountains. Most of this habitat is 

encompassed by Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, situated in the eastern extent of the 

valley. This habitat is also believed to support the 

majority of the moose population within MFWP’s 

Hunting District 334 (HD334) during the winter. 

The importance of the refuge as winter habitat for 

moose may be underscored due to assumed losses 

of riparian habitat in nearby areas since European 

settlement (Lesica and Cooper 1997).

The importance of the refuge as wintering habitat 

for Centennial Valley Shiras moose is difficult to 

quantify. Early attempts to better understand 

habitat use and seasonal movements of moose in 

the valley suggested that some of the moose that 

wintered on the refuge summered in the nearby 

Gravelly and Centennial mountain ranges (Dorn 

1969). Additionally, movements of moose summering 

on the refuge to wintering areas in Idaho have been 

documented (Dorn 1969, Ritchie 1978, Schladweiler 

1974). Assuming a resident population on the refuge, 

there are three patterns of refuge habitat utilization 

by moose: (1) year-round residents, (2) summer 

migrants, and (3) winter migrants. Although a 

complete understanding of seasonal movements is 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 77

lacking for the Centennial Valley moose population, 

peak numbers on the refuge occur during December 

and January (see figure 15). 

Efforts to enumerate wintering Shiras moose 

utilizing refuge habitats have been highly variable. 

Survey efforts began in 1944 and peaked during 

the 1980s, during which time the refuge conducted 

monthly survey flights. Budget constraints and 

shifting priorities resulted in the termination of 

regular refuge aerial moose surveys by 1991. MFWP 

began conducting annual aerial surveys in 1968, but 

these were also limited by budget constraints and 

lack of personnel. Moreover, these surveys produced 

biased, uncorrected minimum estimates of Shiras 

moose numbers, assuming equal detectability among 

surveys. This is problematic in that variation among 

survey estimates includes both potential differences 

in detection rate and true fluctuations in animal 

abundance. Ultimately, this reduces the precision 

of abundance estimates and introduces greater 

uncertainty into management decisions. 

Interest in the relative condition of winter Shiras 

moose habitat on the refuge evolved concurrently 

with interest in enumerating wintering moose 

abundance. MFWP conducted standardized browse 

surveys (Cole Browse Surveys) from 1965–71 to 

quantify utilization of key browse plants in HD334 

moose winter habitats (all four established survey 

transects were located on the refuge). Similarly, a 

willow browse transect was established by the refuge 

in 1982 to quantify utilization of willow by wintering 

moose. Although the Cole browse and willow 

transects differ in gross methodology and placement, 

they both estimate willow utilization, form class, 

and age class similarly within the habitat of interest. 

Currently, the refuge and MFWP conduct regular 

willow browse evaluations to assist in determining 

present browse levels and setting of harvest rates. 

Riparian Habitat Objectives

Riparian Habitat Objective 1: Maintain at least 500 

acres of moderate to dense (>40% canopy cover) 

willow riparian habitat to benefit breeding migratory 

songbirds, spawning Arctic grayling, and native 

ungulates, throughout the life of the CCP. 

Strategies

— Continue collecting data on willow canopy cover 

and shrub volume along Red Rock and Odell 

creeks as needed to determine and monitor 

management actions, throughout the life of the 

CCP.

Mike Parker/USFWS

Figure 15. Intra-annual moose abundance on Red Rock Lakes NWR, 1983–1985.

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1985

1984

1983
78 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

— Maintain existing riparian fences and use 

temporary fencing, as needed, to protect 

riparian habitats from cattle, throughout the 

life of the CCP.

— Restore creeks on the refuge that currently are 

contained, in part, within old irrigation ditches.

— Continue to cooperate with The Nature 

Conservancy to conduct annual monitoring and 

treatment of nonnative invasive plant species, 

throughout the life of the CCP.

Rationale

Riparian habitat refers to “plant communities 

contiguous to and affected by surface and subsurface 

hydrologic features of perennial or intermittent 

lotic and lentic water bodies (rivers, streams, lakes, 

or drainage ways). Riparian corridors have one or 

both of the following characteristics: (1) distinctively 

different vegetative species than adjacent areas, or 

(2) species similar to adjacent areas but exhibiting 

more vigorous or robust growth forms. Riparian 

corridors are usually transitional between wetlands 

and uplands” (USFWS 1997).

Riparian habitats on the refuge are comprised of both 

woody and herbaceous vegetation. Woody vegetation 

includes Bebb, Booth’s, sageleaf, Drummond’s, 

narrowleaf, Geyer, Pacific, false mountain, and 

Wolf’s willows with scattered bog birch and shrubby 

cinquefoil, whereas the herbaceous community 

consists of various grasses, sedges, and forbs. Most 

of the woody species have the ability to resprout 

following disturbance. A large willow fen covers 

nearly 1,400 acres on the southeastern edge of 

Upper Red Rock Lake. Large stands of shrubby 

cinquefoil, totaling over 2,000 acres, occur throughout 

the refuge, with the largest stands occurring on 

the eastern portion. Red Rock and Odell creeks 

are the two largest streams on the refuge, with 

each supporting approximately 210 and 130 acres 

of willow-dominated riparian habitat, respectively. 

Additionally, each creek has several small tributaries 

with associated riparian habitat.

Hydrology is the primary determinant of riparian 

vegetation composition and structure (Beschta 2003, 

Cary 2005, Cooper et al. 2006). The most important 

hydrological parameters include the time, duration, 

magnitude, and frequency of both surface and 

groundwater flows. Flow magnitude is important to 

consider in relation to creating suitable conditions 

(scouring and overbank flooding) for germination.

Duration and frequency of near-surface flows are 

critical to ensuring survival of newly established 

vegetation. 

Hydrology also indirectly affects the periodicity, 

severity, and intensity of fire, which can exert 

tremendous influence on both the germination 

conditions and the structure of existing vegetation 

(Dwire and Kauffman 2003, Pettit and Naiman 

2007). Fires in riparian habitats are typically less 

intense and occur at a lower frequency than the 

surrounding uplands due to higher moisture content 

and higher relative humidity (Dwire and Kauffman 

2003, Pettit and Naiman 2007). Typically, fires enter 

riparian habitats from the surrounding uplands, 

creating patches of burned and unburned habitat, 

and the degree to which the riparian habitat burns 

is related to the intensity of the fire and the width 

of the riparian corridor. The effect of fire on riparian 

habitats depends upon several characteristics, 

including local topography, stream size, vegetation 

structure and composition, and topographic aspect. 

Fire can also influence stream sedimentation and 

nutrient levels (Pettit and Naiman 2007). 

The current condition of riparian habitats on the 

refuge is variable, depending upon which stream is 

considered. Woody and herbaceous vegetation exists 

within most stream corridors, but visual observations 

suggest that new germination may be lacking in some 

areas. A potential cause for this disruption includes 

water diversions that have altered the hydrologic 

system. In addition, nonnative invasive plant species, 

especially Canada thistle and common tansy, have 

been introduced to many stream corridors. Many 

riparian habitats on the refuge have been fenced 

out to exclude cattle, although cattle are still able to 

access some streams. 

Plant communities associated with riparian habitats 

on the refuge have multiple natural resource values 

important in the Intermountain West region and 

the Centennial Valley. These communities provide 

breeding and stopover habitat for migratory land 

birds, browse and forage for native ungulates, and 

travel corridors for various large mammals. In 

addition, riparian vegetation also provides many 

indirect values, including regulation of stream 

temperatures, and nutrient inputs to streams 

(particularly headwater areas) that form the basis 

of the food chain for invertebrates, fish, reptiles, and 

amphibians.

Dozens of migratory land birds that occur on the 

refuge depend on riparian habitats for breeding or 

migration. Breeding bird surveys were conducted 

over two breeding seasons (2006–2007) in refuge 

willow riparian habitats. Over 70% of all bird species 

heard or seen were comprised of five species: yellow 

warbler, common yellowthroat, song sparrow, 

Lincoln’s sparrow, and white-crowned sparrow. 

These species represent a range of nesting and 

foraging requirements (see table 5), demonstrating 

the habitat diversity currently provided by refuge 

riparian habitats. 

Data from vegetation measurements conducted 

along both Odell and Red Rock creeks, as well as the 

willow fen, show that along the creeks, tall-statured 

willow species predominate (primarily Booth’s, 

Geyer, and Drummond’s willow). The willow fen is 

comprised of a mosaic of low-statured (Wolf’s willow) 

and tall-statured willow species (primarily Booth’s, 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 79

Bebb, and Geyer’s willow). It is located south and 

east of Upper Red Rock Lake. Canopy cover of 

willow averaged between 30% and 50%. In a survey 

conducted by field staff in 2006, it was found that 

the willow habitat along the creeks tended to have 

higher volume and structural heterogeneity than the 

willow fen (O’Reilly 2006).

Riparian Habitat Objective 2: Maintain low to moderate 

browse levels, as indicated by a positive live/

dead browse index, within willow habitats for the 

maintenance of willow volume, canopy cover, and 

structural heterogeneity, throughout the life of the 

CCP.

Strategies

— Cooperate with the MFWP to assess the level 

of browse within willow riparian habitats on the 

refuge at least every 3 years, throughout the 

life of the CCP.

— If browse surveys show that browse levels 

are above a threshold that would sustain or 

improve current willow habitats, cooperate 

with the MFWP to develop and implement an 

adaptive harvest plan for native ungulates, 

throughout the life of the CCP. Willows are an important plant on the refuge for moose, 

songbirds, and beaver, who store them for winter food.

USFWS

Table 5. Nesting and foraging requirements for the five most commonly detected bird species in willow riparian 

habitat at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

Species Nesting Habitat a,b Nesting Substrate c Foraging Substrate c

Yellow warbler intermediate shrub shrub

Common yellowthroat mesic, short willow, dense 

cover

ground ground/low vegetation

Song sparrow mesic, short willow, dense 

cover

ground ground/water

White-crowned sparrow xeric, tall willow ground ground/shrub

Lincoln’s sparrow mesic, short willow, dense 

cover

ground ground

a Finch 1989

b

 Douglas et al. 1992

c

 Lowther et al. 1999, Guzy and Ritchison 1999, Arcese et al. 2002, Chilton et al. 1995, Ammon 1995

Rationale

Herbivory can significantly influence the vegetative 

structure and composition of riparian habitats. 

Riparian habitat on the refuge is critical in 

maintaining native ungulate populations, particularly 

moose. The refuge supports one of the highest 

densities of wintering moose in the central Rocky 

Mountains. In southwest Montana, willow provides 

over three-fourths of summer and winter forage for 

moose (Dorn 1970). Dorn (1970) found Booth’s willow 

to be the preferred browse species for moose in all 

seasons, as well as the most common species on the 

refuge. Other work has shown that Geyer willow 

is preferred most, followed by Booth’s willow, with 

Bebb willow being the least preferred (Cary 2005, 

Hansen et al. 1995). Booth’s willow was the most 

common species observed in the fen during Dorn’s 

study; however, the majority of tall willow in the fen 

habitat is currently Bebb willow. This may show that 

at some point over the last three decades, a shift in 

willow species composition occurred in response to 

browse intensity. 

The current level of willow browsing by moose was 

estimated during two growing seasons (2006–2007) 

by comparing the height of live stems to the height 

of stems killed by browsing (LD index) (Keigley 

et al. 2002). The LD index is an efficient method of 
80 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

assessing the level of browse pressure in the willow 

community and predicting related willow community 

trends. If live stems are taller than stems killed by 

browsing, this indicates light to moderate browse 

pressure. The estimated LD index across habitats 

and years was positive, indicating light to moderate 

browsing was occurring in willow-dominated riparian 

habitats on the refuge. 

Wet MeadoW, GrassLand, and shrub-stePPe

habitat GoaL

Provide structurally-complex native meadow, 

grassland, and shrub-steppe habitats, within a 

watershed context, for upland-nesting migratory 

birds, sagebrush-dependent species, rare plant 

species, and other resident wildlife. 

Target Species for Wet Meadow Habitat

Wet meadow habitats provide nesting, foraging, 

and brood-rearing habitat for several species of 

shorebirds, raptors, game birds, and passerines. 

To identify target species for wet meadow 

habitat management, several federal, state, and 

nongovernmental lists were reviewed to determine 

birds of conservation concern that breed on the 

refuge. Five species were selected as target species 

that reflect the suitable nesting and foraging 

requirements for wet meadow habitat on the refuge: 

northern pintail, long-billed curlew, sandhill cranes, 

short-eared owl, and greater sage-grouse (see table 

6). These species were selected for a number of 

reasons:

■ All five species use the refuge for some portion 

of their breeding cycle.

■ Northern pintail, long-billed curlew, sandhill 

crane, and short-eared owl are service focal 

species (USFWS 2005).

■ Long-billed curlew and short-eared owl are 

bird species of conservation concern (USFWS 

2002b).

■ Long-billed curlew is of concern under the “U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan” (USFWS 2001).

■ Long-billed curlew is a state-listed sensitive 

species in Montana (MTNHP and MFWP 2006).

■ Long-billed curlew, short-eared owl, and 

greater sage-grouse are listed as priority level 

III or higher 

by Montana 

Partners in 

Flight (Casey 

2000).

Wet Meadow Objective

Wet Meadow Objective 1: Continue to provide nesting, 

foraging, and brood-rearing habitat for northern 

pintail, long-billed curlew, short-eared owl, sandhill 

crane, and greater sage-grouse by ensuring large, 

contiguous areas (5,000 acres or more) of wet 

meadow habitat dominated (70% or more of total 

canopy cover) by native graminoids (sedges, rushes, 

grasses) with a mosaic of relatively short (<1 foot 

in height) to moderately tall (1–2 feet in height) 

vegetation; moderate to high (30% to 70%) litter 

cover, and moderate (30% to 60%) canopy cover 

of forbs annually from mid-April to early August, 

throughout the life of the CCP. 

Strategies

— Carry out a vegetation monitoring program to 

assess if target species habitat requirements 

are being met within 5 years of CCP approval.

— Determine long-billed curlew occupancy in wet 

meadow and grassland habitats on the refuge 

within 5 years of CCP approval.

— Determine sandhill crane occupancy in wet 

meadow and grassland habitats on the refuge 

within 5 years of CCP approval.

— Carry out a study of short-eared owls, 

examining their distribution, in relationship 

to the annual variation in small mammal 

abundance during the life of the CCP.

— Carry out a study to determine the influence 

of cattle grazing on the abundance and 

distribution of small mammals, the primary 

prey of short-eared owls, within 2 years of CCP 

approval.

— Use prescribed cattle grazing or prescribed 

fire, or both, in an adaptive management 

context to maintain vegetation characteristics, 

particularly in areas invaded by smooth brome 

and Kentucky bluegrass, throughout the life of 

the CCP. 

— Prescriptive grazing and prescribed fire will 

only be used to achieve habitat and wildlife 

objectives, with increased and improved 

oversight, monitoring, and research conducted 

to assess if management objectives are being 

met.

— Work with partners to conduct a range survey 

of the refuge to assess current range health and 

stocking rates.

— Do not permit lethal control of carnivores (such 

as wolf, grizzly bear, and mountain lion) on the 

refuge to protect cattle used in the prescribed 

grazing program without permission from 

the refuge manager, a special use permit, 

and consultation with other partners who 

have successfully used nonlethal methods for 

controlling wolves preying on cattle.

Long-billed curlew.

Mike Parker/USFWS
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 81

Table 6. Habitat requirements for target wet meadow bird species. 

Species

Vegetation 

Height 

(inches) Vegetation Cover 

Litter and/or 

Residual 

Cover 

Area 

Requirements Nesting Foraging

Northern 

pintail

< 12 Nest sites have low 

visual obstruction 

readings. 

Dependent 

upon residual 

cover for nest 

concealment. 

Nesting success 

positively related 

to larger, more 

contiguous, 

grassland area

X

Shorteared owl12–24 Nest sites have high 

visual obstruction 

readings. Has higher 

nest survival in 

ungrazed habitats. 

Avoids areas with bare 

ground.

2–8 years of 

residual cover 

buildup

> 250 acres X X

Longbilled 

curlew

< 12 Nest sites have low 

vertical profile and 

vegetation density.

Requires 

moderate 

residual cover 

for nesting

35 acres per 

territory with 

buffer of 984–

1,640 feet

X X

Sandhill 

crane

< 4–24 Needs adequate cover 

for concealment of 

large nest platforms.

Requires 

moderate 

residual cover 

for nesting

42 acres per 

territory

X

Greater 

sagegrouse

Variable > 15% sagebrush 

canopy cover

Dense 

residual cover 

may hinder 

movements by 

young birds

Highly variable; 

summer range 

130–12,000 acres 

for female with 

brood

X

Note: < = less than; > = greater than

Rationale

Although over 7,000 acres of the refuge are wet 

meadow, the most contiguous area occurs north of 

Upper Red Rock Lake (5,000 acres or more). Several 

of the target bird species have large territories 

(Dugger and Dugger 2002, Rowland 2004, Tacha et 

al. 1992, Wiggins et al. 2006), thus large contiguous 

areas of suitable habitat are critical. Vegetative 

and structural characteristics (such as a mosaic of 

vegetation heights and residual cover) inherent to 

wet meadow habitats likely provide suitable nesting, 

foraging, and brood-rearing habitat for these species. 

Data on distribution and breeding success for these 

species on the refuge are necessary to determine 

what, if any, management changes are needed.

A comprehensive literature review was conducted 

for these species to determine their specific habitat 

requirements, and management objectives for this 

habitat were developed based on these requirements. 

Requirements such as vegetation height, canopy 

cover, and litter or residual cover were used to create 

objectives for this habitat (see table 6). 

Northern pintails are one of the earliest breeding 

North American ducks, preferentially selecting 

shallow ephemeral wetlands over more permanent 

wetlands for breeding territories (Stewart and 

Kantrud 1973). Ephemeral wetlands support 

abundant chironomids (midges) immediately after 

ice melt, providing a particularly important food 

resource for breeding female pintails (Fredrickson 

and Heitmeyer 1991). Females typically select 

nest sites further from wetlands and with sparser 

vegetation than other upland-nesting ducks (Austin 

and Miller 1995). Refuge wet meadow habitats 

provide both seasonally flooded shallow wetlands and 

extensive areas of short, dense vegetation for nesting 

pintails. 

Long-billed curlews typically select nests in 

vegetation with high vertical density in the 10- to 20-

inch range (Pampush and Anthony 1993) and over 12 

inches in height (Dugger and Dugger 2002). Foraging 

territories may be within or outside of nesting 

territories, as long-billed curlews are opportunistic 

foragers, feeding primarily on terrestrial insects such 

as grasshoppers (Dugger and Dugger 2002).

Sandhill cranes nesting in wet meadow habitats 

typically select vegetation that is between 4 and 

12 inches in height early in the nesting season (late 

April–early May). Late in the nesting season (early 

June) vegetation around nests can be highly variable 

(between 4 and 24 inches in height), depending on 
82 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

moisture and vegetative composition. Early season 

water depths around nests in wet meadows average 

about 1.5 inches (Austin et al. 2007). Sandhill cranes 

are opportunistic foragers (Mullins and Bizeau 1978, 

Tacha et al. 1992).

Short-eared owls select nesting habitat with 

moderately tall vegetation, dense residual cover, and 

high visual obstruction readings (Dechant et al. 2003, 

Fondell and Ball 2004, Herkert et al. 1999, Kantrud 

and Higgins 1992, Wiggins et al. 2006). Major 

food items are small mammals, voles in particular 

(Wiggins et al. 2006). Voles require residual cover 

for the creation of extensive runways (Foresman 

2001). Several studies have noted that short-eared 

owl annual breeding numbers are closely tied to vole 

numbers (Wiggins et al. 2006). 

Greater sage-grouse use wet meadows contained 

within a mosaic of upland sagebrush that provide 

abundant insects and succulent forbs as broodrearing habitat (Schroeder et al. 1999). Wet meadows 

may be particularly important for broods in dry years 

(Rowland 2004).

Target Species for Grassland 

and Shrub-steppe Habitat

To identify target species for grassland and shrubsteppe habitat management several federal, state, 

and nongovernmental lists were viewed to determine 

birds of conservation concern that breed in the 

grassland and shrub-steppe habitats on the refuge. 

Four bird species were selected as target species 

that reflect the suitable nesting and foraging shrubsteppe and grassland habitats on the refuge (see 

table 7): Brewer’s sparrow, greater sage-grouse, 

Swainson’s hawk, and Ferruginous hawk. These 

species were selected for a number of reasons:

■ All four species use the refuge for some portion 

of their breeding cycle.

■ Brewer’s sparrow, Swainson’s hawk, and 

ferruginous hawk are bird species of 

conservation concern (USFWS 2002b).

■ All four species are state-listed sensitive 

species in Montana (MTNHP and MFWP 2006).

■ All four species are listed as priority level III 

or higher by Montana Partners in Flight (Casey 

2000).

■ Two other state sensitive species have breeding 

records on the refuge, but populations are 

irruptive (lark bunting), or the refuge is on the 

edge of their range (grasshopper sparrow). 

■ Ground squirrels are the primary prey of both 

ferruginous hawks and Swainson’s hawks 

during their breeding season (Restani 1991). 

Thus, their foraging habitats are dictated by 

the habitat requirements of their prey.

Shrub-steppe and Grasslands Objectives

Shrub-steppe and Grasslands Objective 1: Throughout 

the life of the CCP, in shrub-steppe habitats, 

maintain at least 10% canopy cover of sagebrush with 

moderate (30%–70%) to high (>70%) canopy cover 

of native bunchgrasses for sagebrush-dependent 

species, including Brewer’s sparrow and greater 

sage-grouse. Managing for these habitat attributes 

will also provide nesting, roosting, and foraging 

habitat for ferruginous hawk and Swainson’s hawk. 

Shrub-steppe and Grasslands Objective 2: In grassland 

habitats, maintain moderate (30%–70%) to high 

(>70%) canopy cover of native bunchgrasses and 

moderate forb cover (30%–70%) for brood-rearing 

habitat for greater sage-grouse, throughout the life 

of this CCP. 

Strategies

— Begin vegetation monitoring of shrub-steppe 

and grassland habitats to ensure adequate 

coverage of sagebrush, native bunchgrasses, 

and forb to support the four target species, 

Brewer's sparrow, greater sage-grouse, 

ferruginous hawk, and Swanson's hawk.

— Conduct a comprehensive survey for nesting 

greater sage-grouse on the refuge within 7 

years of CCP approval.

— Prescriptive cattle grazing will continue to be 

used as a management tool in order to meet 

specific wildlife and habitat objectives and 

reduce invasive plants, enhance native species, 

and reduce hazardous fuels.

— Carry out a study to determine the influence 

of cattle grazing on the abundance and 

distribution of small mammals (the primary 

prey of ferruginous hawk and Swainson’s 

hawk), within 2 years of CCP approval.

— Evaluate interior fences to determine their 

condition and effectiveness in managing the 

prescriptive cattle grazing program.

— Do not permit lethal control of carnivores (such 

as wolf, grizzly bear, and mountain lion) on the 

refuge to protect cattle used in the prescribed 

grazing program without permission from 

the refuge manager, a special use permit, 

and consultation with other partners who 

have successfully used nonlethal methods for 

controlling wolves preying on cattle. 

— The refuge will support, and participate in a 

MFWP led landscape-scale restoration of bison 

as free-ranging wildlife in southwest Montana 

if the state decides to pursue this initiative. The 

Service will not support proposals to restore 

bison as a captive, fenced herd.
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 83

Table 7. Habitat requirements for target shrub-steppe and grassland, and Centennial Sandhills bird species.

Species Habitat

Shrub 

Height 

(inches)

Shrub 

Cover

Herbaceous 

Height 

(inches)

Herbaceous 

Cover

Area 

Requirements 

(acres)

Response 

to 

Grazing

Nesting/

Broodrearing Foraging

Brewer’s 

sparrow

basin big 

sagebrush 

shrubsteppe

> 20 > 10% n/a > 25% +/- +

Greater 

sage-grouse

basin big 

sagebrush 

shrubsteppe

> 16 ≥ 15% > 7 15%–25% Highly 

variable; 

summer 

range 

130–12,000 

acres for 

female 

with 

brood

- +

Swainson’s 

hawk

shrubsteppe 

grasslands

n/a n/a primary 

prey 

(ground 

squirrels 

and voles) 

depend 

upon 

abundant 

herbaceous 

vegetation

home range 

1,500–6,800 

acres

+/- + +

Ferruginous 

hawk

shrubsteppe 

grasslands

n/a n/a primary 

prey 

(ground 

squirrels) 

dependent upon 

abundant 

herbaceous 

vegetation

home range 

840–2,200 

acres

+/- + +

Note: > = greater than; ≥ = greater than or equal to; +/- = plus or minus; n/a = not applicable.

Rationale

Idaho fescue, the dominant bunchgrass species 

on the refuge, can withstand light to moderate 

grazing, particularly if grazing occurs after flowering 

(Mueggler and Stewart 1980). Flowering occurs on 

the refuge around mid-July and coincides with the 

arrival of cattle. Idaho fescue is relatively intolerant 

to both heavy grazing and repeated overgrazing, 

which can lead to eventual replacement by invasive 

grasses such as cheatgrass (Mueggler and Stewart 

1980, Zouhar 2000). Perennial needlegrass species, 

particularly needle and thread grass, and western 

and Richardson’s needlegrass, make up an important 

component of these habitats as well. The effect 

of cattle grazing on needlegrasses is variable, 

depending upon timing of grazing. For example, 

needle and thread grass greens up early in the spring 

and is most sensitive to grazing during flowering; 

however, the sharp awns developed by mid- to late 

summer typically result in reduced use of this grass 

by livestock (Zlatnik 1999). 

Detailed fire histories for most shrub communities 

are lacking (Baker 2006). Threetip sagebrush has 

the ability to resprout after fire, but this resprouting 

capacity varies regionally and can also depend 

upon fire severity (Bunting et al. 1987, Lesica et al. 

2005). Cover of threetip sagebrush can decrease in 

the early years postfire (Lesica et al. 2005). Native 

bunchgrasses associated with these habitats have 

variable responses to fire, and fire-related mortality 

depends upon fire severity. Fire kills the culms, but 

individual plants can survive if fire does not damage 

the root crown (Zouhar 2000). Canopy cover of 

Idaho fescue can return to pre-fire levels; however, 

livestock grazing immediately following fire can 

result in high (over 50%) plant mortality (Bunting 

et al. 1998). Perennial needlegrass species are 

extremely susceptible to damage by fire (Esser 1992, 
84 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Wright and Klemmedson 1965), although they can 

recover if the fire is not severe enough to damage the 

crown (Esser 1992).

Shrub-steppe and Grasslands Objective 3: Within 10 

years of CCP approval, 200 acres of smooth brome 

will be restored with native grass species needed to 

provide nesting and foraging habitat for migratory 

birds. 

Strategies

— Determine focus areas for restoration efforts.

— Conduct experiments using a combination 

of prescribed fire in the spring or early fall, 

prescriptive cattle grazing, and mechanical 

and chemical treatments to determine the 

best method for smooth brome control and 

restoration of native grasses.

— Examine potential revegetation options based 

on the surrounding native plant communities.

Rationale

Historically, smooth brome was planted for livestock 

forage, and haying occurred annually on over 200 

acres of refuge lands until the mid-1970s. Pure stands 

of smooth brome now cover approximately 1,100 

acres on the refuge. Smooth brome also occurs along 

refuge roads, as isolated patches in wet meadows, 

and now dominates the understory in over 300 

acres of various willow- and sagebrush-dominated 

habitats within the eastern and southern portions of 

the refuge. Smooth brome is an aggressive invader, 

outcompeting desirable native vegetation because 

of its sod-forming root system and prolific seed 

production. Current management includes occasional 

prescribed fire and cattle grazing. Smooth brome is 

highly tolerant to grazing (Howard 1996). Periodic 

spring or early fall fires can increase smooth brome 

productivity by removing litter; however, repeated 

annual spring burns can reduce tiller elongation and 

biomass (Willson and Stubbendieck 1997). Repeated 

heavy grazing during tiller elongation in spring 

was an effective method to reduce aboveground 

biomass and cover in cool-season grasslands (Stacy 

et al. 2005). Mowing may be ineffective if it fails 

to remove all of the emerging buds (Willson and 

Stubbendieck 1996). Treatment options also depend 

upon the amount of remnant native grasses and forbs 

available to compete with smooth brome (Willson and 

Stubbendieck 2000). 

Target Species for Centennial 

Sandhills Habitat

Two bird species, Brewer’s sparrow and greater 

sage-grouse, were selected as target species for the 

Centennial Sandhills habitat that reflect the suitable 

nesting and foraging tall sagebrush habitat on the 

refuge (see table 7). These species were selected for a 

number of reasons:

■ Both species use the refuge for some portion of 

their nesting cycle.

■ Both species are bird species of conservation 

concern (USFWS 2002b).

■ Both species are state-listed sensitive species in 

Montana (MTNHP and MFWP 2006).

■ Both species are listed as priority level II or 

higher by Montana Partners in Flight (Casey 

2000).

Centennial Sandhills Objectives

Centennial Sandhills Objective 1: Maintain at least 

2,500 acres of basin big sagebrush habitat with at 

least 10% canopy cover of sagebrush with moderate 

cover (30%–70%) of native bunchgrasses and forbs 

and moderate amounts of bare ground (30%–70%) 

for sagebrush-dependent species, including sage 

thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, greater sage-grouse, 

pygmy rabbit, and Preble’s shrew.

Strategies

— Continue vegetation monitoring in the 

Centennial Sandhills to ensure adequate 

coverage of basin big sagebrush and native 

bunchgrasses.

— Continue land bird monitoring in the Centennial 

Sandhills to determine Brewer’s sparrow 

densities.

— Conduct a nesting study of Brewer’s sparrow to 

determine the demography of the population in 

the sandhills within 10 years of CCP approval.

— Conduct a comprehensive survey for nesting 

greater sage-grouse in basin big sagebrush 

habitats on the refuge within 7 years of CCP 

approval.

— Avoid prescribed fire in large areas of basin big 

sagebrush habitats to prevent loss of sagebrush 

cover.

The sage thrasher breeds in areas of dense sagebrush.

Dave Menke/USFWS
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 85

Rationale

The Centennial Sandhills are a unique habitat 

located in the northeastern portion of the Centennial 

Valley. Vegetation in the sandhills is dominated 

by sagebrush and native bunchgrass species. On 

the refuge portion of the sandhills, the dominant 

sagebrush species is basin big sagebrush. This tall 

sagebrush has an extremely limited distribution 

in Montana, occurring in localized stands in 

southwestern Montana (Morris et al. 1976). Basin 

big sagebrush is typically confined to areas with 

relatively deep, well-drained soils (Tirmenstein 1999). 

The average sagebrush height in the refuge portion 

of the sandhills is between 16 and 20 inches, although 

several areas have shrubs that reach heights of 

well over 5 feet. The sandhills are characterized by 

moderate to high levels of bare ground (40%–70%), 

and moderate to high canopy cover of native 

bunchgrasses (50%–90%), predominantly needle 

and thread, and Idaho fescue. Canopy cover of basin 

big sagebrush in the sandhills is low, averaging 

10%. Currently, cheatgrass and pale madwort are 

the major invasive plant species occurring in the 

sandhills, although coverage is <1%. 

Basin big sagebrush is killed by fire and may take at 

least 20 to 30 years to recover to pre-fire conditions 

(Lesica et al. 2005). Frequent fires will eliminate 

basin big sagebrush habitat (Tirmenstein 1999). 

Recovery of sagebrush communities is slow, in part 

because of the lack of availability of mature seeds, 

as seeds do not travel far from mature plants (Baker 

2006, Welch and Criddle 2003). A fire burned nearly 

2,500 acres of refuge sandhills in October 1974. It is 

possible that the low sagebrush canopy cover values 

on the refuge are a result of this fire, as previous 

cover was described as a “dense stand of old-age 

sagebrush” (USFWS 1974–1975). Canopy cover in 

basin big sagebrush stands that have not burned 

in the past 35 years averaged 20% with a height 

averaging about 4 feet (Lesica et al. 2005). 

Brewer’s sparrow and greater sage-grouse, the 

target species for the Centennial Sandhills, are 

positively associated with sagebrush cover. Neither 

of these species will nest in sagebrush habitats with 

<10% sagebrush canopy cover (Connelly et al. 2000, 

Walker 2004). 

Brewer’s sparrow typically nests in sagebrush shrubs 

over 20 inches in height (Rotenberry et al. 1999). In 

general, this species is not area sensitive because it 

will breed in small isolated sagebrush patches (Knick 

and Rotenberry 1995, Vander Haegen et al. 2000); 

however, nests can have lower productivity in these 

smaller fragments (Vander Haegen et al. 2000, 2002). 

Active sage grouse leks on lands adjacent to the 

refuge are <0.5 mile from basin big sagebrush 

habitats on the refuge, and broods were observed on 

the refuge during the summer of 2006. Sage grouse 

females typically nest within 3 miles of lekking 

grounds (Wallestad and Pyrah 1974), thus it seems 

probable that greater sage-grouse are nesting in this 

habitat on the refuge.

Two small mammal species of conservation concern, 

pygmy rabbit and Preble’s shrew, also occur in this 

habitat. Pygmy rabbits are primarily Great Basin 

species, but their range extends into southwestern 

Montana. The summer diet of pygmy rabbits 

is primarily grasses (over 50%) and forbs (over 

30%), whereas sagebrush foliage (over 90%) is the 

dominant forage in winter (Thines et al. 2004). 

Pygmy rabbits avoid grazed habitats in eastern 

Washington (Thines et al. 2004) and cattle can 

trample burrows (Rauscher 1997). Preble’s shrew 

occupies arid shrub-steppe habitats with sandy soils. 

Nothing is known about the diet of Preble’s shrew, 

although other shrews eat primarily insects and 

worms (Foresman 2001). 

Centennial Sandhills Objective 2: Work with 

cooperators over the next 15 years to develop a 

management plan for the Centennial Sandhills that 

will guide the management of this habitat, in a 

landscape context, as a mosaic of early and late-seral 

stages to maintain four rare early seral-associated 

plant species (Fendler cat’s-eye, sand wildrye, 

painted milkvetch, and pale evening primrose), as 

well as late-seral habitats.

Strategies

— Cooperate with BLM, The Nature Conservancy, 

and other partners to continue rare plant 

surveys in the Centennial Sandhills.

— Cooperate with BLM and The Nature 

Conservancy to determine the effectiveness 

of prescribed fire and cattle grazing to create 

or maintain early seral habitats in suitable 

portions of the Centennial Sandhills within 5 

years of CCP approval.

Rationale

The Centennial Sandhills are well-vegetated sand 

dunes characterized by a mosaic of seral stages. The 

most topographically variable and active (migrating) 

sand dunes are in the western portion of the 

sandhills on lands owned by BLM and The Nature 

Conservancy. As dunes lose sand via depositional 

loss, the density of vegetation increases such that 

the dunes become stabilized and movement stops 

(Chadwick and Dalke 1965). Dunes in the eastern 

portion of the sandhills are stabilized and blowouts 

(windblown areas of bare sand) are rare. Two rare 

plant species, painted milkvetch and sand wildrye, 

are restricted to these blowouts and have not been 

documented on the refuge, whereas pale evening 

primrose and Fendler cat’s-eye occur in blowouts 

and areas of relatively recent deposited sands on the 

upper slopes of the dunes (Lesica and Cooper 1999). 

Pale evening primrose is rare in both the western 

and eastern sandhills, but Fendler cat’s-eye is very 

common, particularly in the eastern sandhills. Late 
86 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

seral habitats are dominated by basin big sagebrush 

on the refuge and threetip sagebrush on the western 

sandhills. Both of these communities are unique in 

Montana (Cooper et al. 1999). 

A

Create and maintain aspen stands of various age 

classes within a mosaic of coniferous forest and 

shrubland for cavity-nesting birds, and other 

migratory and resident wildlife. 

Aspen Forest and Woodland Objective

Aspen Forest and Woodland Objective 1: Determine the 

historical and current extent of aspen, current levels 

of aspen regeneration, and current browse levels by 

elk and moose within aspen stands on the refuge and 

surrounding lands in the Centennial Valley within 5 

years of CCP approval. 

Strategies

— Develop a monitoring plan in conjunction with 

cooperators to monitor levels of aspen browse 

in the Centennial Valley.

— If aspen monitoring indicates continued intense 

browsing, work with partners to develop an 

adaptive management plan that incorporates 

native ungulate harvest and large-scale 

disturbances to benefit aspen.

— Supplement aspen stand delineation via aerial 

photo interpretation with intensive groundsampling based on existing data regarding 

aspen distribution in the Centennial Valley.

Rationale

Large-scale declines of aspen across the American 

West have been widely distributed, likely caused 

by a combination of factors, including global climate 

change, high-levels of ungulate herbivory, and conifer 

encroachment due to fire suppression (Bartos and 

Campbell 1998). The Centennial Mountains have 

seen declines of aspen as great as 80% (Gallant et 

al. 2003, Korb 2005, Korb et al. 2008). Browsing 

by native ungulates, especially elk and moose, can 

significantly reduce aspen regeneration and the 

ability of stems to grow above browse height (Berger 

et al. 2001, Romme et al. 1995). The collection of data 

using the LD index on the current level of aspen 

regeneration (number of stems/acre) and browsing 

(Keigley et al. 2002) in the Centennial Valley was 

started by The Nature Conservancy in the summer 

of 2006. Preliminary results show that regeneration 

at current browse levels will be very limited. 

Additionally, some historic aspen stands have been 

lost, as evidenced by areas of downed aspen or aspen 

snags and lack of young aspen stems. The degree 

to which this loss has occurred throughout the 

Centennial Valley is unknown. 

The Centennial Valley is part of the MFWP Gravelly 

Elk Management Unit, Hunting District 327. Elk 

populations in this management unit have more than 

doubled since 1985 (MFWP 2004). Wintering moose 

populations on the refuge have also increased fourfold from 1966–2008, with approximately 100 moose 

currently wintering on or near the refuge (USFWS 

2008a). The inability of aspen stems to grow above 

browse height, coupled with the increase in elk and 

moose numbers, suggests that intense browsing may 

be limiting regeneration of aspen in the Centennial 

Valley. 

Aspen provides the only deciduous tree habitat 

in montane regions of the Rocky Mountains. This 

habitat has higher biodiversity and productivity than 

the surrounding upland habitats (Hansen et al. 2000) 

and is extremely valuable to breeding birds (Dobkin 

et al. 1995, Finch and Reynolds 1987, Martin et al. 

2004). Aspen within a mosaic of coniferous forest is 

used for nesting disproportionately to its availability 

(Martin et al. 2004). In particular, primary cavity 

excavators (such as woodpeckers) create nesting 

and roosting cavities for a complex community 

of species. As aspen age, they invariably become 

infected with fungal heartrot (Hinds 1985). This 

susceptibility to heartrot creates ideal conditions for 

cavity excavation (Aitken et al. 2002, Hart and Hart 

2001). Several primary cavity-nesting species and 

secondary cavity-nesting species (nonexcavators) 

breed in aspen habitats on the refuge, including 

northern flicker, red-naped sapsucker, house wren, 

American kestrel, and tree swallow. Other bird 

species that nest in aspen habitat are ruffed grouse, 

dusky flycatcher, cordilleran flycatcher, western 

wood-pewee, warbling vireo, and broad-tailed 

hummingbird. 

Several birds that breed in aspen habitats are listed 

as species of conservation concern by the Service 

(red-naped sapsucker; 2002), by the state of Montana 

(broad-tailed hummingbird; 2006), or by Montana 

Partners in Flight (red-naped sapsucker, warbling 

vireo, ruffed grouse, cordilleran flycatcher, and dusky 

flycatcher; 2000). All of these species require large 

trees with a dense canopy (Dobkin et al. 1995, Gardali 

and Ballard 2000, Lowther 2000, Rusch et al. 2000, 

Sedgwick 1993).

Mixed Coniferous Forest and Woodland Objective

Mixed Coniferous Forest and Woodland Objective 1: 

Provide wildland–urban interface (WUI) protection 

and prevention measures around Lakeview based 

on strategies developed in an interagency fire 

management plan.
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 87

Strategy

— Work with BLM and Forest Service to develop 

a fire management plan that will use prescribed 

fire and mechanical treatments to thin conifer 

stands and reduce hazardous fuels, minimizing 

the threat to life and property.

Rationale

Wildland fire management must be coordinated 

across administrative boundaries to reach 

management goals. It must balance fire suppression 

methods to protect property and other resources 

with the use of fire to maintain and promote healthy 

ecosystems. The development of a fire management 

plan for the WUI surrounding the town of Lakeview 

will serve to protect homes and other structures 

and also allow land management agencies to adopt 

wildland fire use principles that will support minimal 

suppression of wildland fire in these habitats. 

A 13,600-acre lightning-ignited fire occurred in 

mixed coniferous forests in the western Centennial 

Mountains in 2003, burning nearly 1,000 acres of the 

refuge. Aside from this fire, wildland fires have been 

essentially absent from coniferous forests in the 

Centennial Valley for nearly 150 years (Korb 2005). 

This absence of fire, in combination with mountain 

pine beetle and spruce budworm outbreaks, and a 

complex interaction between climatic patterns and 

fuels, has created suitable conditions for wildland fire 

to occur in this habitat. Continued maintenance of 

coniferous forests through natural disturbance will 

provide habitat for a diverse assemblage of breeding 

birds.

Several bird species of conservation concern breed 

in coniferous forests on the refuge. These include 

Williamson’s sapsucker (Casey 2000, MTNHP and 

MFWP 2006, USFWS 2002b); olive-sided flycatcher, 

three-toed woodpecker, great gray owl, northern 

goshawk, brown creeper (Casey 2000, MTNHP 

and MFWP 2006); and Calliope’s hummingbird, 

Townsend’s solitaire, red crossbill, Cassin’s finch, and 

Clark’s nutcracker (Casey 2000). Several bird species 

are also closely associated with burned coniferous 

forests, including black-backed woodpecker (Casey 

2000, MTNHP and MFWP 2006), three-toed 

woodpecker, and olive-sided flycatcher, which is often 

more abundant in burned forests than unburned 

forests (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). The overall 

guidance for use of prescribed fire and management 

of wildland fire is in the description of the fire 

management program in appendix H.

Visitor serViCes and CuLturaL resourCes

GoaL

Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, 

environmental education, interpretation, and 

outreach opportunities that nurture an appreciation 

and understanding of the unique natural and cultural 

resources of the Centennial Valley, for visitors and 

local community members of all abilities, while 

maintaining the primitive and remote experience 

unique to the refuge. 

Hunting Objective

Hunting Objective 1: Continue to provide and expand 

hunting opportunities for elk, white-tailed and mule 

deer, moose, pronghorn, ducks, geese, and coots 

within modified refuge hunting area boundaries. 

Seventy-five percent of hunters will report a safe, 

quality hunting experience that enriches their 

personal lives while supporting preservation of the 

unique qualities and natural resources of the refuge 

and Centennial Valley for future generations.

Strategies

— Hunting boundaries will be modified and 

expanded to eliminate boundary confusion, 

address law enforcement issues, address 

impacts to habitat due to increasing populations 

and unnatural concentrations of large ungulates 

(particularly in closed areas), and provide 

additional opportunities (see figure 14). 

— Big game hunting for elk, pronghorn, and 

mule and white-tailed deer will continue to be 

permitted on current and expanded portions of 

the refuge (see figure 14). 

— Open the area west of South Valley Road near 

Saier Corrals to create a contiguous moose 

hunting area, eliminating hunting boundary 

confusion. Close the area south of South Valley 

Road (Red Rock Pass Road) to eliminate a road 

hunting issue.

— To maintain a quality and ethical hunt and to 

reduce the potential for crippling elk in the area 

north of South Valley Road, south of Red Rock 

Creek, west of Upper Red Rock Lake to the 

west boundary, except for the closed portion 

east of Lakeview to Odell Creek, the refuge 

may pose restrictions such as limiting the 

number of hunters, shortening the season, or 

changing the method of harvest.

Great gray owl.

Mike Parker/USFWS
88 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

— The refuge will continue the practice of 

opening moose hunting later than the state 

moose hunting season. In collaboration with 

MFWP, this hunting season may be modified 

(lengthened or shortened further) in the future 

to meet habitat and population objectives. 

— To address illegal road hunting, no big game 

hunting will be permitted within 50 yards of the 

centerline of any county or refuge road. 

— Develop the hunting chapter within the Visitor 

Services Plan.

— Hunting for duck, goose, and coot will continue 

to be permitted on and adjacent to Lower Red 

Rock Lake under state and federal regulations 

and seasons (see figure 14). 

— Provide one accessible hunting blind for 

hunters with disabilities (also used for wildlife 

observation and photography) downriver from 

Lower Lake.

— Open areas closed to hunting for other public 

uses according to refuge regulations, in order 

to promote other wildlife-dependent activities 

during hunting seasons. The area around 

residences and maintenance facilities will 

remain closed to all public uses.

— The public will continue to be provided access 

down Idlewild Road, primarily used for 

waterfowl hunting. The refuge will post a sign 

recommending that only 4-wheel drive or high 

clearance vehicles utilize the road. The road 

may be closed at any time due to weather and 

road conditions.

— Create a hunting regulation brochure that 

meets Service graphic standards.

— Conduct random hunting surveys to determine 

the quality of visitors’ hunting experiences.

Rationale 

Hunting is considered by many to be a legitimate, 

traditional recreational use of renewable natural 

resources. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Act of 1966, other laws, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service's policy permit hunting on a national wildlife 

refuge when it is compatible with the purposes 

for which the refuge was established. National 

wildlife refuges exist primarily to safeguard wildlife 

populations through habitat preservation. 

The word "refuge" includes the idea of providing 

a haven of safety for wildlife, and as such, hunting 

might seem an inconsistent use of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. However, habitat that 

normally supports healthy wildlife populations 

produces harvestable surpluses that are a renewable 

resource. As practiced on refuges, hunting does 

not pose a threat to the wildlife populations, and 

in some instances, are necessary for sound wildlife 

management. 

The refuge is part of a larger ecosystem known as 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Most wildlife 

species migrate on and off the refuge. Working with 

MFWP is vital in balancing wildlife populations 

needed to provide a quality experience for visitors 

while ensuring habitats are protected from 

overpopulated and unnaturally concentrated wildlife. 

In the past, elk regularly concentrated on the 

refuge’s closed areas during the fall hunting season. 

This unnatural concentration of elk not only impacted 

refuge habitats (see Aspen and Woodland Objective 

Rationale), but contributed to the continued 

overpopulation of elk in this valley, impacting other 

Centennial Valley habitats. Surveys also indicate 

a consistent increase in moose populations and 

increases in browse use, supporting the state’s 

continued limited harvest (currently eleven permits 

annually) within this hunting unit and the refuge. 

The open landscape of the Centennial Valley allows 

for excellent scouting for big game animals from 

the road. This sometimes leads hunters to harvest 

animals illegally by shooting from the road. By 

adopting a 50 yard closure state regulation (currently 

used for the state’s bison hunt program outside of 

Yellowstone), the refuge hopes to address this issue. 

Currently, the refuge hunt area boundaries and 

regulations are confusing. By carrying out the 

strategies, confusing hunting boundaries will be 

eliminated, additional quality hunting opportunities 

will be provided, and hunters will be better informed 

of the location of boundaries and regulations. 

Expanding big game hunting areas will serve various 

purposes. It will eliminate confusion associated with 

existing hunting boundaries by creating more clearly, 

easily defined boundaries. It will support the state’s 

elk population objective in the elk management unit 

that encompasses the refuge. Current population 

levels exceed state objectives and the refuge’s closed 

area has caused unnatural concentrations of elk 

during the hunting season. The refuge works with 

MFWP to meet their elk management objectives; elk 

are a state-managed species. Elk populations are not 

imperiled and are more than sufficient in numbers 

to allow for additional harvest. The expanded 

portion of the refuge that will now be open to big 

game hunting is within Red Rock Lakes Wilderness 

and other roadless areas. Since it is roadless, it 

will be challenging to hunt and retrieve animals. 

Nevertheless, we anticipate this disturbance will 

better disperse elk, while allowing for additional 

opportunities for a quality hunting experience. 

The Service does recognize the need to carefully 

plan and execute these hunts initially, making sure 

law enforcement is present to ensure they are 

conducted ethically and safely. The Service may also 

need to utilize other methods, such as limiting the 

number of hunters, to achieve this goal. Eventually, 

the elk will move into other areas more naturally, 

distributing themselves throughout the valley. 

Finally, these reduced elk numbers should assist the 
 Chapter 4 — Management Direction 89

refuge and surrounding land management agencies 

in addressing the lack of regeneration of aspen and 

other tree species heavily browsed by overabundant 

elk.

Fishing Objective

Fishing Objective 1: Continue to provide quality fishing 

opportunities to visitors in a remote, wild setting, 

with minimal disturbance to migratory birds. These 

encounters will enrich visitors’ personal lives while 

garnering support for preserving the unique qualities 

and natural resources of the refuge and Centennial 

Valley for future generations.

Strategies

— Continue to allow fishing on Odell, Red Rock, 

and Elk Springs creeks under state river and 

streams regulations.

— Open all refuge streams to fishing in compliance 

with refuge, and the state’s river and stream 

regulations. 

— Widgeon Pond, and until they are restored, 

MacDonald and Culver ponds will be open 

under state river and stream regulations 

to fishing from the bank unless closure is 

necessary to protect nesting swans or Arctic 

grayling restoration efforts. 

— Update fishing regulations in the general 

brochure.

— Produce a fishing regulation “tear sheet” 

or produce a combination hunting/fishing 

regulation “tear sheet.”

— Improve or replace existing signage.

— Encourage all visitors to keep nonnative fish in 

accordance with state regulations.

— Open Red Rock Creek west of the Lower Lake 

WCS to fishing.

— Work with refuge partners to determine 

population numbers of native and nonnative fish 

species and potential impacts from fishing.

— Conduct random fishing surveys to determine 

the quality of visitors’ fishing experiences.

— Prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species 

by increasing angler awareness through 

signage, educational brochures, and other 

techniques.

Rationale

Fishing is one of the priority public uses for the 

Refuge System and a popular activity on Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Fishing can also 

play an important role in control of nonnative fish 

populations for the benefit of Arctic grayling and 

Westslope cutthroat trout. Fishing is not permitted 

on the lakes for various reasons, the most important 

of which is to provide refuge for breeding, staging, 

and migrating trumpeter swans and other migratory 

birds. Opening all creeks to fishing will provide 

additional opportunities for visitors. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective

Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective 1:

Provide visitors of all abilities with more 

opportunities to view and photograph wildlife in a 

wilderness setting. These encounters will enrich 

visitors’ personal lives while garnering support for 

conserving the unique qualities and natural resources 

of the refuge and Centennial Valley for future 

generations. 

Strategies

— Maintain wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities during hunting seasons by using 

geographic separation. The eastern ponds 

section (north of Red Rock Creek, east of Elk 

Lake Road) will be closed to hunting, but open 

to foot traffic by the public year-round, and to 

vehicles for a portion of the year. 

— Work with Beaverhead County to provide 

accessible pulloffs for the safe viewing of 

wildlife and photography. Each site will be 

interpreted through an interpretive sign or 

auto-tour brochure.

— Establish an auto tour route for wildlife 

observation on existing refuge roads open to 

the public (see figure 14). An auto tour route 

will require replacing Red Rock Creek Bridge. 

The auto tour route will be interpreted through 

a brochure and minimal signage.

— Produce a fish and wildlife checklist that meets 

Service graphic standards.

— To eliminate confusing regulations, open 

all refuge roads to vehicles from May 15 to 

December 2. All roads may be closed at anytime 

due to weather conditions. An exception 

is Widgeon Pond Road, it may be closed to 

minimize disturbance to nesting swans. 

— Add a wildlife observation and photography 

question to the interpretation questionnaire 

to measure results and quality of enhanced 

programs.

— Shambow Pond will remain closed to all public 

access and use.

— Build an accessible blind downriver from Lower 

Lake (see figure 14) for wildlife observation and 

photography, and hunting.

— Allow nonmotorized boating on Red Rock 

Creek and Upper Red Rock Lake from July 

1 to freeze-up. Lower Red Rock Lake and 

River Marsh connecting the two lakes are open 

September 1 to freeze-up.
90 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Rationale

The refuge is located in one of the most undeveloped 

and beautiful valleys in Montana, the Centennial 

Valley. This picturesque setting, combined with rich 

habitats, make wildlife observation and photography 

the most popular wildlife-dependent recreational 

activity at the refuge. There are a few developed 

trails and some roads from which visitors can view 

and photograph habitats and wildlife; however, most 

have not been adequately marked or identified on a 

map, so they are not obvious to the less adventurous 

visitor. There are areas where these opportunities 

could be expanded, but it is also critical that the 

wilderness characteristics that bring visitors to the 

refuge be maintained. Shambow Pond will continue 

to be closed to protect nesting trumpeter swans.

Interpretation Objective

Interpretation Objective 1: Ensure that 75% of refuge 

visitors will understand they are on a national 

wildlife refuge where wildlife comes first. These 

visitors will also understand the purposes and 

significance of Red Rocks Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge and the value of conserving the natural 

resources of the Centennial Valley.

Strategies

— Recruit a GS-6 temporary visitor services 

specialist (same as the Outreach objective).

— Develop a common theme for all refuge 

interpretation that supports and promotes the 

refuge’s purposes, protection of the Centennial 

Valley, and the unique qualities of being part of 

the Refuge System.

— Ensure that all current and future brochures 

and other refuge literature meet Service 

graphic standards.

— Design and install a comprehensive interpretive 

package (such as signage, displays, hands-on 

exercises, and literature) for the visitor contact 

area.

— Install a new kiosk at the refuge’s west 

entrance on the road to Lower Red Rock 

Lake. Replace three degraded kiosks at Upper 

Lake campground, Elk Lake Road, and the 

east entrance. Design and install two updated 

interpretive panels at Shambow Pond near the 

pulloff and the sandhills. Design and install 

updated panels at the four existing kiosks, and 

at the one new kiosk. 

— Staff the visitor contact area on weekends 

during months of high visitor use.

— Retain a primitive visitor experience while 

ensuring that the auto tour route is adequately 

interpreted with a brochure and low profile 

interpretive panels.

— Improve signs to ensure all visitors are oriented 

and understand refuge-specific regulations.

— Improve Sparrow Pond Trail so it is an 

accessible trail.

— Partner with the BLM and Forest Service to 

develop interpretive panels at Monida Hill 

and Red Rock Pass that highlight the value of 

the refuge and Centennial Valley as a critical 

wildlife corridor between the Bitterroot and 

Greater Yellowstone ecosystems.

— Measure results using a visitor questionnaire.

Rationale

The refuge offers excellent opportunities to interpret 

wildlife resources, the Refuge System, and the large 

intact landscapes found in the Centennial Valley and 

southwest Montana. By providing the opportunities 

listed above, visitors to the refuge should be well 

informed of refuge resources and its role within 

this large, undeveloped landscape. Any interpretive 

facilities will complement the wilderness, rustic 

qualities of the refuge while better orienting and 

educating visitors.

Environmental Education Objective

Environmental Education Objective 1: Work with 

partners to provide annual on-site environmental 

educational programs for up to five organized groups 

and 300 visitors and students of all abilities to foster 

an environmental ethic, and an understanding and 

appreciation of the issues and programs of the 

refuge and the value of the natural resources of the 

Centennial Valley.

Strategies

— Recruit a GS-6 temporary visitor services 

specialist (same as Interpretation Objective).

— Work with partners to develop environmental 

educational programs that support and promote 

the refuge’s purposes, protection of the 

Centennial Valley, and the unique qualities of 

being part of the Refuge System.

— As part of each program, measure results 

through verbal and written questions.

— Expand the refuge’s website to include 

educational tools, such as classroom projects 

and online exercises that educate students 

about the Refuge System and the values and 

importance of refuge and Centennial Valley 

resources. Results will be measured by an 

online questionnaire, and website usage will be 

monitored.

Rationale

The refuge is a popular destination to learn about 

and observe wildlife, hosting approximately 12,000 

visitors annually, primarily during the summer and 

fall months. Providing environmental education 

will help visitors and students gain a better 

understanding of the refuge, its wildlife, and its role 

in the larger Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 91

refuge has opportunities to provide environmental 

education to groups, students, and overnight visitors; 

nevertheless, the refuge is remote and county roads 

are minimally maintained; particularly fall through 

spring. This objective is modest, recognizing these 

limitations, while capturing those opportunities 

to educate students and visitors who do make 

the journey to this refuge within the spectacular 

Centennial Valley. 

Outreach Objective

Outreach Objective 1: Reach out to local, state, 

and federal representatives; local communities; 

landowners; nongovernmental organizations; and 

current and potential partners to promote an 

understanding of refuge purposes and management 

objectives and to garner support for management 

actions and the conservation easement program.

Strategies

— Promote participation by local landowners in 

conservation easement programs by providing 

information on the programs’ benefits to the 

conservation of the valley and in promoting and 

preserving their way of life.

— Conduct annual visits and provide a briefing 

paper to local, county, state, and federal 

governments that highlights current refuge 

programs and challenges.

— Continue to work with nongovernmental 

organizations on projects of mutual interest, 

where appropriate, ensuring that projects 

support and enhance the refuge’s purposes and 

the mission of the Refuge System.

— Measure the results of the outreach program 

by determining the level of support and 

understanding for refuge resources; current 

and proposed management programs; and the 

goals of the Refuge System. 

Rationale

The refuge has many challenges and opportunities 

related to its remote location and wilderness 

characteristics. Because of the wild, undeveloped 

landscape of the Centennial Valley, the refuge has 

the opportunity to work with many partners to 

protect a large landscape and to provide travel 

corridors and near-pristine habitat for far-ranging 

wildlife such as wolves, grizzly bears, wolverine, elk, 

pronghorn, and waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

Outreach opportunities will encourage visitors, local 

communities, landowners, and governments to gain 

a better understanding the values of the Centennial 

Valley, the refuge, its resources, management issues, 

and the Refuge System. 

Campgrounds Objective

Campgrounds Objective 1: Continue to provide two 

primitive campgrounds with a total of approximately 

seventeen campsites at Upper and Lower lakes to 

accommodate wildlife-dependent recreation in this 

remote wilderness setting.

Strategies

— Rehabilitate campground facilities, such as fire 

rings and access roads.

— Create an accessible campsite at River Marsh 

campground and improve the current accessible 

site at Upper Lake.

— Replace the restrooms at the campgrounds to 

make them accessible.

— Establish a recreational fee program by 2010 

to provide added resources for maintaining the 

campgrounds.

Rationale

It is a policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

that, “We may allow other activities on refuges, 

such as camping, to facilitate compatible wildlifedependent recreation” (605 FW 1, 1.2B). Due to the 

remote location of this refuge, the great majority 

of visitors using these campgrounds participate 

in wildlife-dependent activities on and adjacent to 

the refuge. The campgrounds allow visitors to stay 

multiple days to thoroughly experience the refuge, 

whether they are bird watching, hunting, fishing, 

hiking, or just experiencing wilderness solitude. Only 

one other location in the Centennial Valley provides 

a pit toilet. This is located just north of the refuge 

at Elk Lake—about 17 miles from headquarters. 

Elk Lake’s primitive campsites are also well used 

by visitors who are fishing and hunting on other 

public lands. The refuge’s campgrounds also provide 

a critical watering and stopping point for visitors 

hiking or biking the Contiguous and Great Divide 

trails, which both traverse the refuge. 

This remote refuge has four houses for refuge staff.

Mike Parker/USFWS
92 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Cultural Resources Objective

Cultural Resources Objective 1: Identify, value, and 

preserve the cultural resources and history of the 

refuge to connect the refuge staff, visitors, and the 

community to the area’s past, while ensuring that 

100% of known cultural resources are protected from 

federal and visitor activities.

Strategies

— Continue to conduct site-specific surveys for 

lands and facilities that may be disturbed by 

refuge management activities.

— Continue to maintain historic properties 

currently in use. 

— Through partnerships, begin preparing 

a comprehensive, refuge-wide survey to 

determine the presence of cultural resources on 

the refuge. 

— Design and print a brochure to interpret select 

cultural resources and historic structures.

— Address cultural resources in the auto tour 

interpretive brochure.

Rationale

The refuge has many known historical structures, 

many of which are still in use, including the refuge 

office, two residences, and a storage building. The 

Centennial Valley also has a rich history of Native 

and Euro-American presence. Federal laws and 

policies mandate the identification and protection 

of cultural resources on federal lands. Specifically, 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act requires all federal agencies to consider impacts 

on cultural resources before any federal action. 

Ideally, a comprehensive refuge-wide inventory 

will help ensure the protection of these resources. 

However, these inventories take time and are 

very costly, which is why most refuges have not 

completed surveys. Nevertheless, the law requires 

all federal activities that have the potential to impact 

cultural resources be evaluated. Throughout the 

life of this 15-year plan, the refuge will work with 

other partners, including the regional archaeologist 

and staff, to begin documenting cultural sites on 

the refuge. Until this survey is completed, the 

refuge staff will continue to work with the regional 

archaeologist to evaluate projects with the potential 

to have impacts, on a case-by-case basis.

R

Prioritize for wildlife first and emphasize the 

protection of trust resources in the utilization of staff, 

funding, and volunteer programs. 

Staff Objective

Staff Objective 1: Add the needed staff within 5 years 

of CCP approval; this includes temporary employees 

and volunteers necessary to fully carry out the CCP.

Strategies 

— Recruit a WG-6 permanent seasonal 

maintenance worker to help with the large 

maintenance backlog in support of all refuge 

programs.

— Recruit one full-time permanent GS-5/7/9 

wildlife biologist and at least three temporary 

biological science technicians. 

— Recruit one full-time permanent GS-7 range 

technician.

— Use additional management capability money 

to recruit temporary employees, develop and 

implement the visitor services program, and 

enhance habitat management and monitoring. 

— Annually recruit a temporary visitor services 

specialist.

— Annually recruit a temporary office assistant.

— Given the added staff and complexity of the 

expanded refuge programs, evaluate grade 

levels of current refuge staff.

— Require one staff member to maintain collateral 

duty law enforcement credentials to provide 

for the safety of visitors, staff, facilities, and 

wildlife.

Rationale

Additional staff, including permanent, temporary, 

permanent seasonal, and volunteer employees, will 

be necessary in order to carry out the objectives 

and strategies identified in the CCP. The funding for 

permanent employees is included in the refuge’s base 

budget, and they return each year, either full-time 

or seasonal. Temporary employees are funded using 

annual project money for various refuge programs 

such as biology, administration, and maintenance. 

Most employees work for less than six months, but 

may be employed anytime of the year. Since these 

temporary positions are based on annual funding, 

there is no commitment to renew them each year. 

There have been many needs identified in the CCP 

such as suggested improvements to the existing 

maintenance, habitat management and monitoring, 

law enforcement, and visitor services programs. 

Many of these changes are dependent on the 

availability of additional staff to design and execute 

these new programs. These additional positions will 

be critical to achieving the vision and goals presented 

in the CCP. There has been little change to the 

number of permanent staff and no added housing 

since the 1950s. Nevertheless, visitor numbers have 

increased since the refuge was established. Facilities, 

many historical, are in disrepair, issues have 

changed and become more challenging, and there 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 93

are new opportunities and technologies available to 

better understand and manage refuge resources. 

Accommodating visitors and managing the refuge 

properly takes more than money, it takes people with 

the expertise to develop and carry out programs. 

These added challenges and increased staff size, 

combined with the large area of responsibility, should 

also warrant evaluating the grade levels of current 

staff positions.

Facilities Objective

Facilities Objective 1: Maintain, create, or rehabilitate 

facilities to provide staff and visitors of all abilities 

with a safe and quality experience while preserving 

and complementing the remote wilderness character 

of the refuge.

Strategies

— Construct up to four new residences.

— Build three trailer pads for housing volunteers 

to support refuge programs.

— Improve parking at headquarters, Odell Creek 

and Sparrow Pond trailheads, and the entrance 

to Lower Lake Road.

— Replace all vault toilets with “clean-smelling” 

technology vault toilets, making them 

universally accessible to meet requirements of 

the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility 

Standard for Federal Facilities. Develop 

accessible parking and access routes to all 

accessible facilities.

— Provide a universally accessible boat launch 

(hardened surfaces) at Lower Lake for persons 

with disabilities.

— Provide an accessible trail to Sparrow Pond.

— Replace Red Rock Creek Bridge on Culver 

Road (currently open to the public) with a new 

bridge, to allow for development of an auto tour 

route, and replace Sparrow Pond Trail Bridge 

used for foot traffic and by heavy equipment to 

maintain water control structures.

— Provide accessible pulloffs along the 

auto-tour route for the safe viewing of wildlife 

and photography.

— Investigate the feasibility of rehabilitating the 

historic fire tower, in keeping with regulations, 

and opening it to public access.

— Replace three kiosks and add one new kiosk. 

— Replace and update all interpretive panels 

and signage to ensure visitors are oriented, 

informed, and feel welcome. 

— Improve road, campsites, and parking at Upper 

Lake campground.

— Rehabilitate existing refuge residences 

(Q94 foundation repair, Q94 and 110 garage 

replacement, Q1 foundation and interior 

rehabilitation, Q90 health safety/attic, and 

windows in most residences) and restore or 

stabilize other historic structures (headquarters 

log barn, Shambow Creek barn, and fire tower).

— Repair and rehabilitate the shop building to be 

more in keeping with the historic site.

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

Mike Parker/USFWS
94 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

— Replace existing boundary fencing and 

construct new boundary fencing for newly 

acquired lands. 

— The public will continue to be provided access 

down Idlewild Road. The refuge will post a sign 

recommending that only 4-wheel drive or high 

clearance vehicles utilize the road. The road 

may be closed at any time due to weather and 

road conditions.

Rationale

One of the greatest limitations to expanding the 

refuge’s biological and visitor services programs is 

the lack of staff and facilities. The refuge is located 

in one of the most remote valleys in Montana where 

there is often no available housing; thus, the Service 

needs to provide housing for all staff. Currently, all 

refuge houses are occupied by existing staff. Adding 

any new positions will require additional housing. 

Existing staff and visitor facilities (such as buildings, 

signs, kiosks, roads, fences, trails, parking, and 

campgrounds) are also in need of major repair or 

replacement in order to provide for a safe, productive 

working environment and to promote the refuge and 

its resources in an effective, safe, and professional 

manner. Maintenance of these facilities will require 

some additional funding but most importantly, an 

additional permanent seasonal maintenance person 

(see Staff Objective 1). 

4.3 STAFFING AND FUNDING 

Current staffing at the refuge consists of five 

permanent full-time employees. Table 8 shows the 

current staff and proposed additional staff required 

to fully implement the CCP. Due to the area of 

responsibility and added complexities of this plan all 

grade levels for current staff will be evaluated. If all 

positions are funded, the refuge staff will be able to 

carry out all aspects of this CCP, which will provide 

maximum benefit to wildlife, improve facilities, 

and provide visitor services. Projects that have 

adequate funding and staffing will receive priority for 

accomplishment. Staffing and funding are requested 

for the 15-year life of this CCP. 

Table 8. Current and proposed staff, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana.

Program Current Positions Proposed changes/added positions

Management Refuge manager, 

GS-13

Assistant manager, 

GS-11

Evaluate this management position for upgrade to the next 

grade level.

Biological Wildlife biologist, 

GS-11

Evaluate the current biologist position for an upgrade to a 

GS-12.

GS-5/7/9 full-time permanent wildlife biologist.

GS-7 full-time permanent range technician.

At least three temporary biological science technicians.

Administrative Administrative support 

assistant, GS-7

Temporary administrative assistant (generalist).

Maintenance Maintenance worker, WG-8 Additional temporary WG-6 maintenance worker.

Visitor Services None GS-6 temporary visitor services specialist

4.4 STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS

The CCP is intended as a broad umbrella plan that 

provides general concepts and specific wildlife, 

habitat, visitor services, and partnership objectives 

over the next 15 years. The purpose of the step-down 

Table 9. Step-down management plans for Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana

Plan

Completed 

Plan, Year 

Approved

New or 

Revised Plan, 

Completion 

Year

Habitat 

Management

— 2015

Fire Management 2002 2011

Disease 

Contingency

2006 2017

Wilderness 

Management

1986 2015

Refuge Safety 2008 2011

Visitor Services 1986 2014

Wildlife Inventory 

and Monitoring

— 2016

Spill Prevention 

Control and 

Countermeasures

2006 2013
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 95

management plans is to provide greater detail to 

managers and employees for carrying out specific 

actions and strategies authorized by the CCP. Table 

9 presents the plans needed for the refuge, their 

status, and the next revision date.

4.5 PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

A major objective of this CCP is to establish 

partnerships with landowners, volunteers, private 

organizations, and county, state, and federal natural 

resource agencies. In particular, landowners will 

be informed of opportunities to participate in 

compensated habitat protection programs (such 

as conservation easements). Opportunities exist 

to enhance or establish new partnerships with 

nonprofit organizations, sporting clubs, community 

organizations, and educational institutes. Strong 

partnerships already exist with The Nature 

Conservancy, MFWP, Montana State University, 

Beaverhead County Weed District, Centennial Valley 

Association, and Centennial Valley Historical Society. 

4.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The Service proposes that the uncertainty 

surrounding habitat management can be dealt with 

most efficiently within the framework of adaptive 

resource management (ARM) (see figure 16) (Holling 

1978; Kendall 2001; Lancia et al. 1996; Walters and 

Holling 1990). This approach provides a system 

within which objective decisions can be made and 

the uncertainty surrounding those decisions reduced. 

Briefly, the key components of an ARM plan follow:

1. Clearly defined management goals and 

objectives.

2. A set of management actions with associated 

uncertainty as to their outcome.

3. Various alternative working hypotheses 

describing the response of species or 

communities of interest.

4. Monitoring and assessment of the response of 

target organism(s). 

5. 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 

ARM plan, while the latter two (monitoring and 

directed decision making) comprise an iterative 

process, whereby each year the predictive ability of 

models are tested against what was observed during 

monitoring. This may result in a new best model, 

greater support for the existing best model, or new 

models constructed from emerging hypotheses. 

In this way, habitat management “evolves” as 

more information about the refuge is gained and 

uncertainty is reduced. 

Development of ARM plans for habitat management 

will allow the refuge to “learn by doing,” while 

maintaining a focus on management objectives. 

Knowledge gained from assessing management 

actions is considered as integral to the process as 

the management actions themselves. This emphasis 

on gaining knowledge about the refuge creates a 

situation whereby the refuge can refine its habitat 

management in a feedback between management 

and assessment. Reducing the uncertainty of 

habitat management via ARM plans will greatly 

help the refuge in development of long-term habitat 

management plans.

Figure 16. Adaptive management process.

D. If “yes,” Continue Plan Implementation

 If “no,” Adapt Plan A. Implement Plan

C. Assess Results: Goals Met? B. Apply Monitoring Tools

The

Adaptive

Management

Process

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. 

adfluvial—Dwelling in both rivers and lakes.

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.

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 

(Fish and Wildlife Service Manual 052 FW 1.12B). 

The National Wildlife Refuge System’s focus is on 

indigenous species, biotic communities, and ecological 

processes. 

biological integrity—Biotic composition, structure, 

and functioning at genetic, organism, and community 

levels comparable with historic conditions, including 

the natural biological processes that shape genomes, 

organisms, and communities.

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms; caused, 

produced by, or comprising living organisms.

blowout—An area denuded of vegetation due to rapid 

wind erosion.

calcareous—Consisting of or containing calcium 

carbonate.

canopy—A layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory 

vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure (also 

canopy cover) is an estimate of the amount of overhead 

vegetative cover.

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan.

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations.

cfs—Cubic feet per second.

clonal—A group of genetically identical individuals (e. 

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

location, all originating vegetatively (not sexually) 

from a single ancestor.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—The 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 a calendar year.

compatibility determination—See compatible use. 

compatible use—A wildlife-dependent recreational 

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

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

and Wildlife Service, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission 

of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge 

(Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible 

uses and identified stipulations or limits necessary to 

ensure compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to 

the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet other 

relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 
98 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

concern—See issue. 

contiguous—An area whose boundaries touch. 

cool-season grasses—Grasses that begin growth 

earlier in the season and often become dormant in 

the summer. These grasses will germinate at lower 

temperatures. Examples of cool-season grasses at the 

refuge are western wheatgrass, needle and thread, and 

green needlegrass. 

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. 

depredation—Destruction or consumption of eggs, 

broods, or individual wildlife due to a predatory animal; 

damage inflicted on agricultural crops or ornamental 

plants by wildlife. 

drawdown—The act of manipulating water levels in an 

impoundment to allow for the natural drying-out cycle 

of a wetland. 

EA—See environmental assessment.

ecosystem—A dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated 

nonliving environment; a biological community, 

together with its environment, functioning as a unit. 

For administrative purposes, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has designated fifty-three ecosystems 

covering the United States and its possessions. These 

ecosystems generally correspond with watershed 

boundaries, and their sizes and ecological complexity 

vary.

ecotone—The transition zone between two different 

plant communities, as that between forest and prairie.

ecotype—A subspecies or race that is especially 

adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions.

EIS—Environmental impact statement. 

emergent—A plant rooted in shallow water and having 

most of the vegetative growth above water such as 

cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, federal—A plant or animal 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

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

throughout all or 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. 

endemic species—Plants or animals that occur 

naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality.

endogenous—growing or developing from within; 

originating within. Endogenous fat reserves are used 

for energy during periods of fasting.

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). 

environmental health—Composition, structure, and 

functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features 

comparable with historic conditions, including the 

natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.

eutrophication—Characterized by an abundant 

accumulation of nutrients that support a dense growth 

of algae and other organisms, the decay of which 

depletes the shallow waters of oxygen in summer.

extinction—The complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing.

extirpation—The extinction of a population; complete 

eradication of a species within a specified area.

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals of 

an area. 

federal trust resource—A trust is something managed 

by one entity for another who holds the ownership. 

The Service holds in trust many natural resources for 

the people of the United States of America as a result 

of federal acts and treaties. Examples are species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act, migratory birds 

protected by international treaties, and native plant or 

wildlife species found on a national wildlife refuge. 

federal trust species—All species where the federal 

government has primary jurisdiction including 

federally endangered or threatened species, migratory 

birds, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. 

fen—An area of low, flat, marshy land. A fen is fed by 

surface or ground water and is neutral or alkaline in 

acidity.

flora—All the plant species of an area. 

fluvial—Dwells in rivers or streams.

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

not develop persistent woody tissue but dies down at 

the end of the growing season.

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original 

habitat that are interspersed with a variety of other 

habitat types; the process of reducing the size and 

connectivity of habitat patches, making movement of 

individuals or genetic information between parcels 

difficult or impossible.
Glossary 99

geographic information system—A system that 

captures, stores, analyzes, and presents locational 

information.

gleyed soil—Soil that is greenish-gray in color and 

oxygen-deprived due to high water content.

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). 

graminoid—Grasses (family Gramineae or Poaceae) 

and grasslike plants such as sedges (family 

Cyperaceae) and rushes (family Juncaceae). 

grassland tract—A contiguous area of grassland 

without fragmentation.

GS—general schedule (pay rate schedule for certain 

federal positions). 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; 

the place where an organism typically lives and grows. 

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

classification system based on the concept of distinct 

plant associations.

herbivory—Consumption of vegetation by herbivores; 

a type of predation.

hummocky—A fertile, wooded area that is slightly 

elevated from surrounding marshes or swamps.

hypereutrophic—Very nutrient-rich lakes 

characterized by frequent and severe nuisance algal 

blooms and low transparency. Hypereutrophic lakes 

are the most biologically productive lakes, and support 

large amounts of plants, fish, and other animals. 

Hypereutrophic lakes have a visibility depth of <3 feet, 

they have >40 micrograms/liter total chlorophyll and 

>100 micrograms/liter phosphorus.

Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

indigenous—Originating or occurring naturally in a 

particular place.

integrated pest management—Methods of managing 

undesirable species such as invasive plants. Education, 

prevention, physical or mechanical methods of control, 

biological control, responsible chemical use, and 

cultural methods are methods of controlling pests. 

introduced species—A species present in an area 

due to intentional or unintentional escape, release, 

dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem as a 

result of human activity.

invasive plant—A species that is nonnative to the 

ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction 

causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental 

harm or harm to human health. 

irruptive—not a regular cycle. Species which exhibit 

irruptive growth are characterized by sharp peaks 

in population followed by sharp declines. They do not 

reach a carrying capacity.

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, incompatibility of uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

lacustrine—Dwells in a lake.

lek—A dancing ground for male sage grouse used to 

attract breeding females. 

macroinvertebrate—An organism that has no 

backbone, an invertebrate, and is visible without 

magnification.

management alternative—See alternative. 

mesic—Of, characterized by, or adapted to a 

moderately moist habitat.

mesotrophic—Commonly, clear water lakes and ponds 

with beds of submerged aquatic plants and medium 

levels of nutrients.

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically from one 

region or climate to another for feeding or breeding.

migratory birds—Birds which follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and 

songbirds are all migratory birds.

mission—Succinct statement of purpose and/or reason 

for being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an 

environmental impact or to make an impact less 

severe. 

monitoring—The process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time. 

montane wetland—the zone directly below the 

subalpine zone which usually has cooler temperatures 

and higher rainfall than lower altitude wetlands. The 

highest zone is alpine, followed by subalpine, then 

montane, then the foothill zone. Montane wetlands are 

a type of high-elevation wetland.

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 
100 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

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.

native species—A species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or currently 

occurs in that ecosystem.

natural processes—a process existing in or produced 

by nature (rather then by the intent of humans.)

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 (NGO)—Any group that 

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

town, local, or other governmental entities.

noxious weed—Any plant or plant product that can 

directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops 

(including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, 

poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, 

navigation, natural resources of the United States, 

public health, or the environment.

objective—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). 

obligates—Species which must occupy a certain niche 

or behave in a certain way in order to survive.

oligotrophic—(of a lake) characterized by a low 

accumulation of dissolved nutrient salts, supporting 

but a sparse growth of algae and other organisms, and 

having a high oxygen content owing to the low organic 

content.

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.

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

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental 

conditions.

pelagic—Open water.

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

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

of more than 2 years.

permanent seasonal employee—See temporary 

seasonal employee. A permanent position with 

benefits, 40 hours per week during the season of 

employment, usually summer.

persistent emergent vegetation—An emergent plant 

is one which grows in water but is partly above the 

surface of the water. Persistent emergent vegetation 

are plants whose stems remain standing through the 

winter until the next growing season, e.g. cattails and 

bulrushes. 

plant community—An assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition; occurs in particular locations 

under particular influences; a reflection or integration 

of the environmental influences on the site such as soil, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, 

and rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax plant 

community, such as ponderosa pine or bunchgrass. 

pluvial lake—A lake that experiences significant 

increase in depth and extent as a result of increased 

precipitation and reduced evaporation.

prescribed fire—The skillful application of fire to 

natural fuels under conditions such as weather, fuel 

moisture, and soil moisture that allow confinement 

of the fire to a predetermined area and produces the 

intensity of heat and rate of spread to accomplish 

planned benefits to one or more objectives of habitat 

management, wildlife management, or hazard 

reduction. 

priority public use—One of six uses authorized by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 to have priority if found to be compatible 
Glossary 101

with a refuge’s purposes. This includes hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation.

proposed action—The alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge; 

contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses 

the significant issues, and is consistent with principles 

of sound fish and wildlife management. 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials 

of federal, state, and local government agencies; Indian 

tribes; and foreign nations. It may include anyone 

outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in Service 

issues and those who do or do not realize that Service 

decisions may affect them. 

public involvement or scoping—A process that offers 

affected and interested individuals and organizations 

an opportunity to become informed about, and to 

express their opinions on, Service actions and policies. 

In the process, these views are studied thoroughly, 

and thoughtful consideration of public views is given in 

shaping decisions for refuge management. 

purpose of the refuge—The purpose of a refuge is 

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation 

document, or administrative memorandum establishing 

authorization or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or 

refuge subunit (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

raptor—A carnivorous bird such as a hawk, 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—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. 

rhizomatous plant—plant that uses rhizomes to 

reproduce and spread. 

rhizome—a rootlike subterranean stem, commonly 

horizontal in position, that usually produces roots 

below and sends up shoots progressively from the 

upper surface.

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.

scoping—The process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers.

senior water users—water users with a water right 

that was filed earlier than the Service’s.

seral—The series of relatively transitory plant 

communities that develop during ecological succession 

from bare ground to climax species. 

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

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

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

mud flat areas.

sodic—Soil containing sodium.

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the 

character of space.

special use permit—A permit for special authorization 

from the refuge manager required for any refuge 

service, facility, privilege, or product of the soil 

provided at refuge expense and not usually available 

to the general public through authorizations in Title 50 

CFR or other public regulations (Refuge Manual 5 RM 

17.6).

step-down management plan—A plan that provides 

the details necessary to carry out management 

strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation 

plan (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

strategy—A specific action, tool, or technique or 

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 

1.5).

subirrigated—Also known as seepage irrigation, where 

water is delivered to the root from below the soil 

surface.

temporal—Of or relating to time.

temporary seasonal employee—See permanent 

seasonal employee. A temporary position without 

benefits, 40 hours per week during the season of 

employment, usually summer. The position will be 

reopened for candidates each year.
102 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

threatened species, federal—Species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that are 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of their 

range. 

threatened species, state—A plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered in a particular state 

within the near future if factors contributing to 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue. 

trust resource—See federal trust resource.

trust species—See federal trust species.

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

FWS)—The principal federal agency responsible for 

conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. The Service manages the 93 million 

acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of 

more than 530 national wildlife refuges and thousands 

of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 

sixty-five national fish hatcheries and seventy-eight 

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 (USGS)—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.

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey.

ungulate—a hoofed mammal.

vegetation alliance—A physiognomically (pertaining 

to physical features, character, or appearance) 

uniform group of vegetation associations sharing one 

or more diagnostic (dominant, differential, indicator, 

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

the uppermost stratum of the vegetation. This is 

the second finest level in the National Vegetation 

Classification Standard hierarchy.

vision statement—A concise statement of the desired 

future condition of the planning unit, based primarily 

on the Refuge System mission, specific refuge 

purposes, and other relevant mandates (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of a plant 

community; the height of vegetation that blocks the 

view of predators and conspecifics to a nest. 

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—A method of visually 

quantifying vegetative structure and composition.

VOR—See visual obstruction reading.

wading birds—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—The region draining into a river, a river 

system, or a body of water.

wetland management district (WMD)—Land that the 

Refuge System acquires with Federal Duck Stamp 

money for restoration and management, primarily as 

prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl and other 

wetland birds. 

WG—wage grade schedule (pay rate schedule for 

certain federal positions). 

wildland fire—A free-burning fire requiring a 

suppression response; all fire other than prescribed fire 

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

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, or 

interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these are the 

six priority public uses of the Refuge System. 

WMD—See wetland management district. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25%–60% cover.

WPA—Works Progress Administration or Waterfowl 

Production Area.

WUI—wildland–urban interface. 
Appendix A

Public Involvement

A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and 

environmental assessment (EA) was published in 

the Federal Register on June 12, 2006. A mailing 

list of more than 250 names was compiled during 

preplanning; the list includes private citizens; local, 

regional, and state government representatives and 

legislators; other federal agencies; and interested 

organizations. Public scoping began immediately 

after publication of the NOI and was announced 

through news releases and issuance of the first 

planning update in July 2006. Information was 

provided on the history of the refuge and the CCP 

process, along with an invitation to public scoping 

meetings. These meetings were also announced 

through the local and statewide media. Each planning 

update included a comment form as a tool for the 

public to provide written comments. Any form of 

written comments were accepted, including emails to 

the refuge’s email address, redrocks@fws.gov. 

Three public scoping meetings were held within a 

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

thirty-five attendees, primarily local citizens and 

surrounding ranchers. Following a presentation 

about the refuge and an overview of the CCP and 

NEPA processes, attendees were encouraged to ask 

questions and offer comments. Verbal comments 

were recorded and each attendee was given a 

comment form to submit additional thoughts or 

questions in writing. 

All written comments were due by September 15, 

2006. A total of fifty-five additional written comments 

were received throughout the scoping process. All 

comments were shared with the planning team and 

considered throughout the planning process.

The draft CCP and EA were released to the public 

on September 26, 2008 through a notice of availability 

published in the Federal Register. Copies of the 

draft CCP and EA and/or a planning update were 

mailed to individuals on the planning mailing list. 

Initially the public was offered a 30-day review 

period. Numerous requests from the public and state 

representatives resulted in an additional 30 days 

being granted, for a full 60-day review. All comments 

needed to be received or postmarked by 

November 26, 2008. Two public meetings were 

held first on October 8, 2008 in Lima, Montana and 

again on October 9, 2008 in Dillon, Montana. These 

meetings were announced in the planning update and 

through the local and statewide media. Over thirty 

individuals participated in these meetings. A short 

presentation was given on the draft CCP followed by 

an opportunity for participants to offer comments. 

In addition to these public meetings, the planning 

team received over 100 additional written comments 

during the public review process. The planning team 

reviewed all comments received both individually 

and as a team. Several modifications were made 

to this final document based on this public review. 

Responses to substantive comments are summarized 

in this appendix.

FEDERAL OFFICIALS

U.S. Representative Dennis Rehberg, 

Washington DC

Representative Rehberg State Office, Missoula, MT

U.S. Senator Max Baucus, Washington DC

Sen. Baucus’s Area Director, Bozeman, MT

U.S. Senator John Tester, Washington DC

Sen. Tester’s Area Director, Bozeman, MT

FEDERAL AGENCIES

National Forest Service, Dillon, MT

National Forest Service, Ennis, MT

Bureau of Land Management, Dillon, MT

National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, 

MT and Omaha, NE

Bureau of Reclamation, Dillon, MT

Agricultural Research Service, Dubois, ID

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

Fort Collins, CO 

U.S. Geological Service, Bozeman, MT

TRIBAL OFFICIALS

Eastern Shoshone Business Council, Ft. Washakie, 

WY

Crow Tribe of Indians, Crow Agency, MT

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council, Lame Deer, MT

Arapaho Business Council, Fort Washakie, WY

Nez Pierce, Lapwai, ID

Confederated Salish and Kootenai, Pablo, MT

Shoshone-Bannock, Fort Hall, ID

Blackfeet Nation, Browning, MT
104 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

STATE OFFICIALS

Governor Brian Schweitzer, Helena, MT

Mary Sexton, Office of the Governor, Helena, MT

Representative Diane Rice, Harrison, MT

Representative Bill Tash, Dillon, MT

Representative Debbie Barrett, Dillon, MT

Representative Roger Koopman, Bozeman, MT

Representative John Sinrud, Bozeman, MT

Representative Jack Wells, Bozeman, MT

Senator Gary Perry, Manhattan, MT

Senator Steve Gallus, Butte, MT

Senator Joe Balyeat, Bozeman, MT

STATE AGENCIES

Montana Department of State Lands, Dillon, MT

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Bozeman, MT

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, West Yellowstone, 

MT

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Dillon, MT

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Sheridan, MT

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 

Helena, MT

Harriman State Park, Island Park, ID

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Dillon, MT

Montana Historical Society and Preservation Office, 

Helena, MT

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Madison County Commissioners, Madison, MT

Gallatin County Commissioners, Belgrade, MT

Beaverhead County Commissioners, Dillon, MT

Beaverhead County Road Department, Dillon, MT

Beaverhead County Weed Coordinator, Dillon, MT

Beaverhead County Planner, Dillon, MT

ORGANIZATIONS

Conservation Endowment Fund, Lima, MT

Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Bozeman, MT

Gallatin Wildlife Association, Bozeman, MT

Centennial Valley Association, Idaho Falls, ID

Henry’s Lake Foundation, Island Park, ID

Montana Wildlife Federation, Helena, MT

Montana Audubon, Helena, MT

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, 

Bozeman, MT

Wilderness Watch, Missoula, MT

American Wildlands, Missoula, MT and Bozeman, 

MT

Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, TN and Lincoln, MT

Pintler Audubon Society, Dillon, MT

Wildlife Conservation Society, Bozeman, MT

Defenders of Wildlife, Bozeman and Missoula, MT 

and Washington DC

Trumpeter Swan Society, Wayan, ID

Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA and Bozeman, MT

The Nature Conservancy, Bozeman, MT

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula, MT

Trout Unlimited, Missoula, MT

Montana Wilderness Association, Dillon, MT

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington 

DC

The Wilderness Society, Washington D.C. and 

Bozeman, MT

Audubon Society, Washington DC and New York, 

NY 

North American Nature Photography Association, 

Wheat Ridge, CO

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, 

WV

Isaac Walton League, Gaithersburg, MD

American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA

U.S. Humane Society, Washington DC

UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES, AND 

SCHOOLS

Montana Tech, Butte, MT

University of Montana—Western, Dillon, MT

Montana State University, Bozeman, MT

MEDIA 

Dillon Tribune, Dillon, MT

Montana Standard, Butte, MT

Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Bozeman, MT

West Yellowstone News, West Yellowstone, MT

KDBM Radio, Dillon, MT

KBOW and KOPR Radio, Butte, MT

KWYS and KEZQ Radio, Idaho Falls, ID

The Missoulian, Missoula, MT

KID Radio, Idaho Falls, ID

KUPI Radio and Sandhills Media, Idaho Falls, ID

The Post Register, Idaho Falls, ID

Rexburg Standard Journal, Rexburg, ID

Idaho State Journal, Pocatello, ID

Dillonite Daily, Dillon, MT

INDIVIDUALS

78 private individuals
Appendix A — Public Involvement 105

PUBLIC COMMENTS

T

Comment 1: The current draft appears to seriously 

downplay the purpose for which the refuge was 

established in 1935, i.e., to protect the trumpeter 

swan, and does not address the apparent recent 

decline in the refuge’s population.

Response 1: The Service is fully aware and supportive 

of the importance of this refuge to recovery 

and continued support of trumpeter swans. The 

trumpeter swan was a catalyst for establishing the 

refuge along with the abundance of waterfowl that 

used this complex of wetlands. The draft document 

did not ignore swan management. They were 

mentioned throughout the document over fifty times. 

Nevertheless the writers have included additional 

information and emphasis on this important refuge 

species in this final comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP). Moreover, data indicate steady growth of 

trumpeter swan numbers at the refuge, Centennial 

Valley, and state levels, and not an ‘apparent recent 

decline in the refuge’s population’ (please see further 

comments on this point below).

Comment 2: We encourage continued meetings 

between staff from Yellowstone National Park, other 

federal and state agencies, and stakeholders in the 

tri-state range to pursue a vision and agenda for the 

cooperative, integrated management of trumpeter 

swans.

Response 2: The Service plans to continue to 

participate in this coordination effort.

Comment 3: We ask that attention be given to 

actually improving breeding conditions on the refuge 

to improve the survival rate and long term outlook 

for the swan. We believe this charismatic species 

is important for maintaining biological diversity, 

posterity of our natural heritage, and public interest 

in continuation of funding for the refuge

If managers do not reverse the recent declines in 

swan nesting and cygnet production at RRLNWR 

[Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge], 

the persistence of nesting trumpeter swans in 

Yellowstone National Park, and in the entire 

Greater Yellowstone region, will become much more 

precarious.

Response 3: The number of nests and cygnets fledged 

in the Centennial Valley has remained relatively 

static since 1993 (x = 13.1, = 0.00, SE = 0.03, 

P = 0.98, and x = 22.1, = -0.07, SE = 0.05, P = 0.22), 

the first nesting season after the termination of 

winter feeding. The most notable decline in swan 

production in the last several decades was associated 

with management actions in the 1990s intended to 

expand the winter range of the Rocky Mountain 

Population of trumpeter swans. Efforts included the 

−

− ^

^

termination of winter feeding at Red Rock Lakes 

NWR, translocation of >1000 swans from the refuge 

and Harriman State Park (HSP) to more southerly 

(or at least areas lower in elevation) wintering areas, 

and hazing of wintering swans from the refuge 

and HSP. It was predicted that these management 

activities would “cause a short-term decline in the 

Centennial Valley trumpeter swan flock” (USFWS 

1992). The effects of these actions were much greater, 

and have been more persistent, than envisioned. For 

example, the average number of cygnets fledged in 

the Centennial Valley during the period 1967–1992 

was 55.9 (SE = 8.7), which declined to 21.1 (SE = 3.0) 

during the last 16 years. However, the population has 

been recovering during this period—the number of 

adults has been increasing at an annual average rate 

of 3.5% (SE = 0.01, P >0.01) in the Centennial Valley 

since 1993, while the total number of swans increased 

at an average annual rate of 2.3% (SE = 0.01, P = 

0.05).

Comment 4: Our foremost concern is that this draft 

CCP/EA is fundamentally flawed because it is built 

upon a false foundation. The draft fails to accurately 

describe the refuge’s Establishment and Acquisition 

History and identify the purpose for establishing this 

refuge ... ignored these historic facts and excluded 

all mention of trumpeter swans.

Response 4: The planning team is fully aware of the 

significant role the refuge played in the recovery 

and continued support of the trumpeter swan. 

To emphasize this, additional language has been 

added to the final CCP in the establishment history 

sections.

T

Comment 5: We are concerned that this draft provides 

no future management direction for trumpeter 

swans other than implying that somehow a decision 

has already been made “in favor of allowing the 

swans to thrive under mostly natural conditions.” 

This is a particularly inappropriate choice of words, 

given the serious problems facing nesting trumpeters 

swans at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

and the surrounding region, and their obvious 

failure to thrive under current management 

direction. 

Response 5: As mentioned above, the number 

of trumpeter swans in the Centennial Valley is 

increasing. Future management of trumpeter 

swans in the Centennial Valley by the refuge 

will occur within the framework of the “Pacific 

Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain 

Population of Trumpeter Swans.” This plan contains 

population objectives for the Centennial Valley, and 

has been added to the final CCP.

Comment 6: The draft makes no mention of: (1) the 

importance of cygnet production at RRLNWR to the 

future viability of the regional nesting population 
106 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

including the persistence of nesting trumpeters 

in Yellowstone National Park, (2) the declines 

of nesting and cygnet production on the refuge 

including the total nesting failure in 2008 for the 

first time in refuge history, or (3) the importance of 

Culver and MacDonald ponds to provide late winter/

early spring pre-breeding forage for local nesting 

swans. 

Response 6: Tri-state area trumpeter swans have 

exhibited positive growth rates since the termination 

of winter feeding at both regional and state levels. 

This has occurred even though there was no apparent 

trend in cygnet numbers for the region or individual 

states, excluding Wyoming. Consistent population 

growth across multiple scales within the tri-state 

region provides support for the current levels of 

cygnet production sustaining the “future viability 

of the regional nesting population.” The refuge will 

continue to work with Yellowstone National Park, 

and other partners, to work toward maintaining a 

viable nesting population in the park.

The poor production observed in 2008 is most likely 

due to the late spring experienced across much of 

the tri-state area. For example, significant areas of 

the refuge lakes were still ice-covered in early May, 

just prior to the normal peak nest initiation period 

for swans. The effect of the late spring was evident 

throughout the tri-state area for swans, with below 

average number of cygnets produced. Moreover, 

significant nesting failures are not unprecedented in 

the Centennial Valley or the refuge. For example, 

only four cygnets fledged from forty-one nests 

attempts on the refuge in 1980. 

Seemingly extreme variation in annual production 

is expected in long-lived species in variable 

environments. Reproduction is considered ‘costly’ 

to individuals due to the increased mortality risks 

associated with breeding and caring for young. This 

results in a trade-off between reproductive effort 

and adult survival, and suggests that individuals 

must balance the immediate cost of reproducing in a 

given year and the probability of future reproductive 

success. For short-lived bird species this typically 

results in most, or all, individuals breeding each year 

regardless of conditions—their chance of surviving 

to breed again is low, so they have little choice but 

to breed in an effort to maximize their lifetime 

reproductive success. They have to put all their 

proverbial ‘eggs in one basket’. However, in longlived bird species individuals are likely to survive 

for multiple breeding seasons. Therefore, they can 

optimize their lifetime reproductive success by not 

breeding at all, or abandoning their brood during 

poor years, surviving to breed in years where the 

likelihood of fledging young is greater. For trumpeter 

swans, which can live more than 20 years in the 

wild, maximum fitness can be achieved by foregoing 

breeding in a poor year, waiting until better 

conditions are available to attempt nesting and 

rearing of young. This is why (1) significant variation 

in annual swan production is expected, and 

(2) excessive focus on parameters of annual 

production is ultimately unproductive. 

For support of the latter point, let’s briefly consider 

the population dynamics of trumpeter swans in the 

tri-state area over the last seven decades. Initial 

conservation efforts beginning around 1935 were 

very successful in 1) protecting the last known 

breeding population in the contiguous United 

States, and 2) expanding that population in the tristate area to more than 500 individuals by 1951. 

The tri-state flock remained near this number, 

with considerable vacillations, until 1993 when 277 

swans were found during the fall survey. This was 

the result of management actions taken to expand 

the winter range of the Rocky Mountain Population 

of trumpeter swans in an effort to reduce their 

susceptibility to winter mortality. During the 5 

decades before 1993, the number of swan nests in the 

Centennial Valley often exceeded 60; the average 

number of nests in the valley from 1967 to 1992 was 

45.1 (SE = 2.4). However, even with this exceptional 

level of nesting effort in the Centennial Valley 

alone, the tri-state population remained relatively 

static, hovering near a mean of 500 individuals for 

nearly 50 years. Since 1993, the number of swans 

in the Centennial Valley, and throughout the tristate area, has been steadily increasing, even at 

significantly lower nest numbers than occurred 

before 1993. We therefore believe that the future 

of swan management in the tri-state is determining 

what limiting factor(s) have prevented the flock from 

consistently exceeding the threshold experienced 

during the latter half of the 1900s, and not through 

singular focus on productivity parameters for a longlived species. 

If Culver and MacDonald ponds provide important 

“late winter and early spring pre-breeding forage for 

local nesting swans” we would expect an increasing 

level of use of the ponds in March and April, after 

spring migrants have left the area. Refuge data do 

not support this supposition—weekly surveys of 

the ponds indicate static numbers of swans during 

March, with declining use as soon as other openwater areas are available in the valley. 

The refuge is proposing to further investigate the 

importance of these ponds to pre-breeding swans 

prior to removal for restoration of Picnic and Elk 

Springs creeks.

Comment 7: The plan fails to discuss that managers 

have considerable control over two factors that 

can significantly impact swan nesting success and 

productivity, e.g. management of the Lower Lake 

water control structure and human disturbance 

during the nesting and brood rearing periods.

Response 7: The CCP highlights minimizing 

disturbance to swans in several areas. Additionally, 

no changes to current closures for nesting swans on 
Appendix A — Public Involvement 107

the primary nesting areas were proposed. Recent 

efforts to manipulate water levels have demonstrated 

that managers do not have “considerable control” 

over Lower Red Rock Lake water levels. 

Manipulating the water control structure does not 

change water levels as much as was previously 

anticipated. The refuge’s ability to manipulate 

water levels on Lower Lake is limited by the scale 

of the system, its connectivity within the watershed 

to Upper Red Rock Lake, and the influence of 

groundwater dynamics.

Comment 8: The draft CCP/EA fails to include 

any goals or objectives pertaining to reversing the 

declines in nesting pairs and cygnet production and 

fails to analyze the impacts on trumpeter swans of 

proposed actions such as the proposed increases in 

human disturbance from fishermen, photographers, 

hunters, and increased monitoring; alteration 

of habitat and loss of swan nesting territories at 

various wetlands; and the proposed water level 

management regime.

Response 8: Future management of trumpeter 

swans in the Centennial Valley by the refuge 

will occur within the framework of the “Pacific 

Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain 

Population of Trumpeter Swans.” Population 

objectives for the Centennial Valley have been added 

to this final CCP. 

Spatial and temporal separation of refuge visitors 

and nesting swans will be maintained to preclude 

increased disturbance if visitor use levels increase. 

The draft plan recognized that a single created swan 

nesting territory located along Pintail Ditch will 

be impacted during drought conditions but would 

continue to provide nesting habitat during average 

and above average water years. 

Increased monitoring is largely focused on habitats 

not utilized by swans, e.g., sagebrush-steppe habitat. 

The enhancement of wetland productivity through 

improved water level management would primarily 

be for the benefit of waterfowl, including trumpeter 

swans. This was stated in the objectives and 

rationale statements.

Comment 9: There is no mention that the trumpeter 

swan is a Region 6 Focal Species and that there 

are specific population objectives for the refuge 

in the “Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the 

Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans” 

approved by the Flyway Council in July 2008.

Response 9: Future management of trumpeter 

swans in the Centennial Valley by the refuge 

will occur within the framework of the “Pacific 

Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain 

Population of Trumpeter Swans.” Population 

objectives for the Centennial Valley have been added 

to this final CCP.

Comment 10: A revised draft should recognize 

that simply quoting the generic language from 

the authorizing authority is often not adequate to 

identify the specific purpose for which a refuge was 

established.

Response 10: The language in the executive orders 

and establishing legislation are the only legislative 

purposes for this refuge. Issues at the time of 

establishment that were the catalyst for establishing 

a refuge do not have the same weight as these 

legislative purposes.

Comment 11: We suggest that the Vision Statement 

describe a desired future condition in which Red 

Rock Lakes NWR is a conservation leader in the 

regional efforts to protect and restore Greater 

Yellowstone’s nesting trumpeter swans and swan 

nesting habitat on the refuge managed to improve 

nesting success and cygnet production. It would also 

be appropriate to include a desired future condition 

for other wildlife.

Response 11: The vision statement is a broad 

description of the desired conditions for the refuge 

and its role in protecting and preserving the 

surrounding Centennial Valley. The intent of the 

vision statement was never to prioritize for singlespecies management but rather identify how the 

refuge can support all migratory and resident wildlife 

through proper habitat management and protection, 

including the trumpeter swan. More specifics for 

target wildlife species have been detailed in the 

objectives and strategies in chapter 4. 

Comment 12: Additional goals and objectives should 

be added specific to trumpeter swan management.

Response 12: Future management of trumpeter 

swans in the Centennial Valley by the refuge 

will occur within the framework of the “Pacific 

Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain 

Population of Trumpeter Swans.” A specific objective 

and set of strategies supporting this CCP have been 

added to chapter 4. The refuge will continue to work 

with the broader waterfowl management community 

to set objectives for trumpeter swan management.

Comment 13: Expansion of big-game hunting should 

not be permitted in areas that have been set aside 

as fall waterfowl feeding sanctuaries. The location 

of fall sanctuary feeding areas for swans and other 

waterfowl should be clearly portrayed on refuge use 

maps. 

Response 13: No waterfowl sanctuaries will be opened 

to expanded waterfowl hunting opportunities. The 

only expanded big-game hunting near lands set 

aside for fall waterfowl sanctuary are Sparrow Pond 

and Sparrow Slough. These waters have been open 

to nonconsumptive public recreation for decades 

without significant disturbance to waterfowl. These 

areas will still be closed to waterfowl hunting. 
108 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Big-game hunting is not expected to cause significant 

conflict. Most big-game hunters arrive in late October 

during the general open season. Refuge waters 

usually freeze in late October, so the birds move to 

larger bodies of water than Sparrow Pond/Slough. 

The final maps identify these areas.

Comment 14: The fall hyperphagia period is very 

important for trumpeters to gain the energy reserves 

that will help them survive winter and sanctuary 

areas that contain high quality food are very 

important.

Response 14: The draft and final CCP supports this.

Comment 15: No actions should be proposed 

that would eliminate or reduce the suitability of 

historically productive swan nesting territories.

Response 15: None of the proposed actions eliminate 

or reduce the suitability of historically productive 

swan nesting territories.

Comment 16: No actions should be proposed that 

would reduce food resources available to Centennial 

Valley breeding pairs during the crucial late winter 

pre-breeding period when pairs gain the nutrient 

reserves essential for successful nesting. This is 

of particular concern at spring-fed ponds, such as 

Culver and MacDonald, where the most important 

spring food plant, Elodea canadensis has been 

abundant in the past.

The spring-fed ponds on the refuge, where ice is thin 

or non-existent, are extremely important for making 

Elodea available as nesting pairs return to the refuge 

in late winter/early spring. The proposal to eliminate 

Culver and Macdonald ponds could therefore have 

significant adverse impacts on refuge nesting pairs 

and should be abandoned.

Response 16: Proposed management of wetlands on 

the refuge will increase the food resources available 

to pre-breeding swans. If Culver and MacDonald 

ponds do provide important late winter/early 

spring pre-breeding forage for local nesting swans, 

we would expect an increasing level of use of the 

ponds in March and April, after spring migrants 

have left the area. Refuge data do not support this 

supposition—weekly surveys of the ponds indicate 

static numbers of swans during March, with declining 

use as soon as other open-water areas are available in 

the valley. 

We believe that a single study showing that confined 

adult trumpeter swans preferred waterweed (Elodea 

canadensis) over other aquatic plants offered to 

them is not enough evidence to make the inference 

that this plant is “the most important spring food 

plant” for breeding swans. Studies of wild swans 

have demonstrated that swans select waterweed 

proportional to its availability. Moreover, empirical 

evidence suggests that pre-nesting trumpeter swans 

prefer pondweeds (Stuckenia spp. and Potamogeton

spp.), especially sago pondweed (S. pectinata), during 

the late-winter and early spring.

Refuge management is proposing to further 

investigate the importance of these ponds to prebreeding swans prior to removal for restoration of 

Picnic and Elk Springs creeks.

Comment 17: The draft CCP should clearly recognize 

the crucial importance of cygnet production to the 

dispersal of subadults and rebuilding of successful 

nesting on adjacent portions of the Centennial Valley 

west of the refuge and in nearby areas of Idaho and 

Yellowstone National Park.

Response 17: Evidence supporting the statement 

that cygnet production on the refuge is of “crucial 

importance ... to the dispersal of subadults and 

rebuilding of successful nesting on adjacent portions 

of the Centennial Valley west of the refuge and in 

nearby areas of Idaho and Yellowstone National 

Park” is lacking—please see our comments regarding 

this topic above.

Comment 18: Given the great interest in SAV 

management in the draft, we are quite surprised that 

the draft CCP/EA does not reference the extensive 

summary of the refuge’s historic SAV information 

written for the Service in 1987 by David Paullin, Dr. 

Oz Garton, and Ruth Shea Gale.

Response 18: The CCP included a summary of historic 

SAV information, including David Paullin’s thesis.

Comment 19: The proposed action promotes 

destruction of MacDonald and Culver Ponds—

ponds which are integral to the historical legacy 

of the refuge and presently provide one of the last 

undisturbed winter roosting (habitats) for remaining 

trumpeter swans and bald eagles. The removal of 

these ponds is intended to restore stream function, 

yet the plan concedes that at least one historical 

trumpeter swan nesting territory will be eliminated.

Past data on movements of marked refuge 

trumpeters indicate that local swans would most 

likely merely be displaced to other nearby heavily 

used wintering sites in Idaho. There are no data 

to support the statement that removing this pond 

habitat would further expand the winter range of the 

Rocky Mountain Population of trumpeter swans. 

Response 19: This document states that removing 

the ponds will “further efforts to expand the winter 

range,” not that it will expand the winter range per 

se. This is consistent with the winter range expansion 

program that is the top focus of The Trumpeter Swan 

Society (http://www.trumpeterswansociety.org/

at_work.htm). 

Comment 20: Because Elodea is highly vulnerable 

to over-winter mortality, this species’ ability to 

survive frequent fall-winter draw-downs should 
Appendix A — Public Involvement 109

be thoroughly explored before a strategy involving 

frequent late-season draw-downs is implemented. 

Response 20: ‘Frequent’ late-season drawdowns are 

not a strategy in the document.

Comment 21: The draft CCP fails to recognize the 

ecological importance of the refuge to the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and to discuss key 

ecosystem habitat and wildlife population issues 

that would potentially be impacted by refuge 

management.

Response 21: The CCP does recognize the value and 

importance of the refuge within the GYE. Additional 

language has also been added to chapter 1. 

Comment 22: Rather than considering the refuge 

in the context of the GYE, the draft CCP discusses 

“Ecosystem Description and Threats” in the context 

of a huge watershed entity (the Upper MissouriYellowstone-Upper Columbia River ecosystem), 

which extends from the Canadian border in 

northwestern North Dakota to the Continental 

Divide immediately south of Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge. This watershed approach 

has little relevance for migratory bird management. 

The FWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] “ecosystem 

approach” failed and was abandoned, largely for 

that reason.

Response 22: Evaluation of the refuge in the context 

of larger ecosystems identified and described by the 

Service is a standard part of a CCP. We have added 

information about the GYE in chapter 1.

Comment 23: National Wildlife Refuges are supposed 

to be a “system” of lands, however there is no 

mention of the relationship of other refuges in the 

tri-state area that are connected by shared migratory 

bird resources including trumpeter swans.

Response 23: The CCP does acknowledge connectivity 

to other public lands in the surrounding area by 

supporting national and regional conservation 

plans such as the “North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan,” Partners in Flight plans, “Pacific 

Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain 

Population of Trumpeter Swans,” and “Coordinated 

Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in 

Western Montana.”

Comment 24: There is no discussion of the interrelationship of other habitat areas managed 

by agencies, tribes, or private individuals that 

are collectively important for migratory bird 

conservation.

Response 24: In chapter 1 we recognize the 

importance of several other plans that address 

nationwide planning efforts and objectives for 

migratory wildlife species.

Comment 25: There is no mention of the 2008 

Pacific Flyway for Rocky Mountain Population of 

Trumpeter Swans, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, the Intermountain West Joint 

Venture, or the wildlife action plans in the Tri-State 

area.

Response 25: These plans were either listed in chapter 

1 or have since been added to the final CCP. 

Comment 26: There also appears to have been little or 

no coordination even with other programs within the 

FWS.

Response 26: Refer to the participant list in this 

appendix. There was extensive collaboration with 

state and other federal partners, including other 

Service divisions. 

Comment 27: Trumpeter swans are not at all 

“thriving” at RRLNWR under current management 

and they are unlikely to do so in the future without 

close attention to their habitat needs and active 

management [of] the refuge. 

Response 27: Consistent population growth rates 

approaching 4% per year, which is what trumpeter 

swan populations in the Centennial Valley are 

achieving, would be considered ‘thriving’ by most 

wildlife professionals’ standards. For example, the 

mid-continent population of snow goose reached 

population levels that exceeded the carrying capacity 

of their nesting grounds, resulting in considerable 

efforts to reduce their abundance. This population 

grew at an average annual rate of 4% prior to 

management efforts to reduce their numbers. The 

document does outline management actions for 

wetland habitats that will support and promote 

trumpeter swan reproduction and survival. 

Comment 28: The draft CCP/EA fails to include 

any goals or objectives pertaining to reversing the 

declines in nesting pairs and cygnet production.

Response 28: Refuge data do not support this 

statement that swans are declining. Cygnet 

production was very low in 2008 at two birds. 

However, production has been stable over the past 

five years. The twenty-two young counted in the 2009 

survey was not significantly below the average of 

25.4. The number of nesting pairs is stable.

Arctic Grayling

Comment 29: The preferred alternative should 

include stronger language designed to achieve its 

fisheries objective.

Response 29: If greater specificity in the objective is 

what is meant by ‘stronger language’ then the stepdown Habitat Management Plan, to be completed 

once this CCP is finalized, will address this concern. 

Specific objectives for Arctic graying were added.
110 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Comment 30: Specific time frames (within 2 years, 

etc.) seem to be missing from the major fisheries 

objectives. “Within 15 years” is too weak.

Response 30: A longer time period will be necessary 

to accomplish fisheries objectives due to the need 

to ensure minimum or no effect on other wildlife, 

especially trumpeter swans. 

Comment 31: “Description of Consequences 

by Resource” (p. 92 draft CCP) states “The 

environmental consequences discussed in this 

chapter are the potential effects on a resource as a 

result of carrying out the actions of an alternative.”

How then can each alternatives narrative on Habitat 

and Wildlife concerning the Lower Lake, lack a 

discussion of an actions effect on this lake’s fishery 

resource and in particular on Arctic grayling? 

Response 31: Existing data (for example, Nelson 1953, 

USFWS unpublished data) demonstrate very limited 

use of Lower Red Rock Lake by Arctic grayling. 

Additionally, the time period where Lower Lake can 

provide grayling habitat is limited due to the lake 

freezing to the substrate in the winter and exceeding 

temperatures lethal to grayling during the summer.

Comment 32: Lowering Lower Lake would provide 

opportunity for waterfowl habitat; however, it could 

have significant impact on the native population 

of Arctic grayling that use Lower Lake and Odell 

Creek.

Response 32: Existing data (for example, Nelson 1953, 

USFWS unpublished data) demonstrate very limited 

use of Lower Red Rock Lake by Arctic grayling 

thereby limiting the probability of a ‘significant 

impact’ to the population.

Comment 33: Management actions pertaining to 

Lower Lake /River Marsh sections simply relate to 

aquatic vegetation and waterfowl. I wonder why this 

document failed to address the possible effects that 

manipulating water levels may have on this lake’s 

fish community.

Response 33: The refuge and the lake are managed 

for waterfowl and waterbirds, following the purpose 

for the refuge. There may be impacts to the burbot 

population, but these impacts are uncertain.

Comment 34: Address the environmental 

consequences that actions contained in the proposed 

action may have during Arctic grayling migrations 

through the Lower Lake and River Marsh. 

Response 34: Migrations of Arctic grayling through 

River Marsh and Lower Lake will be minimally 

effected by the proposed action. While dependent 

upon runoff, spring (pre-spawning) and early 

summer (post-spawning) water levels will continue 

to provide deep water corridors for fish movement. 

It is important to note that this population of Arctic 

grayling evolved without dams and water control 

structures obstructing fish passage, and that the 

population decline of grayling has been concurrent 

with habitat changes over the last century, including 

the placing of a water control structure on Lower 

Lake. 

Comment 35: By omitting fisheries information from 

this document, does one assume that the Service has 

written off grayling in this area of the refuge and 

written off the value the Lower Lake/River Marsh 

has to the grayling population as a whole in the 

system?

Response 35: Current data do not demonstrate that 

Lower Red Rock Lake and River Marsh provide 

critical habitat for Arctic grayling. These water 

bodies are critical to waterfowl, including trumpeter 

swans.

Comment 36: The CCP covers only native Arctic 

grayling. Is that the only native sport fish in the 

lakes?

Response 36: Grayling and mountain whitefish are the 

only native game fish present on the refuge. Native 

Westslope cutthroat trout only exist as hybridized 

fish with nonnative Yellowstone cutthroat and 

rainbow trout. The CCP does recognize these other 

native fish in the plan, but none are as imperiled as 

grayling.

Comment 37: As for nonnative fish present in the 

lakes, it is not clear what species they are nor what 

method would be used to eradicate them as proposed.

Response 37: Nonnative Yellowstone cutthroat, 

rainbow, and brook trout all probably utilize Upper 

and Lower Red Rock Lakes to some extent but 

Lower Lake is very shallow and temperatures 

are too high in the summer for trout. As grayling 

restoration work continues, the refuge will work 

closely with fisheries biologists to develop methods to 

reduce the nonnative fish species.

Comment 38: We were troubled by the fact that the 

plan focused on Arctic grayling as the main species 

it will manage and restore riparian habitat for. 

We would like to see how it will consider species of 

conservation concern (Montana Natural Heritage 

Program) other then Arctic grayling in management 

decision[s]—and how management conflicts will be 

dealt with, if they exist. 

Response 38: We do not feel that the document 

focused on Arctic grayling. Dozens of other species 

of wildlife were mentioned and discussed; however, 

the document does recognize that the refuge has 

one of the last endemic populations of adfluvial 

Arctic grayling in the continental United States 

and are a state species of concern. It is the Service’s 

responsibility to ensure that species of concern do 

not become threatened or endangered. The most 

significant management actions are focused on 
Appendix A — Public Involvement 111

waterfowl and other migratory birds, the purposes 

for which this refuge was established.

Comment 39: I doubt that the grayling are severely 

affected by the presence of Culver and McDonald 

ponds and there are other strategies that would 

benefit them far more than the draining of these two 

ponds. I would not drain them as they have a historic 

value and are used extensively by wildlife. 

Response 39: Culver and McDonald ponds are artificial 

ponds caused by the damming of streams that were 

historically used by spawning Arctic grayling. The 

majority of modified or created refuge ponds will 

remain intact for migratory birds and other wildlife.

Comment 40: I support alternative B for stream 

corridors but would go so far as to say that there 

should be consideration of the expansion of the 

refuge to encompass the upstream areas that have 

grazing practices that are harmful to the refuge.

Response 40: The refuge will continue to work with 

upstream landowners to reduce off-site impacts to 

refuge waters—a program that has been successful 

in the past.

Wetlands

Comment 41: What criteria was used to classify 

Lower Lake as its own entity and not include it in 

sections discussion of ‘natural lakes’ or ‘modified 

wetlands’? On p. 23 (draft CCP), the Lower Lake and 

River Marsh are described as being influenced by a 

series of water control structures.

Response 41: Scale, connectivity with the other 

lakes, and ability to manipulate water levels were 

considered when separating Lower Red Rock 

Lake and River Marsh from ‘natural lakes’ and 

‘modified wetlands’. While the outflow of Lower 

Lake has a water control structure on it, the ability 

to manipulate water levels is not as great as on 

smaller modified wetlands. This is due in part to 

the size of the Lower Lake and River Marsh area, 

its connectivity to Upper Red Rock Lake, and 

the influence of groundwater moving through the 

system.

Comment 42: The proposed action of not diverting 

water to some units unless the snowpack exceeds the 

30 year high could result in the loss of water rights. I 

didn’t see that issue discussed.

Response 42: The Federal Reserved Water Right 

(1999) compact protects the refuge’s water right for 

the purposes of the refuge including wildlife habitat 

maintenance and enhancement. The proposed actions 

fulfill the purposes of the refuge. 

Comment 43: The preferred alternative briefly 

describes significantly changing water management 

on the refuge, but doesn’t adequately discuss the 

how this will benefit the original purpose of the 

refuge. The CCP doesn’t address any changes on 

downstream habitats and water users. 

Response 43: The water management is not 

‘significantly’ different but the rationale in chapter 

4 does explain the benefits of the objectives and 

strategies and includes monitoring of the effects on 

downstream users.

Comment 44: The purpose of encouraging waterfowl 

to migrate to historical wintering areas may 

be successful for certain species, but it is not 

guaranteed.

Response 44: We concur and were careful to 

use ‘encourage’ in our statement due to these 

uncertainties.

Comment 45: Culver and MacDonald ponds should 

not be restored to natural streams. 

Response 45: Arctic grayling are a species of 

concern in Montana. Grayling spawning habitat 

was eliminated by the damming of two streams to 

create Culver and MacDonald ponds. Restoration of 

these streams will provide the opportunity to more 

than double the number of creeks used by spawning 

grayling in the Centennial Valley. The refuge will still 

have thousands of acres of wetlands that will provide 

productive habitat for trumpeter swans and other 

migratory birds and resident wildlife.

Comment 46: Since 1988, FWS has never had a 

coherent plan for using the water control structure 

on the Lower Lake. Now, FWS proposes to open 

the gates permanently – except for “ecological 

experiments” and allow “a naturally fluctuating 

hydrological cycle.” The plan does not analyze the 

impact of this proposal on waterfowl hunting.

Response 46: A memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) with the local water-user’s group was 

signed February 4, 1987, providing a “coherent 

plan” for the management of the Lower Red Rock 

Lake water control structure. The foundation 

of management set forth by the MOU was built 

upon in 2004 with an adaptive management plan 

intended to increase the productivity of the wetland 

impacted by the water-control structure. The 

purpose of the ecological experiments is to improve 

the understanding and management of the WCS 

and surrounding hydrological system, including 

its effects on waterfowl. The refuge presented this 

CCP to, and received comments from, duck hunters, 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and conservation 

organizations including Ducks Unlimited, Inc, and 

The Trumpeter Swan Society. Copies of these, and 

other management plans, can be obtained from the 

refuge.

Comment 47: Lower water levels do not provide 

access into River Marsh, an area that has been 
112 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

waterfowl hunted for over 100 years. The Service 

needs to disclose these impacts and estimate how 

many years hunting by boat will be impossible or 

nearly impossible.

Response 47: Refuge staff regularly accesses River 

Marsh at the water levels claimed to exclude duck 

hunting. Also, fall water levels will be maintained 

at the refuge's current legal right, excluding years 

when a drawdown is scheduled. 

Comment 48: There is no question that many more 

swan nested on the refuge when water levels on 

Lower Lake were kept at a higher level. Altering 

water levels would give the refuge an opportunity to 

observe how different water levels on the lake might 

influence water use in the various seasons.

Response 48: The reduction of nesting swans in 

recent history is the result of efforts to expand the 

winter range of the Rocky Mountain Population of 

trumpeter swans. This occurred in 1992–93, over a 

decade prior to the water levels being lowered on 

Lower Red Rock Lake.

Comment 49: Consideration should be given to a 

late summer increase in lake elevations through 

a reduction in Lower Lake outflows—enhancing 

migrating and staging habitat for waterfowl and 

providing better distribution of waterfowl during 

hunting season. 

It’s time to stop treating water management of Lower 

Lake as an ecological experiment that changes 

with each generation of managers and biologists. 

Adopt a management scheme that seeks to replicate 

conditions created at the lake 1930–88 offering 

greater public opportunity and staging areas for 

waterfowl. At a minimum, we believe water levels 

should be raised to provide safe, reasonable public 

access during waterfowl hunting season.

Response 49: The refuge will work within the existing 

memorandum of understanding with the local 

water-users group to provide enhanced staging 

and migrating habitat in the late summer and fall 

for waterfowl. This will be largely accomplished by 

maintaining water levels at the refuge’s current legal 

water right during the fall, excluding years when a 

drawdown is scheduled.

Comment 50: The system of ditches and headgates 

associated with Odell Creek appears to allow useful 

irrigation of meadows and pastures which enhances 

wildlife habitat and waterfowl nesting habitat. I see 

no reason to retire them.

Response 50: We believe the costs associated with 

diverting water from Odell Creek do not outweigh 

the benefits. There are greater than 7000 acres of 

naturally occurring wet meadow habitat on the 

refuge, similar to what could be created by irrigating 

‘meadows and pastures’ by diverting Odell Creek. 

However, Odell Creek is one of only two creeks that 

support spawning grayling in the Centennial Valley. 

Therefore, we believe the most beneficial use of Odell 

Creek water is for instream flow to benefit Arctic 

grayling. 

Comment 51: Culver and MacDonald ponds are 

historic pieces of the valley and serve a purpose 

that was well thought out 75 years ago. Removal of 

historic structures should require an EIS. 

Response 51: The historical significance of these water 

control structures was investigated and found to not 

be of historical significance by the Montana state 

historic preservation officer (July 22, 2009).

Comment 52: Consider operating the water control 

structure on Lower Lake at 6608 msl in September 

and October to accommodate boater use. The 

proposed alternative proposes opening all the gates 

so to provide for a naturally fluctuating hydrological 

cycle. The failure to consider operating the WCS 

so as to provide more water is inconsistent with the 

management history of Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge and fails to provide reasonable 

recreational access to the Lower Lake and River 

Marsh.

Response 52: The refuge will maintain Lower Red 

Rock Lake water levels during the fall, within the 

constraints imposed by climatic variability and 

the existing water-control structure, at 6607.5 

feet above mean sea level (msl). Periodic (every 

4–7 years) drawdowns of Lower Lake to increase 

the productivity of the wetland system will be the 

exception to this. Maintaining Lower Lake water 

levels at 6607.5 msl, the refuge’s legal water right, 

will provide increased habitat for staging and 

migratory waterfowl. The current strategy of leaving 

the water control structure open will continue during 

the spring and early summer for the benefit of 

nesting trumpeter swans and other waterfowl. 

Comment 53: Converting Culver and MacDonald 

ponds is detrimental to waterfowl winter habitat, 

including swans. The refuge has been vital to swans 

and should continue to be. 

Response 53: We believe that the presence of winter 

habitat on the refuge is detrimental to trumpeter 

swans and therefore believe removal of the ponds 

will ultimately benefit this population.

Comment 54: There must be recognition that, even 

in this isolated area, the ecosystem and natural 

processes have been significantly altered by human 

activities. A “hands off” approach is a recipe for 

further deterioration of habitats and the populations 

of migratory birds that depend on them.

Response 54: This CCP clearly recognize that the 

refuge has been altered by human activities and 

that active management, such as managing water 

levels and controlling invasive species, is important 
Appendix A — Public Involvement 113

to properly manage this refuge. Nevertheless, there 

are areas that are still intact and functioning much 

as they did prior to settlement in this valley. These 

areas will be monitored and maintained to protect 

their integrity.

Comment 55: Because Elodea is highly vulnerable 

to over-winter mortality, this species’ ability to 

survive frequent fall-winter draw-downs should 

be thoroughly explored before a strategy involving 

frequent late-season draw-downs is implemented.

Response 55: Frequent late-season drawdowns are 

not a strategy in the document.

aLternatiVes/ConsequenCes

Comment 56: We strongly believe that the complex 

issues involving numerous threatened, endangered 

and/or species of concern and the equally complex 

inter-relationships of the management options 

involving the critical wetlands and uplands of the 

refuge, compel the preparation of a comprehensive 

Environmental Impact Statement. We urge the 

Service to maintain the status quo of the refuge 

(identified as alternative A) unless and until such a 

comprehensive EIS is completed and the full NEPA 

process is followed.

Response 56: 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 

is not warranted. The issues identified in this 

document are not significant, nor are the proposed 

changes to the management of the refuge. There are 

no known endangered or threatened species that 

regularly use the refuge.

Comment 57: The preparation of a comprehensive 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would 

certainly be in the best interests of all concerned. 

The additional time necessary to prepare the 

EIS will pay huge dividends in determining and 

understanding the exact long term, potentially 

devastating impact expanding the hunting privileges 

will have on this magnificent area.

Response 57: Hunting is a compatible, traditional 

public use of this refuge and the refuge system as a 

whole. The expanded hunting opportunities should 

not detract from the purpose for which this refuge 

was established and will be monitored and modified 

to ensure these hunts are ethical, safe, and meet the 

desired objectives. 

Comment 58: Although the analysis of environmental 

consequences contains a section entitled “Habitat 

and Wildlife,” only habitat is discussed; there is no 

mention of impacts on wildlife species, populations, 

or species groupings.

Response 58: Impacts on wildlife species and species 

groupings are provided throughout chapter 5’s 

“Habitat and Wildlife” section of the draft CCP. 

Additional impacts have also been added to the final 

CCP.

Landscape Perspective

Comment 59: The draft CCP/EA completely whitesout all adjacent portions of Idaho and omits them 

from all discussion, as if an ecological wall existed 

along the Idaho/Montana state line. This likely has 

more to do with the fact that the state line forms the 

Region 6–Region 1 administrative boundary than 

with any ecosystem context for refuge management. 

This section should be completely rewritten.

Response 59: The Service and the refuge has and 

will continue to work with it's partners in Idaho 

and other bordering states in managing migratory 

wildlife, including trumpeter swans. This CCP 

considered the refuge in the context of the Upper 

Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia Rivers 

Ecosystem and includes partnering across state 

lines to achieve common goals for migratory wildlife 

species.

We added a description of the GYE as well, which 

includes Idaho. 

Comment 60: I think it is important to look at the 

refuge in the context of the whole Centennial Valley. 

Wildlife conservation on the refuge will depend, 

to a significant extent, on habitat quality in other 

parts of the valley. This means outreach to private 

landowners downstream and especially upstream 

of the refuge in addition to working with state and 

federal agencies. This means greater emphasis on 

restoration.

We encourage the refuge staff and the USFWS 

[U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] to deepen its 

relationships with private landowners in the 

Centennial Valley, specifically with the Centennial 

Valley Association. We also encourage the USFWS 

to continue its good work with other agencies 

such as the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land 

Management and the State of Montana to ensure the 

valley is managed in a holistic manner.

Response 60: This document did attempt to consider 

the Centennial Valley as a whole and its impacts 

on the refuge. We do realize that the refuge is not 

an island. Such programs, such as the conservation 

easement program, have been successful in 

protecting private lands while maintaining a working 

landscape. The refuge will continue to work with 

surrounding landowners and other partners to 

achieve common goals and protect this unique 

resource.

Comment 61: There was no discussion of how the 

refuge fits in with surrounding protected areas and 
114 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

the Pacific Flyway? How does it fit into the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem? Does it have a role in the 

grizzly bear or wolf recovery plans? 

Response 61: The document does discuss national, 

state, and regional plans in which the refuge has a 

role to play. The refuge currently does not participate 

in any wolf or bear recovery plans.

Comment 62: We urge the refuge to work with 

adjacent landowners to achieve wildlife connectivity 

across the entire landscape.

Response 62: The refuge’s conservation easement 

and fee title program focus on achieving this goal. 

For example, through these programs a continuous 

connection on the east end of the valley has been 

created from the BLM to the south across the valley 

to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land to the north 

(see figure 6, conservation easement map).

Comment 63: The plan fails to recognize the 

ecological importance of Red Rock Lakes in the 

larger conservation landscape, namely the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem and the Pacific Flyway 

and to discuss key ecosystem habitat and wildlife 

population issues that would potentially be impacted 

by refuge management.

Response 63: The CCP does recognize the value and 

importance of the refuge within the GYE.

Comment 64: There is no discussion of existing 

management, conservation projects, or research 

conducted by BLM [Bureau of Land Management], 

USFS, or private lands in the valley by 

organizations such as Wildlife Conservation 

Society or American Wildlands. How will the refuge 

collaborate in those activities outside the refuge 

boundaries?

Response 64: The refuge has a long history of working 

with neighboring landowners and other partners 

interested in conserving the Centennial Valley. This 

document supports maintaining and expanding those 

efforts.

Comment 65: The CCP does not address the refuge’s 

importance as a regional link in providing habitat 

connectivity between the GYE and core habitats 

further west. 

Response 65: This document does recognize that the 

refuge is an important link between the GYE and the 

Bitterroot ecosystems.

Comment 66: We are unclear from reading the 

plan how many of these inholdings are within the 

refuge. Any work to secure easements or fee title to 

inholdings should be given a priority, simplifying 

management and protecting wildlife.

Response 66: The maps do depict all refuge inholdings. 

The refuge has worked through fee title and the 

conservation easement program to acquire many of 

these lands or ensure they do not become developed. 

Comment 67: The plan indicated that tree densities 

have increased and forests have expanded into the 

adjacent sagebrush/grassland habitat due to grazing. 

Because sagebrush is rare, it seems important to 

reverse this trend.

Response 67: This issue is at a landscape scale in the 

valley with limited acres impacted on the refuge. The 

refuge is working with the BLM and other interested 

partners to address this.

Comment 68: The Service needs to assess the 

implications of climate change on all the alternatives 

in the plan. Be proactive in developing management 

alternatives that account for climate change in 

management objectives and strategies.

The CCP should consider the effects of climate 

change and how the refuge can help adapt to mitigate 

wildlife impacts. The anticipated effects of climate 

change and prudent management responses should 

be carefully considered and described during the 

CCP process.

Response 68: The document does discuss some of the 

effects global warming has had on the refuge and 

did consider climate change in making management 

decisions. Climate change will be further considered 

in the step-down management plans, which can be 

readily adjusted to address changing conditions. 

Also, addressing climate change in these documents 

is evolving as more information is gained. 

The document recognizes climate change as having 

an effect on refuge habitats, including more frequent 

droughts causing a loss of wetland habitat. We also 

modified the CCP to keep Lower Lake dam in place 

to provide greater management flexibility if droughts 

become more frequent and severe. Through the 

conservation easement program the Service can 

maintain key corridors for wildlife migration and 

allow them to adjust to habitat changes caused by 

global warming. 

Comment 69: Sagebrush-steppe habitat is expected to 

disappear if global warming continues. The refuge 

needs to take a proactive approach and identify 

specific climate change and formulate appropriate 

management strategies.

Response 69: This is a 15-year document and it is not 

probable that the refuge will lose sagebrush-steppe 

habitat during this time period.

Comment 70: Focus on managing the refuge to 

maintain and enhance wildlife connectivity for 

wide-ranging species, toward re-connecting partially 

or wholly disjunct wildlife populations in Greater 

Yellowstone to outside populations in Idaho and 

beyond.
Appendix A — Public Involvement 115

Response 70: This document enhances the refuge’s 

ability to maintain its role as a migratory corridor for 

various wildlife species. 

Comment 71: There is no discussion of the interrelationship of other habitat areas managed 

by agencies, tribes, or private individuals that 

are collectively important for migratory bird 

conservation.

Response 71: In chapter 1 we recognize the 

importance of several other plans that address nation 

wide planning efforts and objectives for migratory 

wildlife species.

Comment 72: There is no mention of the “2008 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky 

Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans,” the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the 

Intermountain West Joint Venture, or the wildlife 

action plans in the Tri-State area.

Response 72: See chapter 1 for a description of these 

plans. 

Comment 73: There appears to have been little or no 

coordination even with other programs within the 

FWS.

Response 73: Refer to the participant list in this 

appendix. There was extensive collaboration with 

state and other federal partners. 

I

Comment 74: The discussion of invasive weeds 

is inadequate. The primary species mentioned 

are Kentucky bluegrass and other nonspecified 

nonnative rhizomatous grasses. Are there no state 

listed noxious weeds present on the refuge? If there 

are, how are they controlled? This lack of specificity 

should be replaced with concise detection and control 

practices with as much detail as possible.

Response 74: There is considerable discussion on 

invasive species and a commitment for control and 

eradication. This is a broad management document. 

A 5 year step-down Integrated Pest Management 

Plan will be completed, providing greater detail on 

specific species and treatments.

Comment 75: By reducing/destroying the brome 

grass, you are also destroying part of history. Early 

settlers toiled and labored intensely to farm and 

establish these areas. Management has yet to prove 

they have found an optimal way of reducing it.

Response 75: We agree that it is difficult to control 

this species, nevertheless, the Service is required by 

policy to control invasive species, including brome 

grass. This grass outcompetes more desirable native 

plants that have a greater benefit to a variety of 

wildlife species, both nutritionally and structurally.

The refuge will not be able to eradicate smooth 

brome. Viable methods of control will be developed 

for this high mountain valley. Potential goals would 

be to contain the spread of satellite populations into 

native vegetation and to reduce the cover of brome 

within formerly plowed areas while reseeding native 

plants.

O

Comment 76: Alternative A contains no population 

size of the potential species affected, nor do the other 

alternatives. The word ‘management’ implies the 

need to specify numbers in proposing changes. 

Response 76: It is difficult to accurately predict 

how migratory populations of wildlife within 

the boundaries of a 49,000 acre refuge boundary 

will respond to management actions. Outside 

influences, such as impacts to surrounding habitats, 

climate change, and changes in land use all affect 

populations on the refuge, regardless of how 

well the refuge is managed. Monitoring wildlife 

response to management actions often requires a 

broader, landscape perspective. To do this, the CCP 

supports, and works toward habitat objectives, 

outlined in landscape level plans such as the “North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan” and “Pacific 

Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain 

Population of Trumpeter Swans.”

Comment 77: The CCP provides no discussion of 

how the refuge will support resident grizzly bear, 

wolverine, and wolves other then a discussion on 

depredating wolves.

Response 77: These wildlife species use the refuge 

infrequently; however, more detail will be provided 

in a step-down habitat and wildlife management plan.

Comment 78: The refuge hosts substantial seasonal 

use by antelope, elk, and moose but does not 

discuss how that use fits into the larger landscape 

of adjoining lands in the Centennial Valley, 

southwestern Montana or southeastern Idaho.

Response 78: These are state managed species and we 

will continue to manage them in coordination with 

the state.

Comment 79: How are seasonal concentrations of big 

game on the refuge influenced by human activities 

and habitat conditions elsewhere?

Response 79: Hunting on surrounding lands has 

created concentrations of elk in refuge no-hunting 

areas in the fall. This impacts refuge habitats and is 

counterproductive to the state’s objective of reducing 

the number of elk residing in the valley.

Comment 80: The key to successful preservation of 

wilderness values, and in managing surrounding 

landscapes to help preserve that character, is for 
116 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

management to exercise restraint and to minimize 

physical facilities, motorized travel, and avoid 

increasing human disturbance in areas where 

wildlife finds security.

Response 80: We agree and this CCP minimizes 

motorized access and development of facilities for the 

majority of the refuge, in particular Red Rock Lakes 

Wilderness, which makes up 66% of the refuge.

Comment 81: We assume species of conservation 

concern will receive more attention then other 

species. This needs to be spelled out more clearly in 

this document. 

Response 81: This CCP identifies several target 

species, many of which are species of concern in 

Montana, which the Service will use to manage 

habitat and gauge response.

Comment 82: Due to the close proximity to the St. 

Anthony Sand Dunes it is probable that the St. 

Anthony Dune Tiger Beetle (Cicindela arenicola) 

occurs on Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. 

It is listed as G1/G2 (highly imperiled/imperiled) 

status by Natureserve. You may wish to consider this 

in your priority setting and subsequent management 

plan.

Response 82: This beetle has not been documented on 

the refuge.

Comment 83: Numerical survey data for both the 

Brewer’s sparrow and swan document numbers 

that exceed threshold values to classify the refuge 

as IBA. Although the trumpeter swan information 

is contained on page 86 (draft CCP), the Brewer’s 

sparrow information is missing. (p 101 EC) (draft 

CCP)

Response 83: BirdLife International recently 

down-listed Brewer's sparrow so it is no longer a 

high-priority species for IBAs. They are therefore 

no longer considered for IBA recognition at the 

contiguous or global scale. They are still a species 

of concern at the state level, but we are unaware of 

threshold values for state IBAs.

Comment 84: The plan should evaluate existing 

endangered and candidate species on the refuge and 

outline a management plan that will ensure the 

health and recovery of these populations. 

Response 84: Currently there are no threatened or 

endangered species using this refuge on a regular 

basis.

Comment 85: Focus on restoring native and 

migratory wildlife species within or near Red 

Rock Lakes currently in decline, including Arctic 

grayling, Westslope cutthroat trout, and bighorn 

sheep.

Response 85: There are no bighorn sheep on the 

refuge and we have addressed these fish species. 

Comment 86: Employ only nonlethal means to 

prevent and resolve livestock conflicts with wolves 

and other predatory wildlife.

Response 86: If at all possible, nonlethal means will 

be used to resolve livestock conflicts. Language has 

been added to this strategy in chapter 4.

Comment 87: RRL is one of the few refuges of a 

significant size to allow bison to recover and thrive. 

Three-wire high tensile electrified fence would 

contain bison. 

Response 87: The service has extensive experience 

with fencing of American bison and three wire high 

tensile has not been found to be adequate. The 

Service is not willing to accept periodic escape and 

the consequences that would result. Secondly, there 

is significant migration in and out of the refuge 

by elk, moose, pronghorn, and deer. A bison fence 

would conflict with that migration. The service will 

not reintroduce bison that require any significant 

fencing. 

Comment 88: The refuge should be prepared to host 

wild migrating bison that may emerge from the 

Greater Yellowstone area. 

Response 88: If a population does migrate and reside 

in the valley, the refuge will address this along with 

other partners in the valley.

Comment 89: More specifics need to be added to the 

draft plan. For example the plan states wolves and 

bison would be managed, but it doesn't say how or 

at what levels. That leaves important issues such 

as these open to the theology and philosophies 

of the manager, and in turn lends to potentially 

inconsistent practices as managers come and go.

Response 89: This is a broad management plan. There 

will be additional specifics in step-down wildlife 

management plans, available for public review, that 

will be revised approximately every one to five years.

Comment 90: I am not in favor of bison on the refuge 

due to disease impacts to cattle and the need for a 

fence, impeding wildlife movements. 

Response 90: This CCP does not propose 

reintroducing fenced bison on to the refuge.

Comment 91: Wolves have increased beyond 

established goals. The refuge should not be a safe 

house for them to return to after they forage out to 

private lands. Who would issue the special permit for 

lethal control? This also applies to bears and lions.

Response 91: The refuge will work with the state and 

neighboring landowners to address any issues on a 

case by case basis.
Appendix A — Public Involvement 117

Comment 92: The plan does not specify a clear 

management scheme based on refuge history 

and focal species, including discussions of 

explicit management practices (step-down tasks 

for example), temporal aspects of the proposed 

practices, negative aspects on other focal species, and 

mitigation measures where necessary. 

Response 92: We feel this CCP provides broad 

but clear direction for future management. This 

document also proposes the completion of several 

step-down management plans, which can be revised 

every one to five years and will provide additional 

specifics. The public can review these plans.

Comment 93: In apparent violation of CCP planning 

policy, which requires that “At a minimum, each 

refuge should develop goals for wildlife species or 

groups of species, habitat (including land protection 

needs), compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, 

other mandates (such as refuge-specific legislation, 

executive orders, special area designations, etc.), and 

fish, wildlife, and plant populations, as appropriate,” 

the draft CCP/EA contains no goals or objectives for 

wildlife species or groups of species.

Response 93: We feel the draft CCP did meet the 

intent of the planning policy by explicitly discussing 

habitat needs of target species of wildlife and how 

those needs can be met through management 

actions. The final document was modified to add 

specific trumpeter swan population objectives 

from the “Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the 

Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans.” 

Objectives were also added for moose and Arctic 

grayling.

Grazing

Comment 94: Why are grazing and fire proposed 

as management tools for arid uplands? Neither is 

appropriate for arid lands, especially with the loss of 

sagebrush habitats around the west. 

Response 94: ‘Arid uplands’ in cool regions are 

generally considered areas that receive less than 

10 inches of precipitation annually. The average 

annual precipitation on the refuge exceeds 20 inches. 

Yet, due to the well-drained soils of the Centennial 

Sandhills, these habitats could be considered ‘arid’. 

This is also why fire and grazing are not commonly 

used as a tool in the sandhills. The remaining 

grassland habitats on the refuge did evolve with 

grazing and fire as a natural disturbance, and the 

refuge will continue to mimic these processes with 

management actions. 

Comment 95: Grazing on federal lands is an 

important issue to our members. There is no mention 

of how grazing will continue to be authorized and 

managed on the refuge.

Response 95: The CCP states that the grazing 

program will continue. The Service will ensure 

that the program is prescriptive and supports 

and promotes the refuge’s habitat management 

objectives. 

Comment 96: We support the removal of interior 

fencing on the refuge to eliminate the potential 

for wildlife impacts, including altering wildlife 

movements. We ask the USFWS to fully analyze and 

develop an interior fence inventory on the refuge 

and analyze what fences need to be removed in the 

short-term and long-term and what fences can stay 

on the refuge without impacting wildlife habitat and 

wildlife movement. 

Response 96: A great number of fences have already 

been removed. The remaining fences are needed to 

properly manage the prescriptive grazing program. 

Most of the remaining fences are now wildlifefriendly; nevertheless, the refuge will continue 

to reevaluate the fencing program. The refuge 

is currently mapping all fences and noting their 

condition and design.

Comment 97: All livestock grazing should be 

secondary to the native flora and fauna. The 

management focus should be on native habitats, 

not on the livestock aspect. Livestock fencing should 

accommodate the passage of wildlife. 

Response 97: The refuge has led the implementation of 

wildlife-friendly fences in the valley and continually 

utilizes wildlife-friendly designs.

Comment 98: Simply to “direct” management of 

livestock grazing “towards” habitat and wildlife 

objectives is not sufficient to fulfill the Refuge 

System’s core mission to conserve wildlife first and 

foremost.

Response 98: The strategy related to grazing has 

been modified to reflect this intent of only using 

prescriptive grazing to benefit wildlife habitat.

Comment 99: Defenders has extensive experience 

helping ranchers manage livestock without harming 

wolves and other predators, and we would welcome 

the opportunity to help implement these practices on 

the refuge and/or adjacent lands. 

Response 99: Most of these successes have occurred 

on smaller landscapes. We have added language to 

consult with other partners who have successful 

methods for using nonlethal methods to control 

wolves preying on cattle.

Comment 100: The CCP should take steps to 

increase resource resiliency by working to reduce 

non-climatic stressors on native wildlife and water 

resources, such as non-prescriptive livestock grazing.

Response 100: The CCP does not propose any nonprescriptive grazing. 
118 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Comment 101: Get rid of the cattle grazing on this 

land owned by national taxpayers, this grazing 

destroys the place. Let the ranchers rent the land they 

need from private landholders.

Response 101: Prescriptive grazing by cattle is used 

as a habitat management tool to mimic natural 

disturbances and will not negatively impact habitats, 

including refuge waters.

Comment 102: Prescribed fire should be stopped 

immediately. Fine particulate matter is released 

with this burning, as well as every chemical 

deposited on that land.

Response 102: Prescribed burning is an important 

management tool that mimics a natural process. 

Properly used, it can help control invasive species 

and improve habitat for wildlife, including nesting 

migratory birds.

Comment 103: That cattle grazing is allowed in 

the refuge is a travesty, polluting the streams and 

injuring ground nesting birds.

Response 103: The refuge uses grazing as a tool to 

mimic the ecological services previously provided by 

bison. Several species of ground nesting birds prefer 

to nest in grazed areas, including long-billed curlews. 

Cattle are fenced from most riparian areas and are 

not typically allowed on the refuge until July 10th, 

minimizing disturbance to ground nesting birds.

Biodiversity/Integrity

Comment 104: The CCP significantly redirects the 

purpose of the refuge, in part, to achieving a high 

degree of biodiversity; however, that ambiguous 

term is interpreted. The adoption of biodiversity 

as a comanagement objective not only dilutes the 

clear language embedded in the original purpose 

but tasks the manager with yet another mandatory 

consideration.

Response 104: This CCP does not redirect the 

purposes of this refuge but it does comply with the 

Service’s policy that requires managers to consider 

natural biodiversity when managing refuge lands. 

This does not impede the refuge from giving priority 

to migratory birds, the purpose for which it was 

established.

Comment 105: Many of the management practices 

are conceptual, rather than precisely specified. 

For example, it states that the sagebrush/

Centennial sandhills habitat will ‘be managed for 

biodiversity’. This type of statement is no guidance 

to future managers and is liable to ‘seat of the 

pants’ management rather than well thought best 

management practices. 

Response 105: This is a broad management plan, 

which will be followed by detailed step-down plans; 

nevertheless, there is ample detail in this document 

to allow future managers and biologists to be 

consistent over the next 15 years. It does allow for 

creativity and innovation as new information and 

technologies become available.

Comment 106: I could support additional monitoring 

if its purpose was to direct management practices 

but do not see a reason for the refuge system to 

conduct other types of research. There are plenty of 

institutions that can and will do that work.

Response 106: This refuge provides a great outdoor 

classroom for researchers interested in developing 

a greater understanding of how this ecosystem 

functions and how best to protect and restore it. 

Permitted research is closely monitored and meets 

refuge objectives and needs.

Comment 107: This draft CCP/EA inappropriately 

makes managing for biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health (BIDEH) the primary 

foundation of the document. The draft is pervaded 

by the unspoken and unproven philosophy that by 

managing for the vague concepts of biodiversity, 

integrity, and natural processes, somehow all 

wildlife management and conservation needs will be 

adequately addressed. 

Response 107: We don't disagree that BIDEH serves 

as one of the foundations of this plan. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has a policy on BIDEH 

(Service Manual 601 FW 3) that directs refuges to 

consider the protection of a broad spectrum of fish, 

wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and 

associated ecosystems. When completing a CCP, 

we are to determine the appropriate management 

direction to maintain and, where appropriate, restore 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health, while achieving refuge purposes. We feel this 

plan has achieved that objective. 

Comment 108: Although biodiversity, integrity 

and natural processes are the foundation of the 

draft CCP/EA, the terms “integrity” and “natural 

processes” are never defined, even though the 

document includes a six page glossary.

Response 108: These terms have been added to the 

glossary.

Comment 109: The over-emphasis on BIDEH was 

carried to such an extreme that the Vision Statement 

includes no mention of managing, conserving, or 

restoring wildlife populations or of a desired future 

condition that includes healthy populations of all 

(or any) native wildlife species. Providing habitat 

of even the best possible quality is not an adequate 

future condition without focus on the wildlife. 

Response 109: Vision statements are very broad and 

typically do not identify population goals for specific 

wildlife species. These details are found in the goals, 
Appendix A — Public Involvement 119

objectives, strategies, and rationale in Chapter 4 of 

this document. 

In addition, the Service has a biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health policy that 

requires the Service to consider the protection of a 

broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources 

found on refuges and associated ecosystems. It also 

requires that within the comprehensive conservation 

planning process, the Service should determine 

the appropriate management direction to maintain 

and, where appropriate, restore biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health, while achieving 

refuge purposes.

R

Comment 110: We strongly opposed the closing of 

Idlewild Road and the associated boat launch. We 

enjoy driving this road and it doesn’t get a lot of use. 

The Service should create an interpretive panel that 

relates the history of this area to the public including 

the waterfowl hunting history. 

Response 110: Idlewild Road will remain open with 

certain specifications:

Idlewild Road was built through a wetland site and 

therefore it will have to be continually maintained. 

As the road has deteriorated, vehicles have tended 

to drive off road causing damage to vegetation 

and compaction of the soil, thereby reducing the 

movement of water through this wetland site. The 

existing culvert will have to be replaced. 

The refuge will post a sign recommending that only 

4-wheel drive or high clearance vehicles utilize the 

road. The road may be closed at any time due to 

weather and road conditions.

Comment 111: The final CCP should address where 

and how dirt bikes and other ATVs, including 

snowmobiles, use the refuge and how motorized use 

impacts wildlife, local landowners, and other refuge 

visitors.

Response 111: As in the past, motorized vehicles, such 

as cars and licensed ATVs, will only be permitted 

on county roads and refuge roads currently open to 

vehicle use. This CCP does not expand refuge roads 

nor allow snowmachine use on refuge roads.

Comment 112: The plan presents a “pro-development, 

one-size fits all refuges” concentration on 

constructing physical facilities and expanding 

public use, instead of recognizing the intrinsic 

values of this landscape. This approach is contrary 

to restoring and maintaining a wilderness character 

and preserving the powerful legacy this refuge 

represents.

Response 112: Critically needed housing for added 

staff will be completed within the headquarters site 

on already disturbed ground.

The CCP proposes replacing two unsafe, condemned 

bridges along an existing road open to the public and 

an existing foot trail/service road. 

Replacing the Red Rock Creek bridge will allow 

this section of the auto tour route to make a 

loop. Currently, visitors have to drive in and out 

the same way which doubles the disturbance to 

wildlife. This replacement will not impair current 

stream dynamics. The entire auto tour route will be 

interpreted with minimal signage and a brochure.

Replacing the failed bridge along the existing 

Sparrow Pond Trail will provide a safe passage for 

visitors to view wildlife and staff to access portions 

of the refuge for management and maintenance. 

This replacement will not impair current stream 

dynamics.

Comment 113: We are concerned about the impacts 

that unrestrained research activities, as proposed 

in the proposed action, may have on the refuge’s 

habitats and wildlife.

Response 113: This document does not propose 

unrestrained research activities. Research will be 

permitted if it is found to be compatible and meets 

refuge data needs, goals, and objectives.

Comment 114: Apart from its effects on habitat, 

the plan fails to disclose the costs of the projects it 

promotes. 

Response 114: It is difficult to predict the costs of 

all activities over 15 years as costs of materials and 

labor change over time. This document is used for 

planning purposes and to set priorities. It does not 

constitute a firm commitment to provide funding for 

all proposed actions.

Comment 115: Plan appears inconsistent in that 

it promotes construction of bridges and roads that 

undermine habitat and wildlife use, while allowing 

existing structures, such as the dam on the Lower 

Lake that provides habitat management flexibility, to 

possibly fail from benign neglect.

Response 115: The refuge roads and bridges already 

exist and are used by the public—there is no new 

road construction proposed in this document. Road 

maintenance is a standard activity on all public 

land. We will be maintaining the Lower Lake water 

control structure.

Comment 116: The east side loop road should be 

reinstated with a new bridge across Red Rock River.

Response 116: The east loop road will be repaired 

and the bridge will be replaced to be part of an 

interpreted auto tour route.

Comment 117: While promoting stream function on 

one hand, on the other hand, the plan also promotes 

construction of two bridges that will impair stream 
120 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

dynamics on two major streams. The sole reason 

for constructing these bridges is to support new 

auto tour routes, a paradoxical approach to wildlife 

viewing especially on a refuge where wildlife can 

often be seen from existing roadways. However, in 

this case, by increasing disturbance in sanctuary 

areas, the auto tour routes themselves displace the 

very wildlife people come to see.

Response 117: The CCP proposes replacing two 

condemned bridges along an existing auto tour route 

and a hiking trail. 

The auto tour route will be created along existing 

roadways currently open to the public, but will be 

interpreted with minimal signage and will require 

an existing bridge be replaced. This repair will not 

impair current stream dynamics. 

The remaining bridge is an existing structure 

in need of replacement to allow Service staff to 

access portions of the refuge for management and 

maintenance. The public also uses this as a walking 

trail to view wildlife.

Comment 118: Money will be saved in building costs 

by maintaining the current level of staff.

Response 118: There has been no new refuge housing 

and limited staff additions for almost 50 years. 

Achieving the refuge vision and goals will take more 

then money, it will require added staff. A lack of 

housing in the remote valley has been a constant 

hindrance to expanding refuge programs and 

developing a greater understanding of how to best 

conserve, restore, and manage refuge resources.

Comment 119: Two campgrounds are well 

maintained and consistently used by visitors to the 

area. Changes to the current refuge maintenance 

plan would be counter-productive.

Response 119: The refuge campgrounds will continue 

to be minimally maintained, but routine maintenance 

is always needed to retain existing facilities, while 

some upgrades will be needed to provide access to 

physically challenged visitors.

Comment 120: The area along Odell Creek between 

the county road and Sparrow Pond should be open 

to non-motorized access for hunting and fishing (in 

accordance with state regulations).

Response 120: Odell Creek is already open for fishing. 

The described area has never allowed motorized 

vehicles. The area to the north of Odell Creek is 

proposed to be open to big game hunting. The area 

from the county road north to Odell Creek is closed 

to hunting to protect buildings, residents, and 

visitors in the Lakeview area. Please see the public 

use map (figure 14).

Comment 121: The road which leads from the county 

road to the airstrip should be open for motorized 

access for hunting and wildlife viewing from July 1 

to November or December, for people who exhibit a 

state-issued disability license.

Response 121: The proposed action did include making 

the Sparrow Pond Trail, pulloffs, signs, campsites, 

toilets, and kiosks accessible. The state makes 

provisions for disabled hunters to shoot from vehicles 

and the individual can work with the refuge to be 

accommodated.

Comment 122: Needs more trails and access to 

view the birds (waterfowl and non) and critters 

(especially moose). Not everyone can hike over rough 

ground to reach the water's edge. Moreover viewing 

platforms would be very helpful.

Response 122: There are three roads leading to 

the shore of Lower Red Rock Lake to view birds. 

Upper Lake has a boat launch leading to the edge 

of the lake. Viewing the refuge from county roads 

provides excellent opportunities to see waterfowl, 

moose, deer, sandhill cranes, coyotes, and sometimes 

a wolf. The CCP proposes to work with the county 

to provide accessible pulloffs so visitors can safely 

get out of the way of traffic. Public access trails exist 

to Sparrow Pond and Slough, and up Odell Creek. 

In keeping with wilderness designation, no new 

trails or structures are allowed to be built within 

the wilderness boundary. The eastern ponds are 

also open to the public for wildlife viewing with easy 

walking access to the water’s edge in many places.

Comment 123: I believe what access there is, should 

be closed (with the exception of Red Rock Road). All 

viewing of animals could be done by spotting scope 

from the main road, leaving the animals to roam 

free and wild without becoming habituated to human 

presence.

Response 123: The majority of the refuge is road and 

trail free, particularly the wilderness area, which 

encompasses 66% of Red Rock Lakes Wilderness. 

The document does not propose any additional roads 

or trails.

Comment 124: There was no mention to reopen 

the old loop road at the east side of the refuge by 

replacing the old bridge.

Response 124: Creating an auto tour route along this 

loop road (and other roads) is included as a strategy 

in this final CCP. Red Rock Creek bridge will need to 

be replaced as part of this auto tour route.

Comment 125: There is a proposal to close Lower 

Lake campground, an ill thought out plan in light of 

the road that has just been rehabbed.

Response 125: This proposal was in alternative D, not 

the proposed action. Both campgrounds will remain 

open to the public.
Appendix A — Public Involvement 121

Comment 126: The proposal of keeping the refuge 

roads open all year will cost taxpayers a lot of 

money. It is also important to let the wildlife have a 

break from human contact. 

Response 126: The proposed action did not propose 

keeping the refuge roads open all winter. This is cost 

prohibitive and is probably impossible to achieve, 

given the amount of snowfall.

Comment 127: Encourage the county to increase their 

maintenance of refuge roads. 

Response 127: The refuge has consistently worked 

with the county to maintain the county roads but we 

do recognize that this is a remote part of Montana, 

with a small population, and road maintenance dollars 

are limited.

Comment 128: Those who enjoy the auto tour route 

early in the year are likely to end up stuck on either 

Elk Lake or North Centennial Road. 

Response 128: Any visitor to the Centennial Valley 

should take precautions and ensure they are aware 

of road conditions in this remote valley. These two 

roads are county roads and maintained by the county. 

The refuge will continue to encourage the county 

to adequately maintain these roads during high 

visitation periods but this depends on their available 

staff and resources.

Comment 129: Do not allow over-snow vehicles on 

the auto tour route after December 2. This area will 

provide ideal cross-country skiing. 

Response 129: The entire refuge is closed to 

snowmobile use (except for the county roads) but 

open to cross country skiing.

Comment 130: I did not find fencing directly 

addressed in any alternative. Much of the fencing is 

non-wildlife friendly and should be replaced. 

Response 130: Most of the refuge fencing is designed 

to be wildlife-friendly.

Comment 131: Signage is important. It helps people 

better understand the assets available and the 

boundaries. Many tourists travel onto private land.

Response 131: We agree and have proposed a balance 

between orienting visitors and maintaining the 

wilderness characteristics of the refuge through 

minimal signage.

Comment 132: Given the massive economic problems 

and federal deficits, the projected staff and housing 

increases required for implementation of alternative 

B may have become unrealistic. 

Response 132: This CCP provides long-term guidance 

for management decisions. This document does state 

that these plans are often substantially above current 

budget allocations, and are therefore primarily for 

Service strategic planning and program prioritization 

purposes. They do not constitute a commitment for 

additional funding. If funding does become available 

for the refuge system, this CCP will ensure these 

additional funds are spent responsibly and on the 

highest priorities.

Visitor serViCes ProGraMs

Comment 133: The plan appears too narrowly focused 

on expanding public use at the expense of habitat, 

wildlife and wilderness values. 

Response 133: The need for improving visitor service 

facilities are to better orient and welcome visitors. 

All of the projects will take place along existing 

trails and roads. These projects will not in and of 

themselves expand public use at the refuge, but 

will better educate the public about this unique and 

special refuge and its wildlife.

Comment 134: The goal of providing environmental 

education to people in their car could be easily 

accomplished by a low power AM broadcast station 

similar to that used in numerous parks at a fraction 

of the cost and without adverse impacts to refuge 

wildlife. 

Response 134: Given the level of visitation, brochures 

and limited interpretive panels should be sufficient to 

provide adequate visitor information.

Comment 135: Maintaining the aspen groves should 

be accomplished without harming wildlife. I’ve 

observed the drought as having the bigger impact. 

Expanding hunting is not acceptable. 

Response 135: Elk are a state managed species. The 

state has population and harvest objectives for 

southwestern Montana. The refuge is not an elk 

refuge and the concentration of elk in closed areas 

during hunting season is not only harming refuge 

habitats, but prevents the state from achieving its 

population and habitat goals.

Comment 136: The plan indicates that opening of 

the interior of the refuge to hunting will minimize 

“damage” done by concentrations of big game. 

Relying on willow browsing alone does not consider 

the fact that consumption by ungulates is a primary 

use for willow. Where elk are concerned, it is difficult 

to see what damage they are causing considering the 

refuge hosts a livestock grazing program and that 

the interior of the refuge, an area to be opened to 

hunting, has ample grass. 

Response 136: Our concern related to elk populations 

is primarily related to aspen regeneration. Aspen 

stands in the Centennial Mountains, including the 

refuge, are predominantly comprised of older ageclass trees, suggesting that recruitment of young 

aspen has not occurred for several decades. Recent 
122 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

landscape-scale disturbances (wildfire) have resulted 

in considerable suckering of aspen in the Centennial 

Mountains. However, data suggest that most of 

these suckers do not get above browse height due 

to overbrowsing by elk. This impacts a host of other 

species, including nesting songbirds. Lastly, the 

major riparian areas on the refuge are fenced to 

exclude cattle, so measured impacts of browse in 

these areas is due to native browsers. 

Comment 137: The plan does not state how much area 

will be opened to hunting. The plan needs to assess 

the adverse impacts caused to winter survival of big 

game such as moose, caused by these animals being 

chased back and forth across the refuge.

Response 137: Over 60% of the refuge will be open 

to some form of hunting, including the area open 

only for moose hunting. Most of the hunting areas 

are roadless. Over 35% of the refuge is closed to all 

hunting, but is available for other public uses such as 

wildlife viewing and photography. The hunting areas 

are also open to these non-hunting uses.

Moose hunting is only allowed in the southeast 

corner of the refuge. We do not foresee any impacts 

to moose from opening areas to other hunting. Other 

willow habitat closed to hunting offers excellent 

opportunities for the public to view moose yearround. 

Wintering moose populations have increased at an 

annual average rate of 2.4% (SE = 0.06) for the past 

40 years. This growth occurred concurrent with 

regulated harvest. We work closely with the State 

of Montana to monitor the population and habitat 

conditions.

Comment 138: Animals that once were viewable to the 

public will be displaced by hunting and hunting will 

go from a quality experience to a killing field where 

big game is encircled by vehicles and shot as they 

congregate.

Response 138: Hunting only occurs during a portion of 

the year allowing for ample viewing opportunities for 

the majority of visitors. 

Due to the lack of roads within Red Rock Lakes 

Wilderness, elk can not be surrounded as they move 

into the timber and more secure hiding cover. We 

will closely monitor hunters for any illegal activities 

during hunting season.

Comment 139: Refuge legislation weighs priority 

public uses equally, thus Service personnel have 

an ethical responsibility to set aside their biases, be 

objective, and consider non-hunting uses on the same 

par as they might hunting. 

Response 139: Waterfowl hunting is limited to 

approximately 1 month each year on a limited area 

(approximately 8% of huntable habitat) of the refuge. 

Additionally, portions of the refuge were acquired 

with monies obtained through the purchase of federal 

migratory bird hunting stamps by waterfowlers. 

Use of these monies to purchase lands mandates that 

waterfowl hunting be allowed on no more than 40% of 

the area. 

Big game hunting is a tool to manage ungulate 

populations. Numbers of elk within the hunt area are 

much higher than state population objectives. The 

elk herd in southwestern Montana has doubled in 

the last 2 decades. Habitats throughout the area are 

also being impacted. The expanded area that is being 

opened to hunting is where elk are congregating in 

large numbers. 

The refuge provides the same access to non-hunting 

individuals within hunt areas. The refuge also 

provides approximately 17,826 acres where hunting 

is not allowed.

Comment 140: Does the refuge respond to inquiries 

from the hundreds of school children and classrooms 

that write asking about swans? Has it incorporated 

overall environmental education into the existing 

popularity of trumpeter swans?

Response 140: The refuge responds to school children 

irrespective of the content of their inquiries. 

Additionally, the refuge’s environmental education 

program will incorporate information on swans and 

other migratory birds and resident wildlife that 

utilize the refuge through the development of a swan 

poster and website.

Comment 141: Why are only areas east of Upper Lake 

open to moose hunting given concern over woody 

browse utilization. Open more of the refuge (possibly 

westward of Odell Creek)? If the permit numbers 

remain the same, it would better disperse hunters.

Response 141: The current moose hunting area 

encompasses the majority of riparian habitat utilized 

by wintering moose on the refuge. 

Concentrating moose hunters in an exclusive, 

designated area allows for a quality hunting 

experience (no competition with other hunters) and 

assists in law enforcement efforts.

Comment 142: Expansion of big-game hunting 

should not be permitted in areas that have been set 

aside as fall waterfowl feeding sanctuaries. The 

location of fall sanctuary feeding areas for swans 

and other waterfowl should be clearly portrayed on 

refuge use maps. 

Response 142: We have not proposed opening any 

refuge waters that have traditionally been set aside 

as waterfowl sanctuaries. The final maps do depict 

most of the lakes on the refuge as closed to hunting. 

This is specifically to provide this sanctuary for 

trumpeter swans and other waterfowl.
Appendix A — Public Involvement 123

Comment 143: Fishing throughout the refuge should 

be limited to single-hook lures. There are some 

monster grayling in Red Rock Creek which are 

vulnerable to treble-hook lures. Red Rock Creek, 

along with the Culver, Widgeon and McDonald 

Ponds, should be considered for catch-and-release 

regulations.

If Yellowstone National Park permits catch and 

release, single barb-less hooks, artificial flies only, 

why can't the RRLNWR? 

Response 143: We are continually looking for ways to 

reduce impacts to Arctic grayling but don’t believe 

that instituting this restriction would be worth the 

added complexity to the refuge’s fishing program. 

One tool to reduce impacts to grayling populations is 

for anglers to keep the nonnative fish that are caught 

in accordance to state regulations.

Comment 144: Last year we submitted a request to 

increase fishing access in the refuge and that is not in 

the CCP. The three creeks and three ponds in which 

fishing is currently permitted do not hold many 

fish, making them unattractive for fishermen. The 

larger lakes, Upper and Lower Red Rock Lakes, for 

example, are the ones that are of most interest and 

there is no provision in the plan for opening them to 

fishing.

I would have liked to have seen a short period of time 

in the season allocated to fly-fishing in the lakes.

Response 144: Red Rock Lakes NWR was established 

to protect primarily migratory birds. Upper and 

Lower Red Rock Lakes are extremely important 

to waterbirds during breeding and migration. 

The refuge hosts tens of thousands of migrating 

waterfowl before freeze-up each fall. Allowing fishing 

was not considered because the refuge believes that 

the increased use of the lakes from anglers would 

have a detrimental impact to resting and feeding 

migratory birds, including the thousands of swans 

(trumpeter and tundra) that refuel here. Some 

additional streams will be opened to fishing access 

(see figure 14).

Comment 145: The lakes don't need motorized craft 

(electric motors should not be permitted) but kayaks, 

canoes, float tubes, pontoon boats should all be 

permitted.

Response 145: Non-motorized boats such as canoes 

and kayaks are already permitted on Upper and 

Lower Red Rock lakes, River Marsh, and Red Rock 

Creek. Motorized craft have not been permitted on 

the lakes for years, with the exception of the area 

below the WCS on Lower Red Rock Lake.

There is no boating or floating allowed on the eastern 

ponds.

Comment 146: I am disappointed, but not surprised 

to see the complete absence of environmental 

education from the proposed action. That seems like 

a shame.

Response 146: Objectives and strategies have been 

added to the document to accommodate limited 

environmental education programs.

Comment 147: There is a notable absence of 

discussion on accessible trails until the facilities 

section. This should be a bit more specific.

Response 147: Language describing accessible trails 

has been added to the final document.

Comment 148: In the previous draft there is much 

more specific language about what will be provided 

in terms of accessible facilities. Why was this 

removed? Most could be added without detracting 

from the wilderness aspect of the refuge.

Response 148: We have added back the language that 

describes proposed accessible facilities.

Comment 149: Wouldn’t there be conflicts between 

anglers and hunters? Would you allow fishing in 

hunting areas during hunting season?

Response 149: Yes, there could be conflicts but fishing 

during hunting season is minimal so there should be 

few conflicts.

Comment 150: In alternate C, Tom Creek and 

MacDonald ponds would be opened to fishing on 

June 15 in an area that isn’t open until July 15. 

Please clarify.

Response 150: The proposed action, alternative B, lists 

these areas as open according to state seasons. 

Comment 151: All of the waters discussed should be 

shown on the public use map.

Response 151: We try to keep the maps uncluttered, 

but we agree with this comment and have identified 

waters discussed on the maps in the final CCP (see 

figure 14).

Comment 152: Offer upland game and webless 

migratory bird game hunting opportunities under 

state regulations on lands open to big game hunting.

Response 152: There were no requests during public 

scoping to open upland game bird hunting on the 

refuge. Nevertheless, this would be a new hunting 

opportunity for a new species of wildlife and 

according to Service policy would require full public 

participation and the preparation of a separate hunt 

plan. The Service may pursue this opportunity in the 

future and will be involving the state and the public 

in the evaluation.

Comment 153: Reinstate walk-in waterfowl hunting 

opportunities along Odell Creek and Sparrow Slough 

and Pond.
124 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Response 153: The refuge already provides 

considerable opportunities for waterfowl hunting. 

This final document also proposes keeping Idlewild 

Road open rather than closing it, a part of the 

original proposed action in the draft CCP. This road 

will continue to facilitate waterfowl hunting on the 

west end of the refuge, including opportunities to 

walk in.

Comment 154: It would be easier to follow if all 

references to trails were under one section. 

Response 154: The more specific trail projects are 

within respective strategies and are more generally 

mentioned within the facilities objective. 

Comment 155: All discussion on accessible trails and 

blinds have been removed. Why? The Service must 

provide the same opportunities for all visitors. There 

are opportunities for creating accessible trails in 

areas not designated as wilderness.

Response 155: We added language to the strategies 

identifying a blind below Lower Lake water control 

structure, an accessible trail at Sparrow Pond, and 

vehicle pulloffs along county roads.

Comment 156: Expanding big game hunting is not 

compatible with the purposes for which the refuge 

was established. Verified data are lacking on the 

biological impacts of this expansion.

Response 156: Hunting is a legitimate and compatible 

use of this refuge. This refuge was not established 

as an elk preserve, where hunting is prohibited. The 

Service feels the analysis of expanding the existing 

hunting program was sufficient, which found the 

expanded big game hunting compatible with refuge 

purposes. 

Comment 157: The Service must ensure that sufficient 

funds are available before it approves a plan to 

expand hunting, considering the economic impacts 

to the refuge and surrounding businesses as a result 

of decreases in use by non-consumptive users during 

hunting season.

Response 157: As outlined in the compatibility 

determination, the Service will ensure that the 

necessary resources, which should be minimal, are 

available prior to opening this expanded hunting 

area. This refuge is located in one of the most remote 

valleys in Montana. Most of the refuge is surrounded 

by open ranch land and very few businesses exist. 

Of the nearby businesses, many are dependent 

upon hunters’ dollars to sustain profitability. 

Therefore, expanded hunting would most likely 

positively benefit local businesses. Moreover, most 

non-consumptive users frequent the refuge and 

surrounding area during the summer, when hunting 

seasons are not open.

Comment 158: We propose that expanding hunting 

[at] Red Rock Lakes is a significant action and 

requires the preparation of an EIS—citing public 

safety, unique characteristics of the area, endangered 

and threatened species, or involving highly uncertain 

or unique or unknown risks.

Response 158: The preferred alternative, including 

the proposal to expand the current hunting program, 

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 is not warranted. Hunting has occurred 

on this refuge for decades and has been found to be 

compatible. This expansion will assist the refuge 

in achieving its management objective of reducing 

browsing pressure on aspen habitats. These habitats 

are important to various migratory birds that use 

the refuge, the purpose for which this refuge was 

established. The state has determined that the elk 

population in this valley exceeds established goals. 

Harboring of elk on the refuge may exacerbate this 

issue, thereby contributing to habitat damage not 

only to the refuge, but to the surrounding valley 

habitats. 

There are no known threatened or endangered 

species that inhabit the refuge.

Comment 159 The impacts of expanded hunting 

on the experience and potential socioeconomic 

contribution of these non-consumptive users must 

be properly taken into account—including being 

injured or killed by a bullet or having one’s dog or 

horse killed, or seeing a wounded animal.

Response 159: This is a very remote refuge and nonhunting visitors are very seasonal (mostly summer 

only, when the roads are most passable), which 

rarely overlaps with the hunting seasons. Visitors 

are allowed to travel all public use areas during the 

hunting season, but a vast area on the east end of the 

refuge, which includes an auto tour route for viewing 

wildlife, is closed to all hunting activities year-round 

providing an exclusive use area for these visitors.

Comment 160: The interpretation proposal is bold. 

We support the proposed action outlined in the CCP, 

but caution the refuge staff about doing too much 

with interpretation. Additional signage and kiosks 

at Lower Lake Road, Red Rock Creek and at the 

northwest corner entrance might take away from the 

rustic nature of the refuge. Providing information at 

the headquarters in one central location might lessen 

the impacts on a visitor's wilderness experience.

Response 160: Interpretation programs allow for 

visitors to orient themselves while creating a greater 

understanding of the refuge and its resources. To 

reduce impacts to the wilderness setting, the existing 

deteriorating kiosks and panels will be replaced at 

their respective locations. One new one will be built 

at the entrance of Lower Lake Road. Interpreting 
Appendix A — Public Involvement 125

habitat and wildlife along the auto-route may be a 

combination of low-mounted signs and a brochure. 

Not all people will use a brochure or have access to 

one but will readily stop at interpretive panels.

Comment 161: None of your proposals take into 

consideration the purpose and nature of our new 

environmental center. It is extremely important 

that any future planning must take into careful 

consideration the educational activities and public 

programs that we are now planning and which will 

incorporate much of the refuge.

Response 161: At the time of preparing this document, 

there were no proposals or information provided 

to the refuge on the plans for these structures in 

Lakeview being used as an environmental education 

center; nevertheless this document does support 

environmental education and interpretation activities 

that will meet Service objectives. Environmental 

education partnership opportunities that support the 

refuge’s environmental education objectives outlined 

in this CCP and the future Visitor Services Plan 

will be embraced with available, but limited refuge 

resources, as appropriate. 

Comment 162: Many of your proposals are 

inappropriate and inconsistent with the official 

objectives and purposes for which the refuge was 

established. None of the proposals appear to put 

wildlife first—including opening the entire refuge to 

hunting. This decries the entire purpose for which the 

refuge was established.

Response 162: The Service does not permit any 

activity to occur on a refuge that is not compatible 

with the purposes for which it was established. This 

refuge was not established to prevent hunting of 

wildlife. Hunting is a legitimate and traditional public 

use that has been found compatible on this and most 

wildlife refuges in the nation. The 1997 National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act lists 

hunting as one of the six priority public uses that we 

are to consider allowing on refuges. Hunting is not 

open on the entire refuge.

Comment 163: There are few schools in this remote 

area—offering expanded environmental education 

kits and web site availability to teachers seems 

unnecessary.

Response 163: We agree that environmental 

education, particularly at the surrounding schools, 

should be minimal. The refuge does host over 12,000 

visitors annually, most in the summer months when 

school is out. Some of these visitors are children and 

the refuge has missed opportunities to educate these 

future refuge users on why the refuge is there and 

why it is important to ensure it remains through 

their lifetime and for use by their own children. Tools 

such as interactive websites allow schools across the 

nation to learn about this refuge and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

Comment 164: Expanding hunting areas will only 

allow unethical hunting, meaning flock shooting at 

long range. I am not opposed to hunting. 

Response 164: The refuge is also concerned about 

the impacts of hunting in open areas throughout the 

refuge, and will work with the state to determine 

what the best methods for promoting an ethical, 

quality hunt. The refuge may set limitations on 

this expanded big game hunting area including 

initially limiting the number of hunters that can hunt 

this area at one time. After coordinating with the 

state and refuge law enforcement, this and other 

restrictions may be placed on hunting to ensure it is 

conducted safely and ethically.

The refuge will continue to work to provide law 

enforcement presence during the hunting seasons. 

Comment 165: Allowing Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks to set the season and quota for moose hunting 

is a mistake. 

Response 165: Moose are a state-managed species. 

The refuge has a long partnership with the state in 

monitoring the population on the refuge and in the 

valley. According to survey data and browse studies, 

moose populations are healthy and can sustain this 

annual limited harvest, such as the current eleven 

permits issued for this hunting unit. To provide 

viewing opportunities, the length of the moose 

hunting season on the refuge will remain shorter 

than the state season for HD334. This may change 

in the future to meet management and harvesting 

objectives.

Comment 166: Opening upland game bird hunting 

would not be appropriate. Visitors get a lot of 

pleasure out of seeing a ‘few chickens’. All of the 

surrounding public lands are open to grouse 

hunting. Now that a few sage grouse are appearing, 

why risk their safety?

Response 166: This final CCP does not propose 

opening upland game bird hunting.

Comment 167: Sometimes families who camp at the 

Upper Lake ride bike and hike on the roads in this 

part of the refuge. Opening this area to fishing and 

other access (but not waterfowl hunting) from July 

1 until December 1 would provide opportunities for 

people with disabilities to fish and view wildlife.

Response 167: Wildlife viewing is allowed year-round 

on the refuge. The campgrounds are open year-round 

but are only maintained until the roads close due to 

winter weather. Fishing on Upper Lake and Lower 

Lake is not compatible due to disturbances to swans 

and other waterfowl.

Comment 168: I would recommend a five-year trial 

period to allow fishing in the Upper and Lower 

Lakes.
126 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Response 168: Fishing on Upper Lake and Lower 

Lake is not compatible due to disturbances to swans 

and other waterfowl.

Comment 169: The moose season should be closed 

to maintain ponds and “birding” road access. A 

wildlife refuge should be a refuge, not for semiprivate hunting clubs.

Response 169: Moose hunting is limited to a small 

portion of the refuge and is a limited (approximately 

eleven permits) state-managed hunt. The majority 

of the refuge is open to wildlife photography and 

observation, particularly in the summer, when most 

refuge visitors come to the valley. In addition, this 

final CCP proposes upgrading a current public road 

on the east end of the refuge providing interpretation 

of the various refuge habitats. This would be located 

in a large area closed to all hunting.

Comment 170: One very important thing missing 

from “Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies” 

is the 2007 Executive Order: Facilitation of Hunting 

Heritage and Wildlife Conservation. President Bush 

recognized the importance of our hunting heritage 

and he signed this executive order to make sure that 

hunting opportunities were expanded and enhanced 

on public lands (including Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge).

Response 170: This was added to the final document.

Comment 171: I understand the issue of ungulates 

retreating to refugia and increasing their impact 

there, but think extending the season to match state 

regulations, plus opening up the whole refuge will 

unduly increase impacts to the moose population. 

There is some question regarding the migratory 

ecology of the moose herd that winters in the refuge,

and I would propose more monitoring and research 

to determine where the moose go for summer 

range, and whether there is a non-migratory local 

population mixed with a migratory population.

Response 171: The refuge works closely with Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks on moose management on, 

and surrounding, the refuge. Surveys have shown 

a steady increase in the moose population on the 

refuge, indicating that current harvest levels are 

sustainable. 

Comment 172: Everyone wanted to reduce big game 

hunting. This is obscene and flies in the face of what 

the refuge system was set up for.

Response 172: There was support for not only 

maintaining, but expanding big game hunting on 

the refuge. The refuge system, including Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, was not established 

to prevent all hunting. The laws governing the refuge 

system state that hunting has been identified as 

one of the six priority public uses for the national 

wildlife refuge system. Hunting is a traditional use 

on the refuge and has been found compatible with the 

purposes for which it was established.

GeneraL CoMMents

Comment 173: I believe it was a mistake not to 

include area landowners in the planning process.

Response 173: The public, including landowners, was 

invited to all public meetings and asked to provide 

written comments. Three public meetings were held 

at the start of this planning process, and two when 

the draft plan was released. The public was also 

given an additional 30 days to review this plan, for 

a total of 60 days. All comments, including those on 

the draft CCP and EA, were considered throughout 

the planning process and resulted in numerous 

modifications to this final CCP.

Comment 174: We do not agree with the concept of our 

property being taken from us by a government entity 

in the draft CCP.

Response 174: In no way does this plan propose taking 

any land from any private landowner.
Appendix B

Key Legislation and Policies

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and other policies 

and key legislation that guide the management of 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997)

GoaLs

■ To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge 

purpose(s) and further the Refuge System 

mission. 

■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and 

enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants 

that are endangered or threatened with 

becoming endangered.

■ Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional 

fish, and marine mammal populations. 

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

■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, 

representative ecosystems of the United States, 

including the ecological processes characteristic 

of those ecosystems. 

■ To foster understanding and instill appreciation 

of fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

conservation, by providing the public with safe, 

high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent 

public use. Such use includes hunting, 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 12996 (1996):

■ Public Use—The Refuge System provides 

important opportunities for compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation.

■ Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper 

without high-quality habitat and without 

fish and wildlife, traditional uses of refuges 

cannot be sustained. The Refuge System will 

continue to conserve and enhance the quality 

and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within 

refuges.

■ Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and 

women were the first partners who insisted 

on protecting valuable wildlife habitat within 

wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships 

with other federal agencies, state agencies, 

tribes, organizations, industry, and the general 

public can make significant contributions to the 

growth and management of the Refuge System.

■ Public Involvement—The public should be 

given a full and open opportunity to participate 

in decisions regarding acquisition and 

management of our national wildlife refuges.

LeGaL and PoLiCy GuidanCe

Management actions on national wildlife refuges 

are circumscribed by many mandates including laws 

and executive orders. Regulations that affect refuge 

management the most are listed below.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(1978)—Directs agencies to consult with native 

traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate 

policy changes necessary to protect and preserve 

Native American religious cultural rights and 

practices.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorizes the scientific 

investigation of antiquities on federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects 

taken or collected without a permit.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 

(1974)—Directs the preservation of historic and 

archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), 

as amended—Protects materials of archaeological 
128 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction 

and requires federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Requires federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be 

accessible to persons with disabilities.

Clean Water Act (1977)—Requires consultation with 

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

major wetland modifications.

Dingell-Johnson Act (1950)—Authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to provide financial assistance for state 

fish restoration and management plans and projects. 

It is financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers of 

rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. It is also known as 

the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)—Promotes 

wetland conservation for the public benefit to help 

fulfill international obligations in various migratory 

bird treaties and conventions. The act authorizes 

the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund monies. 

Endangered Species Act (1973)—Requires all federal 

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species.

Executive Order No. 7023 (1935)—Establishes Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and 

breeding ground for birds.” 

Executive Order 11988 (1977)—Requires federal 

agencies to provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of 

floods on human safety, and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by the floodplains.

Executive Order 12996, Management and General 

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It 

also presents four principles to guide management of 

the Refuge System.

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites 

(1996)—Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such 

sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the 

confidentiality of sacred sites.

Executive Order 13443, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage 

and Wildlife Conservation (2007)—Directs 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.

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

integrated management systems to control or contain 

undesirable plant species and an interdisciplinary 

approach with the cooperation of other federal and 

state agencies.

Federal Records Act (1950)—Requires the preservation 

of evidence of the government’s organization, functions, 

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

basic historical and other information.

Federal Reserved Water Right (1999)—This compact, 

entered into by the state of Montana and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, settles the reserved water rights 

for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. The 

settlement has been ratified by the Montana legislature 

and approved by appropriate federal agencies and the 

Montana Water Court. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)—Directs the Secretary 

of the Interior to develop the policies and procedures 

necessary for carrying out fish and wildlife laws and 

to research and report on fish and wildlife matters. 

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

within the Department of the Interior, as well as the 

positions of Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 

and Director of the Service.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)—Allows 

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

agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

management purposes.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—Establishes 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gifts 

of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

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

waterfowl hunting.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designates 

the protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility; and enables the setting of seasons and 

other regulations, including the closing of areas, federal 

or nonfederal, to the hunting of migratory birds.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—Requires 

all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public 

participation in the planning and implementation of all 

actions. Federal agencies must integrate this act with 

other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision 

making. (From the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), 40 CFR 1500)

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as 

amended—Establishes as policy that the federal 

government is to provide leadership in the 

preservation of the nation’s prehistoric and historical 

resources. 
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966)—Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit 

any use of a refuge, provided such use is compatible 

with the major purposes for which the refuge was 

established.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997—Sets the mission and administrative policy for 

all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

mandates comprehensive conservation planning for all 

units of the Refuge System.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)—Requires federal agencies and museums 

to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession.

Pittman-Robertson Act (1937)—Taxes the purchase of 

ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds 

to be distributed to the states for wildlife restoration. 

It is also called the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration 

Act or P-R Act. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allows the use of 

refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient 

funds are available to manage the uses.

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Requires programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for 

all facilities and programs funded by the federal 

government to ensure that any person can participate 

in any program.

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

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

the management of refuges within the Refuge System; 

facilitates partnerships between the Refuge System 

and nonfederal entities to promote public awareness 

of the resources of the Refuge System and public 

participation in the conservation of the resources; and 

encourages donations and other contributions.

Wilderness Act (1964)—The Wilderness Act of 1964 

(Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C.1131-1136)) established 

the National Wilderness Preservation System and a 

process for federal and land management agencies, 

including the Service, to recommend wilderness 

areas to Congress. The Act defines wilderness as 

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where 

man and his works dominate the landscape, is 

hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its 

community of life are untrammeled by man, where 

man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” An 

area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this 

act an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, which is protected 

and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions 

and which (1) generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint 

of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 

5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, 

geological, or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historical value.

Appendix B— Key Legislation and Policies 129

Section 7 Biological Evaluation

Appendix C

intra-service section 7 biological evaluation form

For

Development and Implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

Originating Person: Bill West, Jeff Warren, and Laura King

Telephone Number: 406/276/3536

Date: May 7, 2009

I. Region: 6

II. Service Activity (Program): Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge—

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

 A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area:

 Gray wolf, experimental population, non-essential

 B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area:

 None

 C. Candidate species within the action area: None

IV. Geographic area or station name and action: 

 Station: Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

 Action: Development and implementation of Comprehensive Conservation Plan

V. Location: map attached (Figure 1 of the accompanying CCP) 

 A. Ecoregion Number and Name:

 Red Rock Lakes is located in Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region, within the

 Upper Missouri, Yellowstone, and Upper Columbia Rivers Ecosystem in southwestern 

 Montana. 

 B. County and State: Beaverhead County, Montana

 C. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

 Refuge is located 47 miles west of West Yellowstone and 38 miles east of the town 

 of Lima, Montana

 D. Species/habitat occurrence:

 Gray Wolf: There are no established packs on the refuge but wolves have recently 

 begun utilizing the refuge and the surrounding Centennial Valley.
132 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

VI. Description of proposed action:

This proposed action will implement the goals, objectives, and strategies of Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive conservation plan for the next 15 years, in addition to 

fulfilling the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

There will be improved management of wetland habitats for trumpeter swans and other 

waterfowl. Management will focus on maintaining high wetland productivity through infrequent 

drawdowns of modified and created wetlands to benefit breeding and migrating waterfowl. The 

management of riparian areas will be designed to benefit migratory bird species and adfluvial 

Arctic grayling. Some modified wetlands will be restored back to free-flowing streams and 

associated riparian corridors. Management actions (such as prescriptive cattle grazing and 

prescribed fire) will be directed toward specific habitat and wildlife objectives, with increased 

and improved oversight, monitoring, and research (when appropriate) conducted to assess if 

management objectives are being met. If bison become designated as free-ranging wildlife 

in Montana, the refuge will study the impact of participating in state-wide reintroduction 

initiatives.

Although there are no known established wolf packs on the refuge or in the surrounding 

Centennial Valley, wolves have recently been utilizing the refuge. During public scoping there 

were concerns raised by the public, in particular cattle grazers on and off the refuge, regarding 

potential future wolf predation on cattle. The Service added the following strategy to the CCP 

to address impacts from wolves should this occur:

Do not permit lethal control of carnivores (such as wolf, grizzly bear, and 

mountain lion) on the refuge to protect cattle used in the prescribed grazing 

program without permission from the refuge manager, a special use permit, and 

consultation with other partners who have successfully used nonlethal methods 

for controlling wolves preying on cattle.

Visitor Services

Management will emphasize improving and maintaining high-quality public opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreation for visitors of all abilities. Visitors will be better oriented to 

the refuge through accurate brochures and limited signage. Some of the criteria for all public 

use programs is to (1) ensure all proposed uses are compatible, (2) visitors know that they 

are visiting a national wildlife refuge, (3) visitors understand the specific regulations in place 

to provide for their safety and protection of the refuge resources and wildlife, and (4) any 

additional visitor facilities and signage complement the refuge's wilderness setting. In this 

plan, additional environmental education and interpretation opportunities will be provided in 

order to better orient the public while fostering support for refuge programs through a better 

understanding and awareness of the values of the refuge and Centennial Valley.

Hunting programs will continue to be modified or expanded to provide quality hunting 

experiences while ensuring that trumpeter swans and other priority migratory birds are 

provided protected resting areas. An auto tour route along roads open to the public will be 

developed and interpreted through a brochure and minimal signage. An accessible hunting/

photo blind will be provided for photographers and hunters with disabilities.

Facilities and Staff

Refuge and visitor services facilities will continue to be maintained, including historical 

structures that are being used. The staff numbers and refuge housing has remained fairly 

stagnant since the 1950s. The refuge currently has five full-time staff members, including one 

biologist. In order to implement this plan, additional staff will be required. Up to four residences 

will be needed to accommodate additional staff. These residences will complement the other 

refuge buildings and be constructed within the same general area as the current refuge houses 

and headquarters.
Appendix C— Section 7 Biological Evaluation 133

VII. Description of the proposed action:

 A. Explanation of the effects of the action on species and critical habitats in items III. A, B, 

 and C:

Gray Wolf: Implementing the CCP will not have detrimental effects on gray wolves. The 

actions proposed in the CCP will conserve or enhance the habitat and prey that wolves 

utilize. It is difficult to predict if a wolf pack will become established in the valley and 

if any issues will arise regarding cattle grazers. The CCP does briefly address this in a 

strategy. The CCP does not completely discount lethal methods to address future issues. 

Nevertheless, this would be the last resort, requiring management approval and a special 

use permit.

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: 

The refuge is surrounded by cattle ranches and also utilizes prescriptive cattle grazing as 

a habitat management tool. Cattle grazing on the refuge is limited to late season (i.e., after 

July 10) and most cattle are off the refuge by mid-September. This (1) limits the time that 

wolf depredation on cattle can occur, (2) ensures that abundant native prey are available 

for wolves, and (3) provides for larger calves when permitees put cattle on the refuge. 

These factors have been successful to date in preventing wolf depredation on cattle used for 

habitat management. There are still concerns, expressed by the public, that wolves have 

the potential to depredate cattle on the refuge. In anticipation of this occurring, a strategy 

was added to the final CCP that will allow lethal control of wolves with refuge manager 

approval and a special use permit. Before this will be permitted, the Service will work with 

other partners, including the state and livestock owners, to exhaust all nonlethal methods.
134 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

VIII. Effect determination and response requested: (*=optional)

 A. Listed species/designated critical habitat:

 

Determination Response requested

no effect to species/critical habitat

 (species/unit: )

 X *Concurrence

may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect species/critical habitat

(species/unit: gray wolf )

 X Concurrence

no effect to species/critical habitat

 (species/unit: )

 Formal Consultation

 

Bill West Date

Project Leader

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

Lima, MT

IX. Reviewing ESO Evaluation:

 A. Concurrence Noncurrence 

 B. Formal consultation required 

 C. Conference required 

 D. Informal conference required 

 

R. Mark Wilson, Ecological Services 

Supervisor, Ecological Services

Helena, MT

 

Date
Appendix D

Preparers

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

planning team shown below.

Team Member Position Work Unit

Suzanne Wildlife refuge specialist (assistant Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Beauchaine manager) Refuge, Lima, MT

Laurel Bowen Editor TBC Solutions, Clinton, TN

Bob Brannon Area biologist Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; 

region 3; Sheridan, Montana

Mark Ely Geographic information system (GIS) 

specialist

Division of Planning, region 6, 

Lakewood, CO

Laura King Planning team leader Division of Planning, region 6, 

Cayuga, ND

Karen Newlon Former biological science technician 

(wildlife)

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, MT

Mike Parker Former Refuge manager, through 8/08 Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, MT

Jeff Warren Wildlife biologist Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, MT

Bill West Refuge manager Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, MT

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

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

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

completeness of this document.

Contributor Title Agency

Steve Berenzen Former refuge supervisor USFWS

Glenn Boltz Fisheries biologist USFWS

Rick Coleman Assistant regional director, Refuge 

System USFWS

Tim Covino Graduate student, hydrology Montana State University

Steve Custer Professor, earth sciences Montana State University

John Esperance

Sheri Fetherman

Chief, Comprehensive and Land 

Protection Planning

Chief, Division of Education and Visitor 

Services

USFWS

USFWS

Sean Fields Wildlife biologist/GIS USFWS
136 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Contributor Title Agency

Brian Hackett Range specialist BLM

Dave Hamilton Ecologist USGS

Shannon Heath Outdoor recreation planner USFWS

Lynn Kaeding Fisheries biologist USFWS

Richard Keigley Research ecologist USGS

Wayne King Wildlife biologist USFWS

Nathan Korb Former Master's candidate Colorado State University

Murray Laubhan Former research ecologist USGS

Rachel Laubhan Wildlife biologist USFWS

Peter Lesica Range management consultant Independent consultant

Brian McGlynn Professor, watershed hydrology Montana State University

Jim Mogen Fisheries biologist USFWS

Jana Mohrman Hydrologist USFWS

Deb Parker Writer and editor USFWS

Ken Pierce Geologist emeritus USGS

David Redhorse Former Native American liaison USFWS

Jay Rotella Professor of ecology Montana State University

Dean Rundle Refuge supervisor USFWS

Rick Schroeder Wildlife biologist USGS

Richard Sodja Wildlife biologist USGS

Michael Spratt Chief, Division of Refuge Planning USFWS

Meg Van Ness Regional archeologist USFWS

Brant Loflin Zone archeologist USFWS
Date

 Date

Appendix E

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—Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge” 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. 

Steve Guertin Date

Regional Director, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Richard A. Coleman, PhD Date

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Dean Rundle 

Refuge Supervisor, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Bill West 

Refuge Manager

Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Lima, MT

 
138 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Finding of No Significant Impact

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Four management alternatives for Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuges were assessed as to their 

effectiveness in achieving the refuges’ purposes and 

their impacts on the human environment. 

■ Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, 

would continue current management. 

■ Alternative B acknowledges the importance of 

naturally functioning ecological communities 

on the refuge. However, alternations of the 

landscape (such as creating and modifying 

wetlands, impounding and diverting water, 

invasive species) prevent managing the refuge 

solely as a naturally functioning ecological 

community. Some of these changes have 

been significant and will require “hands on” 

management actions during the life of this 

plan, including the continued treatment of 

invasive species. Two created ponds would 

be restored to naturally functioning riparian 

areas, providing spawning habitat for one of 

the last known endemic populations of adfluvial 

Arctic grayling in the contiguous United 

States. The remaining wetlands would be 

maintained, managed, and protected for the 

benefit of migratory birds, including trumpeter 

swans. The refuge management actions would 

continue to support regional and national 

plans for federal trust species while continuing 

to work closely with the state on managing 

resident wildlife populations. Visitor services 

programs (such as hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and outreach and 

interpretation programs) would be improved 

and expanded while maintaining the wilderness 

characteristics of the refuge.

■ Alternative C acknowledges the importance of 

a naturally functioning ecosystem. Management 

action emphasis would be placed on allowing 

wetland and riparian habitats to function 

naturally through the restoration of all created 

and modified wetlands and elimination of water 

diversions. The refuge would continue to 

support regional and national plans for federal 

trust species, including the trumpeter swan. 

Visitor services programs (such as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education, outreach, and 

interpretation programs) would be improved 

and expanded while maintaining the wilderness 

characteristics of the refuge.

■ Alternative D acknowledges the importance of 

a naturally functioning ecosystem. Management 

action emphasis would be placed on the 

restoration of all natural processes, including 

the restoration of wetland and riparian 

habitats. The refuge would continue to support 

regional and national plans for federal trust 

species, including the trumpeter swan. The 

refuge would place emphasis on creating a 

wilderness setting in all areas away from refuge 

headquarters. Visitor services programs would 

promote a wilderness experience with little to 

no signage and interpretation.

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 Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge was established and 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 Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation). 

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.
Appendix E — Environmental Compliance 139

■ 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.

Steve Guertin 

Regional Director, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

 Date

Appendix F

Compatibility Determinations

Refuge Name: Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge

Date Established: April 22, 1935

ESTABLISHING AND 

ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES

■ Executive Order 7023, April 22, 1935 

■ Executive Order 7172, September 4, 1935

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

Act)

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

U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended

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

Resources Act of 1986)

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

(Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

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

Refuge System Administration Act)

REFUGE PURPOSES

■ “As a refuge and breeding ground for wild birds 

and animals.” (Executive Order 7023)

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

other management purpose, for migratory 

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

Conservation Act))

■ “Suitable for—(1) incidental 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.” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1, 

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

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

■ “The conservation of the wetlands of the 

Nation in order to maintain the public benefits 

they provide and to help fulfill international 

obligations contained in various migratory bird 

treaties and conventions.” (16 U.S.C. § 3901(b) 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986))

■ “For the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources ... for the benefit of 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such 

acceptance may be subject to the terms of any 

restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition 

of servitude.” (16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4), (b)(1) 

(Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956))

■ “Conservation, management, and ... restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats ... for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.” (16 U.S.C. § 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act))

■ “Wilderness areas ... shall be administered for 

the use and enjoyment of the American people 

in such manner as will leave them unimpaired 

for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, 

and so as to provide for the protection 

of these areas, the preservation of their 

wilderness character, and for the gathering and 

dissemination of information regarding their 

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

1131 (Wilderness Act))

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SYSTEM MISSION

The mission of the System is to administer 

a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations 

of Americans.

DESCRIPTION OF USE: BIG GAME 

HUNTING

Hunting in the Centennial Valley is a traditional 

form of wildlife-dependent recreation. Waterfowl 

hunting has been allowed on the refuge since its 

establishment. However, big game hunting on the 
142 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

refuge was not allowed until 1952 when a limited 

moose hunt was initiated. This limited hunt occurred 

until 1958. From 1959 to 1962, the only hunting 

allowed on the refuge was for waterfowl. A very 

limited pronghorn hunt was allowed in 1963 in the 

northeastern corner of the refuge. This hunt area 

was expanded in 1964 to include all refuge lands on 

the north side of the refuge (north of Lower Lake, 

River Marsh area and Upper Lake). In 1965 hunting 

of waterfowl, elk, deer, pronghorn, and moose was 

allowed on the refuge. The hunt was separated in 

space with waterfowl hunting occurring on Lower 

Lake, deer and elk hunting occurring south of South 

Valley Road (Red Rock Pass Road), pronghorn 

hunting occurring on the north side of the refuge 

(north of River Marsh, and Upper and Lower Red 

Rock lakes), and moose hunting occurring in the 

southeastern corner of the refuge (also known as the 

willow fen area). Big game and waterfowl hunting 

have continued on the refuge, using various scenarios 

of time and space separation to manage potential and 

observed conflicts. 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge proposes 

to continue and expand opportunities for big game 

hunting that are compatible with refuge purposes. 

Hunting is identified as a priority public use of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System under the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. Hunting of deer (white-tailed and mule), 

pronghorn, elk, and moose will be permitted in 

designated hunting areas on the refuge. Hunting 

will be conducted in accordance with Montana 

state regulations and refuge-specific regulations. 

When appropriate, zoning (utilizing time and space 

separation) will be used to resolve conflicts with 

other user groups.

The refuge big game hunting program objectives are 

to (1) control and maintain ungulate populations at a 

level that is compatible with plant and wildlife animal 

communities on the refuge (for example, to prevent 

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

provide the public with high-quality wildlife-oriented 

recreation. Managing elk will also have a beneficial 

impact on plant communities outside of the refuge.

The refuge proposes to expand opportunities to hunt 

deer, elk, and pronghorn on the refuge. The hunting 

area will be delineated by physical features (such as 

roads and creeks). To create a contiguous hunting 

area and eliminate hunting boundary confusion, 

moose hunting will be opened throughout the area 

west and north of South Valley Road (Red Rock Pass 

Road), and north to Elk Springs Creek. The area 

south of South Valley Road will be closed to moose 

hunting to eliminate a road hunting issue. Areas in 

the northern section of the refuge will be opened to 

deer, elk, and pronghorn hunting. The refuge will 

address illegal road hunting by adopting a regulation 

that no big game hunting will be permitted within 50 

yards of the center line of any county or refuge road.

Seasons and regulations vary for each big game 

species. The refuge will continue the practice of 

opening moose hunting later than the state season, 

around mid-October. In collaboration with MFWP, 

this hunting season may be modified (lengthened 

or shortened further) in the future to meet habitat 

and population objectives. Refuge staff estimate 

800 hunter visits during the big game season. 

Hunting pressure varies but is usually heaviest 

during the opening of each season.

Access will be on foot for a majority of the area 

because most of the hunting area exists in Red 

Rock Lakes Wilderness. However, stock animals 

will be allowed south of South Valley Road (Red 

Rock Pass Road), mainly to allow access into the 

Centennial Mountains. Stock may be used in order 

to retrieve big game on the refuge. Stock may 

not be used in areas north of the South Valley 

Road (Red Rock Pass Road) except for retrieval 

purposes. There will be one accessible blind 

downriver from Lower Lake.

A

Adequate funding exists to administer the big 

game hunt program. The refuge will require one 

existing or proposed staff person to maintain law 

enforcement credentials. In addition, existing law 

enforcement partnerships with the Bureau of Land 

Management and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

will continue.

A

The direct effects of hunting on big game include 

mortality, wounding, and changes in distribution. 

However, regulated big game hunting has been 

used as a management tool to control ungulate 

populations, which helps ensure high-quality 

habitats. This results in healthy individuals and 

populations of big game species. In addition, it is 

well recognized that hunting has given many people 

a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better 

understanding of the importance of conserving 

their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to 

the Refuge System mission. Despite the potential 

negative impacts of hunting, a goal of the refuge 

is to provide opportunities for quality wildlifedependent recreation. By law, hunting is one of 

the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. The key focus is to offer a safe 

quality program and maintain adverse impacts 

within acceptable limits.

Hunting on the refuge does affect big game 

movements, distribution, and behavior. Big game 

species will likely spend more time in wooded 

habitats during the day as well as in closed areas 

(regardless of habitat type) on the refuge. Hunting 

also increases agitation, nervousness, and energetic 

expenditures associated with running from hunters 
Appendix F— Compatibility Determinations 143

and the sounds of weapons being fired. Changing 

the areas where hunting is allowed from one year 

to the next may increase these impacts because big 

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

every year. This will also negatively impact wildlife 

viewing opportunities because there may not be a 

particular area each year where big game animals 

will congregate. Areas on the refuge that have 

traditionally been closed to hunting provide some 

of the best big game viewing opportunities to see 

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

typically congregate in these closed areas.

Direct negative impacts of big game hunting on 

other wildlife will be minimal because hunting occurs 

in the fall when breeding and nesting seasons are 

over. Most land birds and many of the waterfowl 

have migrated out of the valley when peak big game 

hunting occurs. Other birds (such as owls, ravens, 

and magpies) do remain in the area during hunting 

season; these species of birds actually benefit from 

the added forage created by the remains of harvested 

animals. Any disturbance impacts on most predators 

and scavengers will probably be outweighed by this 

increase in food in the form of gut piles and carcass 

remains. 

Recreational hunting activities may, in some cases, 

result in competition for limited resources (such as 

preferred campsites or use areas) between hunters 

and other refuge users. However, campsites are 

typically available even during the peak of hunting 

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

hunting are still open to other wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities such as wildlife viewing and 

wildlife photography. Some big game animals tend 

to congregate in the closed areas. This behavior may 

ultimately provide refuge visitors with increased 

opportunities to view animals such as moose, elk, and 

deer. However, the aesthetic value of viewing may be 

diminished by the occasional sound of gunshots.

D

Recreational big game hunting is a compatible use at 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

S

The refuge big game hunt program will be designed 

to provide quality experiences. A quality hunt 

experience means that

■ hunters are safe; 

■ hunters exhibit high standards of ethical 

behavior; 

■ hunters are provided with uncrowded 

conditions; 

■ hunters have reasonable harvest opportunities; 

■ hunters are clear on which areas are open and 

closed to hunting; 

■ minimal conflicts occur between hunters and 

other visitors, especially those engaging in 

wildlife-dependent priority public uses. 

The hunt program will include the following 

restrictions to reduce impacts: 

■ A limited hunt area (areas will be posted and 

enforced).

■ Use of stock animals to retrieve game.

■ Use of stock animals south of South Valley 

Road (Red Rock Pass Road) to access other 

areas of the Centennial Mountains.

■ Periodic biological and social monitoring and 

evaluation of the hunting program, including 

feedback from users to determine if objectives 

of a quality experience are being met.

■ To address illegal road hunting, no big game 

hunting will be permitted within 50 yards of 

the center line of any county or refuge road.

■ When the area open to big game hunting 

is expanded, special restrictions may be 

enforced to ensure the expanded hunting 

activities are conducted in a safe and ethical 

manner. This may include limiting the number 

of big game hunters, modifying hunting dates, 

and changing the method of harvest. This new 

hunting area includes the area north of South 

Valley Road, south of Red Rock Creek and 

west of Upper Red Rock Lake to the west 

boundary of the refuge. 

■ The refuge will continue to partner with 

MFWP to limit the number of moose hunters. 

Only eleven moose hunters are currently 

allowed in Hunting District 334, which 

encompasses the refuge.

■ The refuge will continue the practice of 

opening moose hunting later than the state 

season. In collaboration with MFWP, this 

hunting season may be modified (lengthened 

or shortened further) in the future to meet 

habitat and population objectives.

Hunter compliance with current state big game and 

refuge-specific regulations will be achieved through 

a combination of printed information, signing, 

outreach efforts, and enforcement of regulations by 

law enforcement officers.

JustiFiCation

Hunting is one of the six priority public uses of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing for a 

quality hunting program contributes to achieving 

one of the refuge goals. This program as described 

was determined to be compatible in view of the 

potential impacts that hunting, camping, and use 

of stock animals can have on the Service’s ability 

to achieve refuge purposes and goals. The refuge 

will be opened to big game hunting, with sufficient 

restrictions in place on hunting, use of stock 
144 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

animals, and other visitor services to ensure a quality 

hunting program.

Refuge hunt programs are designed to provide 

quality experiences. In general, hunting on refuges 

should be superior to that available on other public 

lands, which may require special restrictions (Refuge 

Manual 8RM5). Measures are often used to ensure 

quality. The restricted hunt program is proposed on 

the refuge to (1) provide a quality hunting experience 

that meets refuge guidelines and policies, (2) prevent 

conflicts with other priority wildlife-dependent 

public uses, and (3) control and maintain ungulate 

populations at a level that is compatible with plant 

and wildlife animal communities on the refuge and 

meets habitat objectives (for example preventing 

over-browsing of willow communities) outlined in the 

refuge’s comprehensive conservation plan.

The hunting areas provide distinct, manageable 

units that can be easily delineated and enforced. It 

is anticipated that big game will find sufficient food 

resources and resting places, both inside and outside 

of the hunt area; the physiological condition of big 

game and other wildlife species will not be impaired; 

and their overall state and national population status 

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

in jeopardy of becoming federally threatened or 

endangered. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2024

DESCRIPTION OF USE: 

WATERFOWL HUNTING

The Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan proposes to 

continue to provide limited opportunities for 

waterfowl hunting (a wildlife-dependent recreation) 

that are compatible with the refuge’s purpose. 

Hunting is identified as a priority public use of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System under the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Hunting of waterfowl (limited to coots, ducks, and 

geese) will be permitted in a designated hunting area 

on and surrounding the Lower Red Rock Lake (also 

known as Lower Lake) and River Marsh area. 

Hunting will be consistent with annual Montana 

state hunting regulations and seasons, as well as 

applicable specific refuge and federal regulations. 

The waterfowl hunting season generally falls within 

the period from October through early January. 

However, waterfowl hunting on the refuge typically 

does not occur after October because all water is 

frozen, and very few waterfowl remain in the area. 

There will be no limit on the number of hunters and 

hunt days and one accessible blind site downriver 

of the Lower Lake water control structure (WCS) 

will be available. Refuge staff estimate 300 hunter 

visits during the waterfowl season. A majority of 

hunter visits occur on the first two weekends of the 

year. Hunting pressure is almost nonexistent during 

weekdays and after the second weekend of the 

hunting season. 

Access will be on foot and by nonmotorized boats for 

a majority of the area because most of the hunting 

area exists in Red Rock Lake Wilderness. However, 

motorized boats will be allowed from the Lower 

Red Rock Lake WCS downstream on Red Rock 

Creek. During the hunting season, hunting dogs will 

be allowed off leash and under voice control for the 

purpose of retrieving waterfowl. 

A

Adequate funding exists to administer the waterfowl 

hunt program. One existing or proposed staff 

person will be required to maintain law enforcement 

credentials. In the interim, law enforcement 

assistance is available during periods of heavy 

use. The Service will also continue to maintain its 

enforcement partnerships with the Bureau of Land 

Management and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

A

Adequate funding exists to administer the waterfowl 

hunt program. There is currently no law enforcement 

staff on-site. There is some law enforcement presence 

during periods of heavy use. Partnerships have been 

developed with the Bureau of Land Management and 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to assist with law 

enforcement needs. This plan does propose adding 

law enforcement capabilities for the staff.

By its very nature, waterfowl hunting has very 

few, if any, positive effects on waterfowl and other 

birds while the activity is occurring. However, it is 

well recognized that this activity has given many 

people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better 

understanding of the importance of conserving their 

habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the 

Refuge System mission. Furthermore, despite the 

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

provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation. By law, hunting is one of the six priority 

public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

A key concern is to offer a safe and quality program 

and to keep adverse impacts within acceptable limits.

Although hunting directly impacts individual birds, 

the amount of waterfowl harvest is not expected 

to have a measurable effect on refuge, national or 

international populations, especially since waterfowl 

hunting activity is extremely limited (in time and 

space) on the refuge. For example, the refuge 

staff estimates that approximately 300 hunter 

visits are made annually to the refuge. Over the 

entire season, the average hunter visit per day will 

be approximately 3.0 during an average season. 

However, since Lower Red Rock Lake freezes up 

around November 1, the average on the refuge is 

probably closer to 9.1 hunter visits per day. Hunting 
Appendix F— Compatibility Determinations 145

may be either compensatory or additive to natural 

mortality (Anderson 1995). Compensatory mortality 

occurs when hunting substitutes for other forms of 

mortality (such as disease, competition, predation, 

and severe weather). Additive mortality occurs 

when hunting compounds the total mortality. In 

some cases, hunting can be used as a management 

tool to control populations. In concert with Canada, 

Mexico, and multistate flyway councils, the Service 

and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks regulate 

hunting so that harvest does not reduce populations 

to unsustainable levels.

Direct effects of hunting on waterfowl are mortality, 

wounding, and disturbance (Delong 2002). Hunting 

can alter behavior (such as foraging time), population 

structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife 

(Bartelt 1987, Cole and Knight 1990, Madsen 

1985, Owens 1977, Raveling 1979, Thomas 1982, 

White-Robinson 1982). In Denmark, hunting was 

documented to affect the diversity and number of 

birds using a site (Madsen 1995). Bird diversity 

changed from predominantly mute swan and mallard 

to a more even distribution of a greater number of 

species when a sanctuary was established. Hence, 

species diversity increased with the elimination 

of hunting. There also appears to be an inverse 

relationship between the number of birds using 

an area and hunting intensity (DeLong 2002). In 

Connecticut, lesser scaup were observed to forage 

less in areas that were heavily hunted (Cronan 

1957). In California, the numbers of northern pintails 

on Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge nonhunt 

areas increased after the first week of hunting and 

remained high until the season was over in early 

January (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Following 

the close of hunting season, ducks generally 

increased their use of the hunt area; however, use 

was lower than before the hunting season began. 

Human disturbance to staging birds and other 

wildlife using the open waters and marshes on the 

refuge will occur as a result of hunting activity. 

Migratory and wintering waterfowl generally 

attempt to minimize time spent in flight and 

maximize foraging time because flight requires 

considerably more energy than any other activity, 

other than egg laying. Human disturbance associated 

with hunting includes loud noises and rapid 

movements, such as those produced by shotguns 

and boats powered by motors. This disturbance, 

especially when repeated over a period of time, 

compels waterfowl to change food habits, feed 

only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas 

(Belanger and Bedard 1990, Madsen 1995, Wolder 

1993). Disturbance levels from hunting activity 

outside Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge were 

found to be high enough to force wintering black 

ducks into a pattern of nocturnal feeding within 

surrounding salt marshes and diurnal resting within 

refuge impoundments (Morton et al. 1989a, 1989b). 

Unhunted populations have been documented to 

behave differently from hunted ones (Wood 1993). 

These impacts can be reduced by the presence of 

sanctuary areas where hunting does not occur, and 

birds can feed relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries 

or nonhunt areas have been identified as the most 

common solution to disturbance problems caused 

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

extensive disturbances may cause large numbers 

of waterfowl to leave disturbed areas and migrate 

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

hunting disturbance effects were experimentally 

tested by establishing two sanctuaries (Madsen 

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

became two of the most important staging areas 

for coastal waterfowl. Numbers of dabbling ducks 

and geese increased four- to twenty-fold within the 

sanctuary (Madsen 1995). Thus, sanctuary areas are 

very important to minimize disturbance to waterfowl 

populations to ensure their continued use of the 

refuge.

Intermittent hunting can be a means of minimizing 

disturbance, especially if rest periods in between 

hunting events are weeks rather than days (Fox and 

Madsen 1997). It is common for refuges with heavily 

used hunt programs to manage their programs with 

nonhunt days. At Sacramento National Wildlife 

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

in hunt units during nonhunt days, but they were 

almost entirely absent in those same units on hunt 

days (Wolder 1993). In addition, northern pintails, 

American wigeon, and northern shovelers decreased 

time spent feeding on days when hunting occurred 

on public shooting areas, as compared to nonhunt 

days (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). However, 

intermittent hunting may not always greatly 

reduce hunting impacts. At Sacramento National 

Wildlife Refuge, the intermittent hunting of three 

hunt days per week results in lower northern 

pintail densities on hunt areas during nonhunt days 

than establishing nonhunt areas (Wolder 1993). In 

Germany, several studies reported a range from a 

few days to approximately 3 weeks for waterbird 

numbers to recover to pre-disturbance levels (Fox 

and Madsen 1997). The proposed hunt program at 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge will not be 

intermittent due to the limited nature of the hunting 

season, limited use that occurs during weekdays, and 

the limited amount of area that is open to hunting.

Boating activity associated with hunting during the 

fall can alter distribution, reduce use of particular 

habitats or entire areas by waterfowl and other 

birds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, 

and cause premature departure from areas (Knight 

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

and hunting have been found to be the two main 

activities that disturb waterfowl (Korschgen et al. 

1985). In Connecticut, selection of feeding sites by 

lesser scaup was influenced by disturbances from 

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

In Germany, boat pressure on wintering waterfowl 

had reached such a high level that it was necessary 

to establish larger sanctuaries, implement a seasonal 
146 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

closure on water sports and angling, and impose 

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

Impacts of boating can occur even at low densities, 

given their noise, speed, and ability to cover 

extensive areas in a short amount of time. However, 

impacts from boating at Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge will be greatly reduced because a 

majority of the proposed hunting area will be open 

only to nonmotorized boating. Thus, much of the 

disturbance impacts (identified above due to quick 

movements, noise, and the ability to cover large 

areas in a short amount of time) will not apply to this 

refuge. As such, the use of nonmotorized boats is 

one way of minimizing disturbance to waterbirds at 

this refuge. In addition, allowing only nonmotorized 

boating on a majority of the hunting area provides 

for a very unique experience not easily found in 

southwest Montana. Each year, the refuge staff 

receives comments from hunters who specifically 

come to this refuge because of the nonmotorized 

regulations.

Additional impacts from hunting activity include 

conflicts with individuals participating in other 

wildlife-dependent priority public uses, such as 

canoeing, kayaking, and wildlife observation. 

However, the refuge currently provides a minimum 

of 3,200 acres of wetlands that are closed to hunting, 

but open to nonmotorized boating and wildlife 

observation. In addition, approximately 4,500 acres 

of upland habitat is closed to hunting but open 

for visitors to participate in wildlife observation 

activities on foot.

D

Waterfowl hunting is a compatible use at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

S

The refuge’s waterfowl hunt program will be 

designed to provide quality experiences. A quality 

hunt experience means that 

■ hunters are safe;

■ hunters exhibit high standards of ethical 

behavior; 

■ hunters are provided with uncrowded 

conditions; 

■ hunters have reasonable harvest opportunities; 

■ hunters are clear on which areas are open and 

closed to hunting; 

■ minimal conflicts occur between hunters and 

other visitors, especially those engaging in 

wildlife-dependent priority public uses. 

The hunt program will include the following 

restrictions to reduce impacts: 

■ a limited hunt area

■ use of nonmotorized boats, except downstream 

(west) of the Lower Red Rock Lake WCS

■ use of closed areas, as needed, to provide 

sufficient feeding and resting habitat for 

waterfowl 

■ periodic biological and social monitoring and 

evaluation of the hunting program, including 

feedback from users to determine if the 

objectives for a high-quality experience (as 

defined above) are being met

Hunter compliance with current migratory bird 

and refuge regulations will be achieved through a 

combination of printed information, signing, outreach 

efforts, and enforcement of regulations by law 

enforcement officers.

JustiFiCation

Hunting is one of the six priority public uses of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing for a 

quality hunting program contributes to achieving 

one of the refuge goals. This program as described 

was determined to be compatible, in view of potential 

impacts that hunting and supporting activities 

(boating) can have on the Service’s ability to achieve 

refuge purposes and goals. The refuge will be opened 

to waterfowl hunting, with sufficient restrictions in 

place on hunting, boating, and other public uses to 

ensure that an adequate amount of quality feeding 

and resting habitat would be available in relatively 

undisturbed areas (sanctuaries) for a majority of 

waterfowl and other wetland birds using the refuge.

Refuge hunt programs are designed to provide highquality experiences. In general, hunting on refuges 

should be superior to that available on other public 

lands, which may require special restrictions (Refuge 

Manual 8RM5). Measures are often used to ensure 

quality. The limited hunt program is proposed on the 

refuge to (1) provide a quality hunting experience 

that meets refuge guidelines and policies, (2) provide 

sufficient waterfowl sanctuary, and (3) prevent 

conflicts with other priority wildlife-dependent public 

uses.

Consolidation of the hunting area into a single block 

of land provides a distinct, manageable unit that can 

be easily delineated, and enforced. It is anticipated 

that birds will find sufficient food resources and 

resting places, both inside and outside the hunt area, 

such that their abundance and use of the refuge 

will not be measurably lessened, hunting pressure 

will not cause premature departure from the area, 

the physiological condition of waterfowl and other 

waterbirds will not be impaired, their behavior 

and normal activity patterns will not be altered 

dramatically, and their overall population status will 

not be impaired.

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2024
Appendix F— Compatibility Determinations 147

DESCRIPTION OF USE: 

RECREATIONAL FISHING

Recreational fishing (a wildlife-dependent activity) 

has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public 

use, provided it is compatible with the purpose for 

which the refuge was established. An establishment 

authority for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, the Refuge Recreation Act, provides for 

“incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational 

development.” 

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

Elk Springs (west of Elk Lake Road) creeks under 

state river and stream seasons. Culver, Widgeon, and 

MacDonald ponds, and Elk Springs Creek (east of 

Elk Lake Road) are open seasonally 

(July 15–October 1). All other refuge waters are 

closed to fishing to protect breeding waterfowl and 

trumpeter swans. Game fish include native Westslope 

cutthroat trout (although mostly hybridized with 

nonnatives), Arctic grayling, and limited mountain 

whitefish. Nonnative game species include brook, 

Yellowstone cutthroat, and rainbow trout. There 

are unimproved parking areas at the ponds. Vehicle 

access points with minimal parking exist at two 

locations on Red Rock Creek and one each at Elk 

Springs and Odell creeks. Commercial guiding is not 

allowed.

Anglers must use nontoxic artificial lures or flies. 

Lead sinkers are prohibited. Fishing with bait is 

not permitted in order to reduce introduction of 

nonnative invasive species and increase the survival 

of released native fish. The refuge has not collected 

data on fishing use. From observations, Red Rock 

Creek receives the greatest fishing pressure. There 

is the potential for some Arctic grayling mortality 

due to such things as trampling of eggs and catch and 

release fishing. To minimize future impacts on Arctic 

grayling from fishing, no additional parking areas will 

be created.

The refuge does not stock nonnative fish species 

to protect Arctic grayling populations. A primary 

objective of the comprehensive conservation plan is 

to restore Arctic grayling and Westslope cutthroat 

trout populations. While refuge streams will be open 

in compliance with state regulations, fishing closures 

in target creeks and ponds may be implemented 

while restoration work is being completed.

The comprehensive conservation plan proposes the 

following fishing opportunities:

■ Until the structures are removed from Culver 

and MacDonald ponds, and the Arctic grayling 

fishery is restored to these areas and also to 

Widgeon Pond, all three will be open under 

state river and stream regulations to fishing 

from the bank, unless closure is necessary 

to protect nesting swans or adfluvial Arctic 

grayling restoration efforts. 

■ All refuge streams will be open to fishing in 

compliance with refuge, and the state’s river 

and stream regulations.

■ To protect native Arctic grayling and Westslope 

cutthroat populations, visitors will be 

encouraged to keep all nonnative fish they catch 

in accordance with state regulations.

■ Red Rock Creek west of the Lower Lake WCS 

will be opened to fishing. 

A

Sufficient resources are available at the current 

levels of fishing pressure. The refuge will continue 

to work with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to 

conduct fish and creel surveys.

A

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance 

to wildlife. This disturbance may have cumulative 

impacts on wildlife, habitat, and the fisheries 

resource. This includes more disturbances to wildlife, 

vegetation trampling, potential introduction and 

spread of aquatic nuisance species and invasive 

terrestrial plants, potential transmission of diseases 

including whirling disease, problems associated 

with disposal of human waste, and deposition of lead 

sinkers and fishing line. Birds or mammals feeding or 

resting may be disturbed by anglers fishing from the 

bank. The current visitor use is usually low enough 

that disturbance by anglers causes minimal impacts 

on most wildlife species. Opening the remaining 

creeks on the refuge to fishing should not impact 

Arctic grayling because they have not been found 

during surveys outside of Odell and Red Rock creeks. 

Educational efforts will be implemented to inform 

visitors to inspect, clean, and dry fishing equipment 

to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species.

D

Recreational fishing is a compatible use at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

S

■ To protect migratory waterbirds, fishing is not 

allowed on Swan Lake, Lower and Upper Red 

Rock lakes, and River Marsh between Upper 

and Lower Red Rock Lake. 

■ Fishing on the creeks is open according to 

Montana state river and stream seasons.

■ Until the structures are removed from Culver 

and MacDonald ponds, and the Arctic grayling 

fishery is restored to these areas and also to 

Widgeon Pond, all three will be open under 

state river and stream regulations unless 

closure is necessary to protect nesting swans or 

Arctic grayling restoration efforts.
148 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

■ Anglers must use nontoxic artificial lures or 

flies. 

■ Lead sinkers are prohibited. 

■ Fishing with bait is not permitted.

■ The harvest of nonnative game fish species is 

promoted.

■ Commercial guiding is not permitted.

■ Existing use is monitored to ensure that 

disturbance to wildlife continues to be minimal.

■ Existing signage is improved or replaced.

JustiFiCation

Based upon the biological impacts described 

above and in the environmental assessment, it is 

determined that recreational fishing within Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the purposes for 

which the refuge was established. One of the 

secondary goals of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is to provide opportunities for public fishing 

when compatible, and it is identified as a priority 

public use in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. Current recreational 

fishing at the refuge will support this goal with only 

minimal conflicts with the wildlife conservation 

mission of the Refuge System.

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2024

DESCRIPTION OF USE: WILDLIFE 

OBSERVATION AND PHOTOGRAPHY

Wildlife observation and photography are major 

public uses at the refuge. The beauty and uniqueness 

of the area combined with the abundance of various 

bird and mammal species draw over 12,000 visitors 

each year. The refuge will continue to support and 

enhance opportunities related to wildlife observation 

and photography. Supporting uses to assist visitors 

in wildlife observation and photography are 

vehicle access, foot access (including hiking trails), 

campgrounds, nonmotorized boat, and bicycle access. 

These supporting uses (access) will be controlled 

and regulated through the publication of refuge 

brochures and through information posted at the 

kiosks.

Wildlife observation and photography are two of the 

six wildlife-dependent recreational uses specified in 

the Improvement Act.

Wildlife observation and photography will be allowed 

across most of the refuge, with the exception of the 

closure of Shambow Pond and the area surrounding 

the residences, shop, and equipment yard. 

Foot travel, including hiking, snowshoeing, and 

cross-country skiing, is permitted throughout the 

refuge except for the above-mentioned closed areas.

Passenger vehicles, motorcycles and bicycles will 

be restricted to county and public refuge roads. 

Seasonal road closures, due to weather, limit access 

during the winter and spring months. Snowmobiles 

are not permitted on refuge roads and are allowed 

only on county roads. All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) 

must be licensed for highway use to be able to 

operate on county and refuge roads.

Nonmotorized boat access is seasonally allowed on 

Red Rock Creek, Upper and Lower Red Rock lakes 

and River Marsh which connects the two lakes. 

Boating access is difficult if a drought persists due to 

the shallowness of the lakes. Sailing is not permitted.

Horses, mules, llamas, and other animals used for 

riding or packing are permitted only for access into 

mountainous areas south of South Valley Road (Red 

Rock Pass Road). 

The CCP proposes to continue the above uses and 

add the following to improve wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography:

■ Update and improve refuge signs and 

brochures.

■ Develop an auto tour route.

■ Investigate the development of accessible 

habitat specific wildlife-viewing/photography 

areas, infrastructure or trails.

■ Work with the county road department to 

provide accessible pulloffs for the safe viewing 

of wildlife and photography.

■ Build one accessible photography/waterfowl 

hunting blind downstream from the Lower Red 

Rock Lakes WCS.

Av R

Developing new facilities outlined in the 

comprehensive conservation plan is closely tied to 

funding requests in the form of the refuge operation 

needs system and the maintenance management 

system projects. Existing programs such as current 

refuge directional signs and brochures can be 

updated with available resources.

A

Wildlife observation and photography can affect 

wildlife resources positively or negatively. A positive 

effect of public involvement for these priority public 

uses will be a better appreciation and more complete 

understanding of the refuge’s wildlife and habitats. 

That can translate into widespread and stronger 

support for the refuge, Refuge System, and the 

Service.

Walking and hiking is expected to minimally disturb 

wildlife and wildlife habitat at the current and 

proposed levels. Increased disturbance to wildlife 

will occur in areas regularly frequented by visitors, 
such as the campgrounds and trails. During snowfree months, the majority of visitors restrict their 

pedestrian use to the trails and parking areas, which 

concentrates these uses along the road system, 

minimizing disturbance to wildlife and habitats. The 

majority of bird species migrate out of the area in the 

winter months. Elk, pronghorn, and mule deer also 

tend to leave the valley. Winter pedestrian travel will 

have little to no impact on other species because of 

the inaccessibility of the refuge. White-tailed deer 

and moose around the headquarters are disturbed 

more frequently in the winter from pedestrian travel 

but can easily move away from those visitors who are 

snowshoeing or skiing.

Vehicular access, while restricted to the roads, allows 

visitors to cover more ground, potentially increasing 

the number of times an animal is disturbed, but it 

may be of shorter duration compared to pedestrian 

disturbance. Wildlife disturbance, especially impacts 

to moose from snowmobiles traveling through 

the refuge has not been studied. Snowmobiles are 

restricted to the county roads. Snowmobile use on 

the South Valley Road to Elk Lake Road is low 

at this time. The use may dramatically increase 

if a resort business opens up in Lakeview in the 

near future. Snowmobile use through the refuge 

on Elk Lake Road is relatively high (average 30 

snowmobiles/day). These visitors come from West 

Yellowstone and go up to Elk Lake Resort for 

lunch. This use needs to be monitored for impacts on 

wildlife.

Nonmotorized boating is restricted to Red Rock 

Creek and Upper Red Rock Lake from July 1 to 

freeze-up. Lower Red Rock Lake and River Marsh 

which connects the two lakes are open September 

1 to freeze-up. Kayaks and canoes are the typical 

nonmotorized boats used. Wildlife disturbance from 

human-powered boating displaces birds from the 

immediate area of the visitors. The slow speeds of 

the boats and large size of the lakes allow the birds 

to easily move to another area without further 

disturbance. This use needs to be monitored for 

impacts on wildlife. Educational efforts will be 

implemented to inform visitors to inspect, clean, 

and dry boating equipment to prevent the spread of 

aquatic nuisance species.

No cultural resources will be impacted. No impact on 

endangered species should occur. 

There may be temporary disturbance to wildlife near 

the activity. Direct short-term impacts may include 

minor damage from traffic on refuge roads and 

trails when wet and muddy. Temporary disturbance 

may occur due to facility improvements. However, 

suitable habitats exist nearby and effects on wildlife 

will be minor and nonpermanent.

The Service does not expect substantial cumulative 

impacts from these two priority uses in the near 

term, but it will be important for refuge staff to 

monitor these uses and, if necessary, respond to 

conserve high-quality wildlife resources.

Refuge staff, in collaboration with volunteers, 

will monitor and evaluate the effects of these 

priority public uses to discern and respond to any 

unacceptable impacts on wildlife or habitats. To 

mitigate those impacts, the refuge will close areas 

where birds such as bald eagles, colonial waterbirds, 

or swans are nesting. The Service expects no 

additional effects from providing these two priority 

uses.

D

Wildlife observation and photography are compatible 

uses at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

S

■ Wildlife observation and photography will be 

allowed across most of the refuge, with the 

exception of the closure of Shambow Pond and 

the area surrounding the residences, shop, and 

equipment yard. 

■ Foot travel, including hiking, snowshoeing, and 

cross-country skiing, is permitted throughout 

the refuge, except for around the residences, 

shop, equipment yard, and Shambow Pond.

■ Passenger vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles 

will be restricted to county and public refuge 

roads. Roads may be closed at any time due 

to weather and snow conditions. Snowmobiles 

are not permitted on refuge roads and are 

restricted to county roads. All terrain vehicles 

must be licensed for highway use to be able to 

operate on refuge and county roads.

■ Nonmotorized boat access is seasonally allowed 

on Red Rock Creek, Upper and Lower Red 

Rock lakes, and River Marsh which connects 

the two lakes. Boating access is difficult if a 

drought persists due to the shallowness of the 

lakes. Sailing is not permitted.

■ Horses, mules, llamas, and other animals used 

for riding or packing are permitted only for 

access into mountainous areas south of South 

Valley Road (Red Rock Pass Road). 

■ An increase in education and law enforcement 

patrols will minimize illegal or undesirable 

activity.

■ Newly constructed viewing areas will be 

designed to minimize disturbance impacts on 

wildlife and all refuge resources while providing 

a good opportunity to view wildlife in their 

natural environments.

Appendix F— Compatibility Determinations 149
150 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

JustiFiCation

According to the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, wildlife observation and 

photography are priority public use activities that 

should be encouraged and expanded where possible. 

It is through compatible public uses such as this that 

the public becomes aware of and provides support for 

refuges.

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2024

DESCRIPTION OF USE: ENVIRONMENTAL

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION

Environmental education and interpretation are 

both defined as wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses under the Improvement Act. Currently these 

programs have been opportunistic as time and staff 

allows. School group participation in environmental 

education can be limited due to road conditions and 

distance from communities. A few organized groups 

request tours and talks during the summer months. 

Interpretation is limited to brochures, information 

panels inside the headquarters visitor contact 

station, two standalone panels, and four kiosks. In 

addition, the refuge does not have an auto tour route 

or interpretation along current roads or designated 

trails.

The comprehensive conservation plan proposes 

to continue with the above uses, and add the 

following to improve environmental education and 

interpretation:

■ Hire a temporary visitor services technician to 

develop and carry out environmental education 

and interpretive programs.

■ The refuge website will be expanded to include 

educational tools, including Centennial Valley 

resource information, classroom projects, and 

online exercises.

■ Update refuge signs and brochures, identifying 

public trails and roads. 

■ Develop and interpret an auto tour route along 

roads currently open to the public. 

■ Replace three existing kiosks, add one new 

kiosk, and update all interpretive panels. 

■ Improve Sparrow Pond Trail so it is an 

accessible trail.

A

Funding for these activities is supported solely by 

annual operation and maintenance money. Resources 

are stretched in order to continue providing 

environmental education and interpretation at the 

refuge. Implementing new facilities outlined in the 

comprehensive conservation plan is closely tied to 

funding requests in the form of the refuge operation 

needs system and the maintenance management 

system projects. Existing programs such as current 

refuge directional signs and brochures can be 

updated with available resources.

A

The use of the refuge to provide interpretation and 

environmental education on the refuge may impose 

a low-level impact on those sites used for these 

activities. Impacts may include trampling vegetation 

and temporary disturbance to wildlife species in the 

immediate vicinity.

D

Environmental education and interpretation use are 

compatible uses at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge.

S

Visitors participating in environmental education 

and interpretation programs will follow all refuge 

regulations. On-site activities should be held where 

minimal impact will occur. 

JustiFiCation

One of the secondary goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is to provide opportunities for the 

public to develop an understanding and appreciation 

for wildlife when it is found compatible with other 

goals. The above uses are identified as priority 

public uses in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997.

Environmental education and interpretation are 

used to encourage an understanding in citizens of all 

ages to act responsibly in protecting wildlife and its 

habitat. These are tools used in building land ethics, 

developing support for the refuge, and decreasing 

wildlife violations. 

Environmental education at the refuge is incidental 

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

conduct these activities. However, the program is 

important and provides visitors with an awareness 

of refuge-specific issues such as wetland ecology, 

migratory bird management, and issues relating to 

the entire Refuge System.

Based on anticipated biological impacts and in the 

environmental assessment, it is determined that 

environmental education and interpretation on the 

refuge will not interfere with refuge habitat goals 

and objectives or the purposes for which it was 

established. Limits to access and monitoring can help 

mitigate any adverse impacts.

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2024
Appendix F— Compatibility Determinations 151

DESCRIPTION OF USE: CAMPING

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge manages 

two primitive campgrounds for visitors participating 

in wildlife-dependant recreation. Camping is 

not permitted elsewhere on the refuge. The 

campgrounds provide opportunities to participate 

in wildlife-dependent recreation without traveling 

great distances. Because of the distance to town 

and limited public land access, the campgrounds are 

used regularly by visitors who are bird watching, 

photographing wildlife, fishing, hunting, and 

hiking or biking the Continental Divide trails. 

Groups touring the valley and refuge also use the 

campgrounds for day use.

Camping is permitted year-round, but it primarily 

occurs from May through October with some use 

in November. Access to the campgrounds in the 

winter is limited to travel across snow-covered 

roads, and the vault toilets are not maintained. 

Visitors observing and photographing wildlife are 

the primary users during the summer, with hunters 

dominating in the fall. Camping is allowed for up 

to 16 consecutive days. Fires are only allowed in 

fire rings, and visitors can collect dead and downed 

material. Garbage must be packed out. Visitors to the 

campgrounds rarely litter. Food and carcass storage 

is required to protect grizzly and black bears, and 

visitors. The refuge will provide bear-proof storage 

containers for hikers, bicyclists, and motorcyclists, 

and for hunters to store carcasses.

Upper Lake campground receives the most use by 

visitors due to its beautiful scenery and location 

adjacent to the county road. It provides two vault 

toilets (not accessible), piped spring water, picnic 

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

road and all campsites need repairs. There are 

no hookups, parking, or turnarounds specifically 

for recreational vehicles (RVs). This limits RVs 

from using this campground, which provides more 

campsites for hikers, bicyclists, and vehicle campers. 

This minimizes conflicts between vehicles using 

generators and low-impact campers. There are 

eleven designated sites. There is a boat launch (not 

accessible) for nonmotorized boats. An informational 

kiosk is provided to inform the visitor about the 

refuge and its wildlife. Upper Red Rock Lake is open 

to nonmotorized boats from July 1 to freeze-up to 

protect breeding birds.

River Marsh campground provides two vault 

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

designated campsites here and it can accommodate 

RVs. This campground is primarily used during 

hunting seasons, especially waterfowl hunting 

because it provides immediate access to open hunt 

areas. Summer use does occur by wildlife observers 

who want to get away from the county road. There 

is a boat launch for nonmotorized boats. Lower 

Red Rock Lake is open to nonmotorized boats from 

September 1 to freeze-up to protect breeding birds.

Universally accessible toilets will replace old toilets 

at both campgrounds, along with an accessible 

campsite at River Marsh campground. Other 

improvements, such as food storage containers, 

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

the safety for visitors and the opportunities to use 

the refuge over multiple days. A recreational fee 

will be charged to help offset the maintenance of the 

campgrounds. 

A

Existing funding and staffing are adequate to 

maintain the refuge campgrounds to provide access 

to wildlife-dependent activities on and off the 

refuge. During the peak summer months, volunteers 

maintain the vault toilets, pick up litter, and clean 

campsites. They also make many contacts with 

visitors, educating them about the refuge and its 

wildlife. The campgrounds are both about 4 miles 

away from headquarters, which allows for easy 

access to patrol and monitor visitors. Operating 

the campgrounds as a fee unit will require, at a 

minimum, one full day a week of staff time for 

collecting and counting of money and increased law 

enforcement presence. The refuge contracts the 

pumping of the vault toilets. The Upper Lake toilets 

need to be pumped twice a year due to the high use 

and inadequate size of the vaults. The refuge could 

reduce pumping needs to once a year or less by 

replacing the old vault toilets with adequately sized, 

clean-smelling vault toilets. The new toilets will 

meet Architectural Barriers Act requirements. This 

improvement is dependent upon funding from the 

Visitor Facility Enhancement Program.

A

Some short-term impacts, such as littering, 

vegetation trampling, and wildlife disturbance, can 

be expected, but these are not anticipated to be 

significant at current or increased levels of camping. 

This is because the vast majority of visitors travel 

the long distances over rough roads to enjoy the 

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

Isolation buffers the refuge from visitors looking for 

a party location. Very few problems have occurred 

with visitors using the campgrounds.

The Upper Lake campground is surrounded by 

thick vegetation, and visitors tend to watch wildlife 

within the open areas of the campground and along 

the county road. Refuge staff regularly receive 

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

deer walking through the campground. River Marsh 

campground is located in open grassland habitat 

next to Lower Red Rock Lake. Wildlife disturbance 

primarily impacts waterfowl that move away from 

the shoreline when there are people present in the 

campground. The potential for accidental wildfires 

exists, but with education, the hazard can be 

reduced or eliminated. If environmental conditions 
152 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

warrant, burn bans will be put into place to eliminate 

campfires.

The use of these primitive campsites by through 

hikers, bicyclists, and motorcyclists on the 

Contiguous and Great Divide trails will not adversely 

impact refuge purposes and objectives. This use is 

at a low level and is not expected to substantially 

increase over the next 15 years. 

D

Camping is a compatible use at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge.

S

■ The refuge will continue to enforce general 

visitor services regulations which protect 

habitat and wildlife, and limit disturbance to 

other refuge visitors. 

■ The refuge manager may prohibit fires during 

periods of high fire danger. 

■ The refuge will continue to provide information 

to campers. 

■ Expansion of the campgrounds will not occur. 

■ A detailed step-down visitor services plan 

will be completed and will include planned 

improvements to the existing impacted area 

within the campgrounds such as placement 

of new accessible vault toilets, and planned 

campsite placement. 

■ Commercial operations will not be allowed to 

use the campgrounds.

JustiFiCation

Camping is not a priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational use as identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. It is, 

however, an activity in support of other priority 

uses, such as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, 

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

Wildlife Service that, “We may allow other activities 

on refuges, such as camping, to facilitate compatible 

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

Camping on the refuge will have limited negative 

impacts on natural resources when conducted under 

the above stipulations. To maintain the campground 

facilities, contact visitors, and administer a recreation 

fee program will require more time than it has in the 

past. The refuge will be able to effectively manage 

this use with a temporary seasonal visitor services 

technician. Camping, therefore, at its current level of 

use will not negatively interfere with the purposes of 

the refuge or the mission of the Refuge system.

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2024

DESCRIPTION OF USE: COMMERCIAL 

FILMING, AUDIO RECORDING, AND STILL 

PHOTOGRAPHY

Commercial filming is defined as the digital or film 

recording of a visual image or sound recording by 

a person, business, or other entity for a market 

audience, such as for a documentary, television or 

feature film, advertisement, or similar project. It 

does not include news coverage or visitor use. Still 

photography is defined as the capturing of a still 

image on film or in a digital format.

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and its 

designated wilderness is an incredibly scenic and 

beautiful landscape with tremendous opportunities 

for commercial filming and commercial still 

photography. The refuge provides an ideal setting for 

filmmakers and photographers. Each year the refuge 

staff receives approximately one to five requests 

to conduct commercial filming or commercial still 

photography on the refuge. Each request is evaluated 

on an individual basis, using a number of Department 

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

and National Wildlife Refuge System policies (for 

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

Commercial filming will be managed on the refuge 

through the special user permit process (except as 

described below for certain activities conducted by 

commercial still photographers—see “Stipulations 

Necessary to Ensure Compatibility”) to minimize 

the possibility of damage to cultural or natural 

resources or interference with other visitors to the 

area. In addition, much of the refuge is designated 

wilderness area. A minimum-requirements decision 

guide will be completed for all commercial filming 

activities proposed in Red Rock Lakes Wilderness. 

This process involves determining if an essential task 

should be conducted in the wilderness area, and then 

determining the combination of methods, equipment, 

or administrative practices necessary to successfully 

and safely administer the refuge and accomplish 

wilderness management objectives. 

The use includes access by groups or individuals 

in vehicles on roads open to the general public, by 

nonmotorized boats on refuge waters open to the 

general public, and on refuge lands open to the 

general public. In rare cases, access to areas closed 

to the general public may be permitted through the 

special use permit process.

A

In general, the refuge will normally incur no 

expense except administrative costs for review of 

applications, issuance of a special use permit, and 

staff time to conduct compliance checks. These 

costs may be able to be recovered as outlined in a 

Proposed Rule modifying commercial filming and still 

photography policy for the several agencies within 

the Department of the Interior. This Proposed Rule 
Appendix F— Compatibility Determinations 153

is currently in the public review process (Federal 

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

2007). 

A

Wildlife photographers and filmmakers tend to 

create the largest disturbance impacts of all wildlife 

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

While wildlife observers frequently stop to view 

species, wildlife photographers are more likely to 

approach wildlife (Klein 1993). Even a slow approach 

by wildlife photographers tends to have behavioral 

consequences on wildlife species (Klein 1993). Other 

impacts include the potential for photographers 

to remain close to wildlife for extended periods of 

time, in an attempt to habituate the wildlife subject 

to their presence (Dobb 1998) and the tendency for 

photographers with low-power lenses to get much 

closer to their subjects (Morton 1995). This usually 

results in increased disturbance to wildlife and 

habitat, including the trampling of plants. Handling 

of animals and disturbing vegetation (such as cutting 

plants, and removing flowers) is prohibited on the 

refuge. 

A special use permit will be denied if the commercial 

filming, audio recording, or still photography 

activities are found not to be compatible with refuge 

purposes. 

D

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography are compatible uses at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge.

S

All commercial filming requires a special use permit. 

■ Special use permits will identify conditions 

that protect the refuge’s values, purposes, 

resources; public health and safety, and prevent 

unreasonable disruption of the public’s use 

and enjoyment of the refuge. Such conditions 

may be, but are not limited to, specifying 

road conditions when access will not be 

allowed, establishing time limitations, and 

identifying routes of access into the refuge. 

These conditions will be identified to prevent 

excessive disturbance to wildlife, damage to 

habitat or refuge infrastructure, or conflicts 

with other visitor services or management 

activities. 

■ The special use permit will stipulate that 

imagery produced on refuge lands will be made 

available to the refuge to use in environmental 

education and interpretation, outreach, 

internal documents, or other suitable uses. In 

addition, any commercial products must include 

appropriate credits to the refuge, the National 

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

Wildlife Service.

■ The commercial filming or still photography 

use must demonstrate a means to extend public 

appreciation and understanding of wildlife 

or natural habitats, or enhance education, 

appreciation, and understanding of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, or facilitate outreach 

and education goals of the refuge. Failure to 

demonstrate any of these criteria will result in a 

special use permit being denied. 

■ Still photography requires a special use permit 

(with specific conditions as outlined above) if 

one or more of the following will occur:

— it takes place at locations where or when 

members of the public are not allowed.

— it uses model(s), set(s), or prop(s) that are 

not part of the location’s natural or cultural 

resources or administrative facilities.

— the refuge will incur additional 

administrative costs to monitor the activity.

— the refuge will need to provide management 

and oversight to: avoid impairment of 

the resources and values of the site; limit 

resource damage; or minimize health and 

safety risks to the visiting public.

— the photographer(s) intentionally 

manipulate(s) vegetation to create a “shot” 

(for example cutting vegetation to create a 

blind). 

■ To minimize impact on refuge lands and 

resources, the refuge staff will ensure that all 

commercial filmmakers and commercial still 

photographers (regardless of whether a special 

use permit is issued) comply with policies, rules, 

and regulations, and refuge staff will monitor 

and assess the activities of all filmmakers, 

photographers, and audio recorders. 

JustiFiCation

Allowing commercial filming, still photography 

or audio recording is an economic use that must 

contribute to the achievement of the refuge purposes, 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, or 

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

Providing opportunities for commercial filming, still 

photography, or audio recording that meets the above 

requirements should result in an increased public 

awareness of the refuge’s ecological importance as 

well as advancing the public’s knowledge and support 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The stipulations 

outlined above and conditions imposed in the special 

use permits issued to commercial filmmakers, still 

photographers, and audio recorders will ensure that 

these wildlife-dependent activities occur without 

adverse effects on refuge resources or refuge 

visitors. 
154 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2024

DESCRIPTION OF USE: COMMERCIALLY 

GUIDED OR OUTFITTED STOCK ANIMAL 

SERVICES FOR GAME RETRIEVAL AND 

ACCESS ACROSS THE REFUGE INTO THE 

CENTENNIAL MOUNTAINS

Use of stock animals by the public to retrieve game 

and access the Centennial Mountains is currently 

authorized on the refuge (see “Recreational Hunting 

—Compatibility Determination” which was evaluated 

separately). There is no authorized use of hunting 

guides on the refuge. 

Commercially guided and/or outfitted stock animal 

services can be divided into two categories. The 

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

services of the stock owner) to retrieve big game 

taken on the refuge or adjacent lands. This service 

is typically provided to moose hunters on the refuge 

as it is usually logistically difficult to remove moose 

carcasses on foot due to the terrain and size of the 

animal. In addition, this service has been typically 

provided to hunters that take an elk off-refuge in 

the upper elevations of the Centennial Mountains. 

Many times, the only feasible access to this animal 

is to cross refuge property with the outfitted stock 

animals. Approximately, ten to twenty pack trips are 

made annually to retrieve animals.

The second category of use is to provide access to 

hunters, campers, and environmental education 

students that are being guided and/or taught by 

the sole outfitting and guiding service (known as 

Centennial Outfitters) authorized to operate in the 

Centennial Mountains (under State of Montana and 

Bureau of Land Management permits). Access to the 

Centennial Mountains across public land is extremely 

limited—especially on the east end of the mountain 

range where the refuge exists. Access into the 

Centennial Mountains by this outfitter is restricted 

to two access points across the refuge (Odell Creek 

Trail and Shambow Trail). Approximately 

sixty-five to seventy-five trips are made each year 

over a period of 55 to 65 days. The majority of the 

trips occur in September, October, and November. 

Trips vary in the number of stock animals that are 

used from one (just a rider on a horse) up to twentythree animals (various number of riders and pack 

animals). The largest number of animals occurs 

during the summer months (typically July) when 

Centennial Outfitters are offering day trips for 

wildlife observation and environmental education and 

interpretation programs.

Centennial Outfitters is the sole commercial 

operation licensed to operate in the Centennial 

Mountains. Access onto and across the refuge has 

been conducted utilizing a special use permit in past 

years. As of 2005, Centennial Outfitters reports all 

trips made across the refuge as well as the number of 

riders and animals used as a condition of their special 

use permit.

The use of commercially provided stock animals 

contributes to fulfillment of refuge purposes and 

to the National Wildlife Refuge System mission by 

facilitating priority public uses (hunting, wildlife 

observation, interpretation and environmental 

education) and management of healthy wildlife 

populations through controlled hunting.

A

Adequate refuge personnel and base operational 

funds are available to manage this commercial 

activity at existing levels. Administrative staff time 

primarily involves issuing one special use permit a 

year. This burden could be reduced by extending the 

period of use of this one permit. Fieldwork associated 

with administering this program primarily involves 

monitoring the permittee’s compliance with permit 

terms and assessing trail conditions. Total staff time 

for administering this permit is approximately 5 days 

per year. 

A

Wildlife disturbance from horseback riding and 

stock animals is not well-documented. However, 

some studies suggest that many wildlife species are 

habituated to livestock and that horseback wildlife 

observers can approach wildlife at closer distances 

than by other forms of travel (Bennett and Zuelke 

1999, Williams and Conway-Durver 1998).

Horseback riding and the use of stock animals has 

both a direct and indirect effect on habitat. Trampling 

causes mortality of plant and animal species. Indirect 

effects result when soil is compacted and plants 

cannot reestablish (Summer 1980). Grazing can 

reduce vegetation. Nonnative plant species can be 

spread by stock animals through feces and seeds 

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

addition, stock animal manure, although not harmful 

to human health, can cause conflicts with other trail 

users since it can be odorous, unaesthetic, and a 

nuisance.

While there can be user group conflicts and some 

limited safety issues resulting from hikers and 

commercial use of stock animals using the same trail, 

these are expected to be minimal given the current 

level of use. 

In general the impacts to wildlife, plant species, 

and other visitors to the refuge are expected to 

be minimal given the current level of use by one 

outfitter using stock animals to access the Centennial 

Mountains or retrieve game animals from the refuge.
Appendix F— Compatibility Determinations 155

D

Commercially guided or outfitted stock animal 

services for game retrieval and access across the 

refuge into the Centennial Mountains is a compatible 

use at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

S

■ All commercial use of stock animals requires 

a special use permit. Special use permits will 

identify conditions that protect the refuge’s 

values, purposes, resources, and public health 

and safety, as well as prevent unreasonable 

disruption of the public’s use and enjoyment 

of the refuge. Such conditions may be, but 

are not limited to, specifying trail conditions 

when access will not be allowed, establishing 

limitations on the group size and number of 

trips allowed annually, recommendations for 

preventing the spread of nonnative vegetation, 

and identifying routes of access into the refuge. 

These conditions will be identified to prevent 

excessive disturbance to wildlife, damage to 

habitat or refuge infrastructure, or conflicts 

with other visitor services or management 

activities. 

■ The commercial use of stock animals must 

demonstrate a means to extend public 

appreciation and understanding of wildlife or 

natural habitats, or both; or enhance education, 

appreciation and understanding of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; or facilitate outreach, 

education, and visitor services goals of the 

refuge. Failure to demonstrate any of these 

criteria will result in denial of a special use 

permit. 

■ Commercial stock animals may not be corralled, 

tethered, or hitched along trails on the refuge. 

JustiFiCation

Commercially guided and outfitted stock animal 

services is a form of traditional activity that 

Congress intended to preserve with the enactment 

of the Wilderness Act, which is an important act 

guiding the management of the refuge. Access 

into the Centennial Mountains will be much more 

restricted if these services were not allowed. The 

requirements placed on recreation guides ensure 

that these commercial operations are safe and highquality operations. These requirements are by the 

Bureau of Land Management through its selection 

process, by the refuge through the terms of a special 

use permit, and by the state of Montana through 

regulations placed on guides and outfitters. These 

services are a valuable benefit to a segment of the 

American public that is not physically able to, not 

comfortable with, or for other reasons chooses not 

to participate in unguided trips into the Centennial 

Mountains. Access across the refuge by commercially 

guided or outfitted stock animals is essential to 

getting these types of Americans into Red Rock 

Lakes Wilderness. In addition, due to the difficulty of 

pedestrian travel in the area where moose hunting is 

allowed on the refuge, many moose hunters will not 

be able to retrieve their animals if this service were 

not provided. 

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2024

DESCRIPTION OF USE: RESEARCH

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge receives 

approximately one to three requests per year 

to conduct scientific research on the refuge. 

Priority will be 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. Research 

applicants must submit a proposal that outlines the 

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

study; (3) detailed study methodology and schedule; 

and (4) potential impacts on refuge wildlife and 

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

injury, or mortality. This includes (1) a description 

of measures the researcher will take to reduce 

disturbances or impacts; (2) personnel required 

and their qualifications and experience; (3) status 

of necessary permits (scientific collecting permits, 

endangered species permits); (4) costs to refuge 

and refuge staff time requested, if any; and (5) 

anticipated progress reports and end products (such 

as reports or publications). Refuge staff or others, 

as appropriate, will review research proposals and 

issues special use permits if approved.

Evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, 

the following:

■ Research that will contribute to specific refuge 

management issues will be given higher 

priority over other requests.

■ Research that will conflict with other ongoing 

research, monitoring, or management programs 

will not be approved.

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

■ Research that causes undue disturbance or 

is intrusive will likely not be approved. The 

degree and type of disturbance will be carefully 

weighed when evaluating a research request.

■ Research evaluation will determine if any effort 

has been made to minimize disturbance through 

study design, including adjusting location, 

timing, number of permittees, study methods, 

and number of study sites.

■ If staffing or logistics make it impossible for 

the refuge to monitor researcher activity 

in a sensitive area, this may be reason to 

deny the request, depending on the specific 

circumstances.
156 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

■ The length of the project will be considered and 

agreed upon before approval. Projects will be 

reviewed annually.

The refuge currently has an active land acquisition 

program. If newly acquired property includes areas 

of research interest, the same special use permit 

process and evaluation criteria described above will 

be followed.

A

Adequate funding and staffing currently exist 

to manage a limited amount of research at Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. As always, 

discretionary use of staff time will be weighed 

through a cost-benefit analysis. It is anticipated that 

approximately $6,000 per year will be required to 

administer and manage research activities described 

above. Administration will include, but not be 

limited to, evaluation of applications, management of 

permits, and oversight of research projects.

A

Some degree of disturbance is expected with all 

research activities since most researchers will 

be entering areas that are seasonally closed or 

conducting research in remote areas of the refuge 

that have limited visitation by the general public, 

and some research requires collection of samples or 

handling of wildlife. However, minimal impact on 

refuge wildlife and habitats is expected with research 

studies because special use permits will include 

conditions to ensure that impact to wildlife and 

habitats are kept to a minimum. 

D

Research use is a compatible use at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge.

S

■ Extremely sensitive wildlife habitat areas 

and wildlife species will be provided sufficient 

protection from disturbance by limiting 

proposed research activities in these areas. 

All refuge rules and regulations must be 

followed unless otherwise exempted by refuge 

management.

■ Refuge staff will use the criteria for evaluating 

a research proposal, as outlined above under 

“Description of Use,” when determining 

whether to approve a proposed study on the 

refuge. If proposed research methods are 

evaluated and determined to have potential 

impacts on refuge resources (habitat or 

wildlife), it must be demonstrated that the 

research is necessary for refuge resource 

conservation management. Measures to 

minimize potential impacts will need to be 

developed and included as part of the study 

design. In addition, these measures will be 

listed as conditions on the special use permit.

■ Refuge staff will monitor research activities 

for compliance with conditions of the special 

use permit. At any time, refuge staff may 

accompany the researchers to determine 

potential impacts. Staff may determine that 

previously approved research and special use 

permits be terminated due to observed impacts. 

The refuge manager will also have the ability 

to cancel a special use permit if the researcher 

is out of compliance, or to ensure wildlife and 

habitat protection.

JustiFiCation

The program as described is determined to be 

compatible. Potential impacts of research activities 

on refuge resources will be minimized because 

sufficient restrictions will be included as part of 

the study design, and research activities will be 

monitored by the refuge staff. Research projects 

will contribute to the enhancement, protection, 

preservation, and management of the refuge’s 

wildlife populations and their habitats.

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2024

DESCRIPTION OF USE: GRAZING

The refuge currently uses livestock grazing as a tool 

to manage a variety of upland, riparian, and seasonal 

wetland habitats. Livestock grazing has been a 

preferred management tool because the effect on 

habitat is controllable and measurable. Livestock 

grazing has been used in a variety of ways, including 

high intensity–short duration, rest rotation, and 

complete rest. Between 1994 and 2006 grazing rates 

ranged from 0.31–0.85 animal unit months (AUM) per 

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

Actual rates per subunit varied substantially 

depending on the site, with some grazing unit rates 

being as low as 0.02 AUM per subunit and others as 

high as 2.17 AUM per acre. The refuge currently has 

twenty-three subunits where grazing is being used 

as a management tool. Maintenance of the fences is 

a constant effort due to weather, water, animal, and 

human impacts. 

The comprehensive conservation plan proposes 

to continue using prescribed grazing in order to 

manage habitats. The comprehensive conservation 

plan will establish goals and objectives for specific 

habitat types (such as riparian, wet meadow, and 

shrub-steppe) where prescribed grazing may be 

used. In addition, target wildlife species (such as 

northern pintail and Brewer’s sparrow) and their 

habitat requirements have been identified. This has 

resulted in development of objectives that will guide 

management to meet target wildlife species habitat 
Appendix F— Compatibility Determinations 157

needs. The refuge will improve upon the vegetation 

and wildlife monitoring and research program in 

order to assess habitat and wildlife population 

responses to the prescribed grazing management 

program. Different grazing rates and management 

strategies will be investigated in order to determine 

the best methods for the refuge to meet the identified 

habitat goals and objectives of the comprehensive 

conservation plan. 

A

Current refuge staff and funding resources are 

limited for the purposes of monitoring habitats and 

implementing research needs to understand the 

impacts of grazing on refuge habitats. A minimum 

of one full-time seasonal biological technician will 

greatly enhance the refuge’s ability to assess the 

outcomes of grazing. However, over the past 4 years, 

refuge staff have been able to use students from 

universities and colleges to lay the ground work for 

an improved monitoring program. In addition, the 

refuge recently completed a detailed vegetation 

inventory using the U.S. National Vegetation 

Classification Standards. Data were collected 

during the summers of 2005–2007. Field surveys 

were digitized, and a database for geographic 

information systems was generated. These data will 

greatly benefit the refuge in designing research and 

monitoring protocol for assessing the prescribed 

grazing management program. 

A

The prescribed grazing management program is 

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

comprehensive conservation plan. This management 

is intended to maintain and enhance habitat 

conditions for the benefit of a wide variety of fish 

and wildlife that use the refuge. Minimal negative 

impacts are expected through the use of this tool. 

Some trampling of areas may occur around watering 

areas or mineral licks. If fences are not maintained, 

it may be difficult to meet habitat objectives. It is 

anticipated that grazing will be in a mosaic pattern 

with some areas more intensely grazed than 

others in certain years. Grazing, as well as fire, is 

known to increase the nutrient cycling of nitrogen 

and phosphorous (Burke et al. 2005, Hauer and 

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

management of upland habitats adjacent to natural 

lakes (such as Upper and Swan lakes) and marshes 

could result in elevated levels of these nutrients 

in the lakes. Elevated levels of phosphorous and 

nitrogen can lead to increases in algae and turbidity 

in shallow lakes, which may ultimately lead to 

significant losses of submerged aquatic vegetation 

communities (see for example, Egertson et al. 

2004). In addition, the presence of livestock will be 

disturbing to some wildlife species and some visitors. 

The benefits of this habitat management tool are felt 

to outweigh these negative impacts. 

D

Grazing use is a compatible use at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge.

S

■ Maintain existing riparian fences and use 

temporary fencing, as needed, to protect 

riparian habitats from cattle.

■ Carry out a vegetation monitoring program to 

assess if focal species habitat requirements are 

being met.

■ Carry out a study to determine the influence 

of cattle grazing on the abundance and 

distribution of small mammals, as identified in 

the comprehensive conservation plan.

■ Begin vegetation monitoring of shrub-steppe 

and grassland habitats to assure adequate 

coverage of sagebrush, native bunchgrasses, 

and forbs—as identified in the comprehensive 

conservation plan.

■ Begin nutrient (such as phosphorus, nitrogen) 

monitoring in Lower Red Rock, Upper Red 

Rock, and Swan lakes to ensure that nutrient 

levels are not increased to a point that will 

result in algae and turbidity increases and 

decreases in submerged aquatic vegetation 

communities.

■ Grazing will be monitored and restricted if 

necessary to minimize disturbance to nesting 

birds.

JustiFiCation

To maintain and enhance habitat for migratory 

birds and other wildlife, some habitat management 

needs to occur. Prescribed livestock grazing is one 

option that can be used to achieve desired habitat 

conditions. Prescribed grazing is a useful tool because 

it can be controlled, and results of the grazing can 

be monitored (for example, vegetation monitoring) 

so that adjustments to the program can be made in 

order to meet habitat goals and objectives.

Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date: 2024
158 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Submitted

Bill West 

Project Leader

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

MT

Date

Review 

Dean Rundle 

Refuge Supervisor (MT, UT, WY)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

CO

Date

Approved 

Richard A. Coleman 

Assistant Regional Director

National Wildlife Refuge System

CO

Date
Appendix G

Species List

Below is a list of resident and migrant wildlife and 

plant species found at or adjacent to Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge.

This list includes all mammals, fish, and herpetofauna 

expected to occur on Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge based on refuge files, unpublished 

systematic survey data, and other relevant literature 

and data that pertains to southwest Montana. Some 

species, such as the bison, fisher, and big horn sheep, 

have been extirpated from the refuge. Bird species 

listed in this appendix are based on the Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Bird List, as well 

as additional information from refuge files. Plant 

species listed in this appendix are based upon plant 

collections made on or near the refuge (Dorn 1969, 

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

recent vegetation mapping of the refuge (Newlon 

2007). 

Taxonomic order follows the Integrated Taxonomic 

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

“Check-list of North American Birds” ((Anon.) 2007). 

 CLASS AMPHIBIA

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Caudata

Anura

Anura

Anura

Blotched tiger salamander 

Western toad 

Columbia spotted frog 

Boreal chorus frog

Ambystoma mavortium melanostictum

Bufo boreas

Rana luteiventris

Pseudacris maculate

CLASS REPTILIA

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Squamata Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans

CLASS AVES

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Anseriformes

Snow goose

Ross’s goose

Greater white-fronted goose

Canada goose

Trumpeter swan

Tundra swan

Mute swan

Black swan

Wood duck

Gadwall

American wigeon

Mallard

Blue-winged teal

Cinnamon teal

Northern shoveler

Northern pintail

Green-winged teal

Chen caerulescens

Chen rossii*

Anser albifrons*

Branta canadensis

Cygnus buccinator

Cygnus columbianus

Cygnus olor*+

Cygnus atratus*+

Aix sponsa

Anas strepara

Anas americana

Anas platyrhynchos

Anas discors

Anas cyanoptera

Anas clypeata

Anas acuta

Anas crecca
160 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Anseriformes Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Anseriformes Redhead Aythya Americana

Anseriformes Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris

Anseriformes Lesser scaup Aythya affinis

Anseriformes Greater scaup Aythya marila*

Anseriformes Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Anseriformes Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Anseriformes Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica

Anseriformes Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Anseriformes Common merganser Mergus merganser

Anseriformes Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator

Anseriformes Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Anseriformes Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata*

Anseriformes White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca*

Anseriformes Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis*

Anseriformes Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus*

Galliformes Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus

Galliformes Dusky grouse Dendragapus obscurus

Galliformes Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Galliformes Columbia sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus

Galliformes Gray partridge Perdix perdix+

Galliformes Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus*+

Gaviiformes Common loon Gavia immer

Gaviiformes Arctic loon Gavia arctica*

Podicipediformes Pied-billed grebe Podylimbus podiceps

Podicipediformes Horned grebe Podiceps auritus

Podicipediformes Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena

Podicipediformes Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Podicipediformes Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Podicipediformes Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii

Pelicaniformes American white pelican Pelecanus erythrocephalus

Pelicaniformes Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Ciconiiformes American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus*

Ciconiiformes Great blue heron Ardea Herodias

Ciconiiformes Great egret Ardea alba*

Ciconiiformes Snowy egret Egretta caerulea*

Ciconiiformes Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Ciconiiformes White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi

Ciconiiformes Turkey vulture Cathartes aura*

Falconiformes Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Falconiformes Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Falconiformes Northern harrier Circus cyaneus

Falconiformes Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus

Falconiformes Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii

Falconiformes Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Falconiformes Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni

Falconiformes Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Appendix G — Species List 161

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Falconiformes Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis

Falconiformes Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus

Falconiformes Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Falconiformes American kestrel Falco sparverius

Falconiformes Merlin Falco columbarius

Falconiformes Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

Falconiformes Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus

Falconiformes Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus*

Gruiformes Virginia rail Rallus limicola

Gruiformes Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis*

Gruiformes Sora Porzana carolina

Gruiformes American coot Fulica americana

Gruiformes Sandhill crane Grus canadensis

Gruiformes Whooping crane Grus americana*

Charadriiformes Killdeer Charadrius vociferous

Charadriiformes Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Charadriiformes Mountain plover Charadrius montanus*

Charadriiformes Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrius*

Charadriiformes Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola

Charadriiformes Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus

Charadriiformes American avocet Recurvirostra americana

Charadriiformes Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Charadriiformes Lesser yellowlegs Tringa f lavipes

Charadriiformes Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria

Charadriiformes Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Charadriiformes Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia

Charadriiformes Upland sandpiper Bartamia longicauda*

Charadriiformes Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus

Charadriiformes Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa

Charadriiformes Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Charadriiformes Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata

Charadriiformes American woodcock Scolopax minor*

Charadriiformes Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Charadriiformes Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus*

Charadriiformes Parasitic jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus*

Charadriiformes Sanderling Calidris alba*

Charadriiformes Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla

Charadriiformes Western sandpiper Calidris mauri

Charadriiformes Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla

Charadriiformes White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis

Charadriiformes Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos*

Charadriiformes Dunlin Calidris alpina*

Charadriiformes Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Charadriiformes Franklin’s gull Larus pipixcan

Charadriiformes Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis

Charadriiformes California gull Larus californicus

Charadriiformes Herring gull Larus argentatus*
162 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Charadriiformes Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadelphia*

Charadriiformes Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri

Charadriiformes Black tern Sterna niger

Charadriiformes Caspian tern Sterna caspia*

Charadriiformes Common tern Sterna hirundo*

Columbiformes Mourning dove Zenaida macroura

Columbiformes Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata*

Columbiformes Rock pigeon Columba livia*

Cuculiformes Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus*

Cuculiformes Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus*

Strigiformes Great horned owl Bubo virginianus

Strigiformes Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia

Strigiformes Long-eared owl Asio otus

Strigiformes Short-eared owl Asio f lammeus

Strigiformes Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus

Strigiformes Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma

Strigiformes Western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii*

Strigiformes Great gray owl Strix nebulosa

Caprimulgiformes Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Apodiformes White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis*

Apodiformes Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus

Apodiformes Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus

Apodiformes Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope

Apodiformes Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri

Coraciiformes Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Piciformes Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Piciformes Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus*

Piciformes Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Piciformes Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

Piciformes Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus

Piciformes American three-toed woodpecker Picoides dorsalis

Piciformes Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus*

Piciformes Northern flicker Colaptes auratus

Piciformes Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis

Piciformes Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus

Passeriformes Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Passeriformes Eastern kingbird Tyrannus forficatus

Passeriformes Say’s phoebe Saynoris saya

Passeriformes Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Passeriformes Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri

Passeriformes Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondii

Passeriformes Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis

Passeriformes Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus*

Passeriformes Western wood-peewee Contopus sordidulus

Passeriformes Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Passeriformes Horned lark Eremophila alpestris

Passeriformes Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor
Order Common Name Scientific Name

Passeriformes Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina*

Passeriformes Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis*

Passeriformes Bank swallow Riparia riparia

Passeriformes Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Passeriformes Barn swallow Hirundo rustica

Passeriformes Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri

Passeriformes Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus

Passeriformes Gray jay Perisoreus Canadensis

Passeriformes Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata*

Passeriformes Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia

Passeriformes American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Passeriformes Common raven Corvus corax

Passeriformes Clark’s nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana

Passeriformes Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricappila

Passeriformes Mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli

Passeriformes American dipper Cinclus mexicanus

Passeriformes Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis

Passeriformes White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Passeriformes Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea*

Passeriformes Brown creeper Certhia americana

Passeriformes House wren Troglodytes aedon

Passeriformes Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes*

Passeriformes Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus

Passeriformes Canyon wren Catherpes mexicanus

Passeriformes Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris

Passeriformes Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Passeriformes Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos*

Passeriformes Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus

Passeriformes American robin Turdus migratorius

Passeriformes Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Passeriformes Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus

Passeriformes Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus

Passeriformes Veery Catharus fuscescens

Passeriformes Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides

Passeriformes Western bluebird Sialia mexicana

Passeriformes Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa

Passeriformes Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula

Passeriformes American pipit Anthus rubescens*

Passeriformes Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii

Passeriformes Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulous

Passeriformes Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

Passeriformes Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Passeriformes Northern shrike Lanius excubitor

Passeriformes European starling Sturnus vulgaris+

Passeriformes Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus

Passeriformes Cassin’s vireo Vireo cassinii

Passeriformes Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus*

Appendix G — Species List 163
164 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Passeriformes Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina*

Passeriformes Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata*

Passeriformes Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

Passeriformes Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata

Passeriformes Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi*

Passeriformes Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis*

Passeriformes Common yellowthroat Geothlipis trichas

Passeriformes MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei

Passeriformes Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Passeriformes Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens*

Passeriformes American redstart Setophaga ruticilla

Passeriformes House sparrow Passer domesticus+

Passeriformes Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus*

Passeriformes Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

Passeriformes Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Passeriformes Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Passeriformes Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Passeriformes Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula*

Passeriformes Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater

Passeriformes Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii*

Passeriformes Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Passeriformes Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

Passeriformes Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus*

Passeriformes Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Passeriformes Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena

Passeriformes Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii

Passeriformes House finch Carpodacus mexicanus+

Passeriformes Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator

Passeriformes Gray-crowned rosy finch Leucosticte tephrocotis

Passeriformes Black rosy finch Leucosticte atrata

Passeriformes White-winged crossbill Loxia leucoptera*

Passeriformes Common redpoll Carduelis f lammea

Passeriformes Pine siskin Carduelis pinus

Passeriformes American goldfinch Carduelis tristis

Passeriformes Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra

Passeriformes Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus*

Passeriformes Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus*

Passeriformes Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis

Passeriformes Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys

Passeriformes Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

Passeriformes Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus

Passeriformes Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis

Passeriformes American tree sparrow Spizella arborea

Passeriformes Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina

Passeriformes Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri

Passeriformes Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida*

Passeriformes White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia laucophrys
Appendix G — Species List 165

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Passeriformes

Passeriformes

Passeriformes

Passeriformes

Passeriformes

Passeriformes

Passeriformes

Passeriformes

Passeriformes

Passeriformes

Passeriformes

White-throated sparrow

Harris’ sparrow

Fox sparrow

Song sparrow

Lincoln sparrow

Grasshopper sparrow

Sage sparrow

McCown’s longspur

Lapland longspur

Chestnut-collared longspur

Snow bunting

Zonotrichia albicollis*

Zonotrichia querula*

Passerelia iliaca

Melospiza melodia

Melospiza lincolnii

Ammodramus savannarum

Amphispiza belli*

Calcarius mccownii*

Calcarius lapponicus*

Calcarius ornatus*

Plectrophenax nivalis

Scientific Name

CLASS MAMMALIA

Order Common Name

Insectivora

Insectivora

Chiroptera

Chiroptera

Chiroptera

Chiroptera

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Carnivora

Artiodactyla

Artiodactyla

Artiodactyla

Artiodactyla

Artiodactyla

Artiodactyla

Artiodactyla

Lagomorpha

Lagomorpha

Masked shrew

Water shrew

Little brown bat

Small-footed bat

Hoary bat

Silver-haired bat

Black bear

Grizzly bear

Ermine

Long-tailed weasel

Mink

Marten

Fisher 

Wolverine

River otter

Badger

Striped skunk

Raccoon

Red fox

Coyote

Gray wolf

Bobcat

Canada lynx

Mountain lion

Moose

Pronghorn

Bison 

Elk

Mule deer

White-tailed deer

Bighorn sheep 

White-tailed jackrabbit

Black-tailed jackrabbit

Sorex cinereus

Sorex palustris

Myotis lucifugus

Myotis leibii

Lasiurus cinereus

Lasionycteris noctivagans

Ursus americanus

Ursus arctos*

Mustela erminea

Mustela frenata

Mustela vison

Martes americana

Martes pennanti*

Gulo gulo*

Lontra canadensis

Taxidea taxus

Mephitis mephitis

Procyon lotor

Vulpes vulpes

Canis latrans

Canis lupus

Lynx rufus

Lynx canadensis*

Puma concolor

Alces alces

Antilocapra americana

Bison bison*

Cervus elaphus

Odocoileus hemionus

Odocoileus virginianus

Ovis Canadensis*

Lepus townsendii

Lepus californicus
166 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Lagomorpha

Lagomorpha

Lagomorpha

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Rodentia

Snowshoe hare

Pygmy rabbit

Pika

Wyoming ground squirrel

Golden-mantled ground squirrel

Northern flying squirrel 

Red squirrel

Least chipmunk

Yellow-pine chipmunk

Yellow-bellied marmot

Bushy-tailed woodrat

Porcupine

Northern pocket gopher

Muskrat

Beaver

Deer mouse

Western jumping mouse

Southern red-backed vole

Meadow vole

Montane vole

Long-tailed vole

Lepus americanus

Brachylagus idahoensis

Ochotona princeps

Spermophilus elegans

Spermophilus lateralis

Glaucomys sabrihus

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

Tamias minimus

Tamias amoenus

Marmota f laviventris

Neotoma cinerea

Erethizon dorsatum

Thomomys talpoides

Ondatra zibethicus

Castor canadensis

Peromyscus maniculatus

Zapus princeps

Clethrionomys gapperi

Microtus pennsylvanicus

Microtus montanus

Microtus longicaudus

Scientific Name

CLASS OSTEICHTHYES

Order Common Name

Cypriniformes

Cypriniformes

Cypriniformes

Cypriniformes

Gadiformes

Salmoniformes

Salmoniformes

Salmoniformes

Salmoniformes

Salmoniformes

Salmoniformes

Scorpaeniformes

White sucker

Longnose sucker

Mountain sucker

Longnose dace

Burbot

Arctic grayling

Mountain whitefish

Westslope cutthroat trout

Yellowstone cutthroat trout

Rainbow trout

Brook trout

Mottled sculpin

Catostomus commersonii+

Catostomus catostomus

Catostomus platyrhynchus

Rhinichthys cataractae

Lota lota

Thymallus arcticus

Prosopium williamsoni

Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi

Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri+

Oncorhynchus mykiss+

Salvelinus fontinalis+

Cottus bairdii
Appendix G — Species List 167

PLANTS

CLASS PINOPSIDA

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Pinales

Pinales

Pinales

Pinales

Pinales

Pinales

Pinales

Pinales

Pinales

Subalpine fir 

Engelmann spruce 

Whitebark pine 

Lodgepole pine 

Limber pine 

Douglas-fir

Rocky Mountain juniper 

Common juniper

Creeping juniper

 Abies lasiocarpa

Picea engelmannii

Pinus albicaulis

Pinus contorta

Pinus f lexilis

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Juniperus scopulorum

Juniperus communis

Juniperus horizontalis

Scientific Name

CLASS MAGNOLIOPSIDA

Order Common Name

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Salicales

Sapindales

Asterales

Asterales

Asterales

Asterales

Asterales

Asterales

Asterales

Asterales

Asterales

Asterales

Asterales

Asterales

Asterales

Balsam poplar 

Quaking aspen

Bebb willow 

Booth’s willow 

Sageleaf willow

Drummond’s willow 

Geyer willow 

Grayleaf willow 

Pacific willow 

Yellow willow

Blueberry willow 

Diamondleaf willow

False mountain willow

Scouler’s willow

Wolf’s willow

Rocky Mountain maple

Little sagebrush

Alkali sagebrush 

Silver sagebrush 

Prairie sagewort 

Basin big sagebrush 

Mountain big sagebrush 

Threetip sagebrush 

Green rabbitbrush 

Whitestem goldenbush 

Rubber rabbitbrush 

Dwarf goldenbush 

Singlehead goldenbush 

Spineless horsebrush 

Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa 

Populus tremuloides 

Salix bebbiana 

Salix boothii 

Salix candida 

Salix drummondiana 

Salix geyeriana 

Salix glauca 

Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra 

Salix lutea 

Salix myrtillifolia 

Salix planifolia 

Salix pseudomonticola 

Salix scouleriana 

Salix wolfii

Acer glabrum

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. arbuscula 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia cana ssp. viscidula 

Artemisia frigida 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita 

Chrysothamnus viscidif lorus 

Ericameria discoidea 

Ericameria nauseosa 

Ericameria nana 

Ericameria suffruticosa 

Tetradymia canescens 
168 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Asterales Common yarrow Achillea millefolium 

Asterales Orange agoseris Agoseris aurantiaca 

Asterales Pale agoseris Agoseris glauca 

Asterales Western pearly everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea 

Asterales Alpine pussytoes Antennaria alpina 

Asterales Pearly pussytoes Antennaria anaphaloides 

Asterales Flat-top pussytoes Antennaria corymbosa 

Asterales Rush pussytoes Antennaria luzuloides

Asterales Littleleaf pussytoes Antennaria microphylla 

Asterales Raceme pussytoes Antennaria racemosa 

Asterales Rosy pussytoes Antennaria rosea 

Asterales Chamisso arnica Arnica chamissonis 

Asterales Heartleaf arnica Arnica cordifolia 

Asterales Broadleaf arnica Arnica latifolia 

Asterales Hairy arnica Arnica mollis 

Asterales Twin arnica Arnica sororia 

Asterales Biennial wormwood Artemisia biennis 

Asterales Tarragon Artemisia dracunculus

Asterales White sagebrush Artemisia ludoviciana

Asterales Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata

Asterales Nodding beggartick Bidens cernua

Asterales Musk thistle Carduus nutans+

Asterales Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe+

Asterales Douglas’ dustymaiden Chaenactis douglasii

Asterales Canada thistle Cirsium arvense+

Asterales Graygreen thistle Cirsium canovirens

Asterales Meadow thistle Cirsium scariosum

Asterales Wavyleaf thistle Cirsium undulatum

Asterales Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare+

Asterales Tapertip hawksbeard Crepis acuminata

Asterales Fiddleleaf hawksbeard Crepis runcinata

Asterales Giant sumpweed Cyclachaena xanthifolia

Asterales Tufted fleabane Erigeron caespitosus

Asterales Cutleaf daisy Erigeron compositus

Asterales Longleaf fleabane Erigeron corymbosus

Asterales Streamside fleabane Erigeron glabellus

Asterales Quill fleabane Erigeron gracilis

Asterales Shortray fleabane Erigeron lonchophyllus

Asterales Buff fleabane Erigeron ochroleucus

Asterales Philadelphia fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus

Asterales Subalpine fleabane Erigeron peregrinus

Asterales Rydberg’s fleabane Erigeron rydbergii

Asterales Aspen fleabane Erigeron speciosus
Appendix G — Species List 169

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Asterales Tweedy’s fleabane Erigeron tweedyi

Asterales Common woolly sunflower Eriophyllum lanatum

Asterales Elegant aster Eucephalus elegans

Asterales Engelmann’s aster Eucephalus engelmannii

Asterales Western showy aster Eurybia conspicua

Asterales Thickstem aster Eurybia integrifolia

Asterales Common gaillardia Gaillardia aristata

Asterales Western marsh cudweed Gnaphalium palustre

Asterales Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa

Asterales Oneflower helianthella Helianthella unif lora

Asterales Common sunflower Helianthus annuus

Asterales Nuttall’s sunflower Helianthus nuttallii

Asterales Showy goldeneye Heliomeris multif lora

Asterales White hawkweed Hieracium albif lorum

Asterales Houndstongue hawkweed Hieracium cynoglossoides

Asterales Slender hawkweed Hieracium gracile

Asterales Fineleaf hymenopappus Hymenopappus f ilifolius

Asterales Owl’s-claws Hymenoxys hoopesii

Asterales Lava aster Ionactis alpina

Asterales Tall blue lettuce Lactuca biennis

Asterales Blue lettuce Lactuca tatarica

Asterales Hoary tansyaster Machaeranthera canescens

Asterales Mountain tarweed Madia glomerata

Asterales Disc mayweed Matricaria discoidea

Asterales Nodding microseris Microseris nutans

Asterales Meadow prairie-dandelion Nothocalais nigrescens

Asterales Woolly groundsel Packera cana

Asterales Weak groundsel Packera debilis

Asterales Elegant groundsel Packera indecora

Asterales Balsam groundsel Packera paupercula

Asterales Falsegold groundsel Packera pseudaurea

Asterales Rocky Mountain groundsel Packera streptanthifolia

Asterales Hoary groundsel Packera werneriifolia

Asterales Arctic sweet coltsfoot Petasites frigidus

Asterales Many-stemmed goldenweed Pyrrocoma integrifolia

Asterales Lanceleaf goldenweed Pyrrocoma lanceolata

Asterales Plantain goldenweed Pyrrocoma unif lora

Asterales Western coneflower Rudbeckia occidentalis

Asterales Thickleaf ragwort Senecio crassulus

Asterales Dwarf mountain ragwort Senecio fremontii

Asterales Tall ragwort Senecio hydrophiloides

Asterales Water ragwort Senecio hydrophilus

Asterales Lambstongue ragwort Senecio integerrimus
170 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Asterales Small blacktip ragwort Senecio lugens

Asterales Tall ragwort Senecio serra

Asterales Ballhead ragwort Senecio sphaerocephalus

Asterales Arrowleaf ragwort Senecio triangularis

Asterales Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis

Asterales Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis

Asterales Manyray goldenrod Solidago multiradiata

Asterales Gray goldenrod Solidago nemoralis

Asterales Dwarf goldenrod Solidago simplex

Asterales Moist sowthistle Sonchus arvensis+

Asterales Stemless mock goldenweed Stenotus acaulis

Asterales Woolly mock goldenweed Stenotus lanuginosus

Asterales Narrowleaf wirelettuce Stephanomeria minor

Asterales Western meadow aster Symphyotrichum campestre

Asterales Eaton’s aster Symphyotrichum eatonii

Asterales White prairie aster Symphyotrichum falcatum

Asterales Alpine leafybract aster Symphyotrichum foliaceum

Asterales White panicle aster Symphyotrichum lanceolatum

Asterales Western mountain aster Symphyotrichum spathulatum

Asterales Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare+

Asterales Rock dandelion Taraxacum laevigatum+

Asterales Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale+

Asterales Graylocks four-nerve daisy Tetraneuris grandif lora

Asterales Wyoming Townsend daisy Townsendia alpigena

Asterales Cushion Townsend daisy Townsendia condensata

Asterales Parry’s Townsend daisy Townsendia parryi

Asterales Yellow salsify Tragopogon dubius+

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

Asterales Mule-ears Wyethia amplexicaulis

Asterales Sunflower mule-ears Wyethia helianthoides

Fagales Bog birch Betula pumila

Caryophyllales Brittle pricklypear Opuntia fragilis

Caryophyllales Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Dipsacales Twinberry honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata

Dipsacales Utah honeysuckle Lonicera utahensis

Dipsacales Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa

Dipsacales Mountain snowberry Symphoricarpos oreophilus

Dipsacales Squashberry Viburnum edule

Dipsacales Twinflower Linnaea borealis

Dipsacales Tobacco root Valeriana edulis

Dipsacales Western valerian Valeriana occidentalis

Cornales Redosier dogwood Cornus sericea

Cornales Bunchberry dogwood Cornus canadensis
Order Common Name Scientific Name

Rhamnales Russet buffaloberry Shepherdia canadensis

Rhamnales Alderleaf buckthorn Rhamnus alnifolia

Ericales Kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

Ericales Thinleaf huckleberry Vaccinium membranaceum

Ericales Grouse whortleberry Vaccinium scoparium

Ericales Pipsissewa Chimaphila umbellata

Ericales Sidebells wintergreen Orthilia secunda

Ericales Liverleaf wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia

Ericales Single delight Moneses unif lora

Ericales Greenflowered wintergreen Pyrola chlorantha

Fabales Siberian peashrub Caragana arborescens+

Fabales Purple milkvetch Astragalus agrestis

Fabales Alpine milkvetch Astragalus alpinus

Fabales American milkvetch Astragalus americanus

Fabales Silverleaf milkvetch Astragalus argophyllus

Fabales Canadian milkvetch Astragalus canadensis

Fabales Browse milkvetch Astragalus cibarius

Fabales Drummond’s milkvetch Astragalus drummondii

Fabales Elegant milkvetch Astragalus eucosmus

Fabales Flexile milkvetch Astragalus f lexuosus

Fabales Bent milkvetch Astragalus inf lexus

Fabales Spiny milkvetch Astragalus kentrophyta

Fabales Prairie milkvetch Astragalus laxmannii

Fabales Freckled milkvetch Astragalus lentiginosus

Fabales Park milkvetch Astragalus leptaleus

Fabales Timber milkvetch Astragalus miser

Fabales Woollypod milkvetch Astragalus purshii

Fabales Railhead milkvetch Astragalus terminalis

Fabales Bentflower milkvetch Astragalus vexillif lexus

Fabales Utah sweetvetch Hedysarum boreale

Fabales White sweetvetch Hedysarum sulphurescens

Fabales Silvery lupine Lupinus argenteus

Fabales Velvet lupine Lupinus leucophyllus

Fabales Bigleaf lupine Lupinus polyphyllus

Fabales Silky lupine Lupinus sericeus

Fabales Yellow sweetclover Melilotus off icinalis+

Fabales Nodding locoweed Oxytropis def lexa

Fabales Haresfoot locoweed Oxytropis lagopus

Fabales White locoweed Oxytropis sericea

Fabales Slimflower scurfpea Psoralidium tenuif lorum

Fabales Alsike clover Trifolium hybridum+

Fabales Longstalk clover Trifolium longipes

Fabales Red clover Trifolium pratense+

Appendix G — Species List 171
172 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Fabales White clover Trifolium repens+

Fabales American vetch Vicia americana

Rosales Wax currant Ribes cereum

Rosales Northern black currant Ribes hudsonianum

Rosales Whitestem gooseberry Ribes inerme

Rosales Gooseberry currant Ribes montigenum

Rosales Inland gooseberry Ribes oxyacanthoides

Rosales Sticky currant Ribes viscosissimum

Rosales Shrubby cinquefoil Dasiphora fruticosa

Rosales Mat rockspirea Petrophyton caespitosum

Rosales Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Rosales Woods’ rose Rosa woodsii

Rosales American red raspberry Rubus idaeus

Rosales Thimbleberry Rubus parvif lorus

Rosales Greene’s mountain ash Sorbus scopulina

Rosales White spirea Spiraea betulifolia

Rosales Ledge stonecrop Rhodiola integrifolia

Rosales Redpod stonecrop Rhodiola rhodantha

Rosales Leiberg stonecrop Sedum leibergii

Rosales Spearleaf stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum

Rosales Silverweed cinquefoil Argentina anserina

Rosales Virginia strawberry Fragaria virginiana

Rosales Largeleaf avens Geum macrophyllum

Rosales Old man’s whiskers Geum trif lorum

Rosales Gordon’s ivesia Ivesia gordonii

Rosales Varileaf cinquefoil Potentilla diversifolia

Rosales Sticky cinquefoil Potentilla glandulosa

Rosales Slender cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis

Rosales Sheep cinquefoil Potentilla ovina

Rosales Platte River cinquefoil Potentilla plattensis

Rosales Roundleaf alumroot Heuchera cylindrica

Rosales Smallflower woodland-star Lithophragma parvif lorum

Rosales Smallflower miterwort Mitella stauropetala

Rosales Fringed grass of Parnassus Parnassia fimbriata

Rosales Smallflower grass of Parnassus Parnassia palustris

Rosales Yellowdot saxifrage Saxifraga bronchialis

Rosales Brook saxifrage Saxifraga odontoloma

Rosales Diamondleaf saxifrage Saxifraga rhomboidea

Solanales Granite prickly phlox Linanthus pungens

Solanales Dwarf hesperochiron Hesperochiron pumilus

Solanales Ballhead waterleaf Hydrophyllum capitatum

Solanales Basin nemophila Nemophila brevif lora

Solanales Franklin’s phacelia Phacelia franklinii
Order Common Name Scientific Name

Solanales Silverleaf phacelia Phacelia hastata

Solanales Silky phacelia Phacelia sericea

Solanales Tiny trumpet Collomia linearis

Solanales Spiny phlox Phlox hoodii

Solanales Kelsey’s phlox Phlox kelseyi

Solanales Longleaf phlox Phlox longifolia

Solanales Western polemonium Polemonium occidentale

Solanales Jacob’s-ladder Polemonium pulcherrimum

Solanales Sticky polemonium Polemonium viscosum

Solanales Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger+

Scrophulariales Bush penstemon Penstemon fruticosus

Scrophulariales Flat-top broomrape Orobanche corymbosa

Scrophulariales Clustered broomrape Orobanche fasciculata

Scrophulariales Louisiana broomrape Orobanche ludoviciana

Scrophulariales Wyoming besseya Besseya wyomingensis

Scrophulariales Yellow Indian paintbrush Castilleja f lava

Scrophulariales Giant red Indian paintbrush Castilleja miniata

Scrophulariales Sulphur Indian paintbrush Castilleja sulphurea

Scrophulariales Maiden blue eyed Mary Collinsia parvif lora

Scrophulariales Water mudwort Limosella aquatica

Scrophulariales Seep monkeyflower Mimulus guttatus

Scrophulariales Yellow owl’s-clover Orthocarpus luteus

Scrophulariales Field locoweed Oxytropis campestris

Scrophulariales Elephanthead lousewort Pedicularis groenlandica

Scrophulariales Parry’s lousewort Pedicularis parryi

Scrophulariales Sickletop lousewort Pedicularis racemosa

Scrophulariales Sulphur penstemon Penstemon attenuatus

Scrophulariales Cordroot beardtongue Penstemon montanus

Scrophulariales Matroot penstemon Penstemon radicosus

Scrophulariales Rydberg’s penstemon Penstemon rydbergii

Scrophulariales American speedwell Veronica americana

Scrophulariales American alpine speedwell Veronica wormskjoldii

Scrophulariales Common bladderwort Utricularia macrorhiza

Alismatales Arumleaf arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata

Apiales Lyall’s angelica Angelica arguta

Apiales Small-leaf angelica Angelica pinnata

Apiales American thorow wax Bupleurum americanum

Apiales Western water hemlock Cicuta douglasii

Apiales Plains springparsley Cymopterus acaulis

Apiales Snowline springparsley Cymopterus nivalis

Apiales Common cowparsnip Heracleum maximum

Apiales Fernleaf licorice-root Ligusticum filicinum

Apiales Wyeth biscuitroot Lomatium ambiguum

Appendix G — Species List 173
174 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Apiales Cous biscuitroot Lomatium cous

Apiales Desert biscuitroot Lomatium foeniculaceum

Apiales Bigseed biscuitroot Lomatium macrocarpum

Apiales Nineleaf biscuitroot Lomatium triternatum

Apiales Leafy wildparsley Musineon divaricatum

Apiales Sweetcicely Osmorhiza berteroi

Apiales Bluntseed sweetroot Osmorhiza depauperata

Apiales Western sweetroot Osmorhiza occidentalis

Apiales Gardner’s yampah Perideridia gairdneri

Apiales Henderson’s wavewing Pteryxia hendersonii

Apiales Hemlock waterparsnip Sium suave

Apiales Meadow zizia Zizia aptera

Lamiales Sanddune cryptantha Cryptantha fendleri

Lamiales Roundspike cryptantha Cryptantha humilis

Lamiales Torrey’s cryptantha Cryptantha torreyana

Lamiales Watson’s cryptantha Cryptantha watsonii

Lamiales Gypsyflower Cynoglossum officinale

Lamiales Manyflower stickseed Hackelia f loribunda

Lamiales Jessica sticktight Hackelia micrantha

Lamiales Spotted stickseed Hackelia patens

Lamiales Flatspine stickseed Lappula occidentalis

Lamiales Narrowleaf stoneseed Lithospermum incisum

Lamiales Western stoneseed Lithospermum ruderale

Lamiales Tall fringed bluebells Mertensia ciliata

Lamiales Oblongleaf bluebells Mertensia oblongifolia

Lamiales Tall bluebells Mertensia paniculata

Lamiales Asian forget-me-not Myosotis asiatica

Lamiales True forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides

Lamiales Sleeping popcornflower Plagiobothrys scouleri

Lamiales Nettleleaf giant hyssop Agastache urticifolia

Lamiales Wild mint Mentha arvensis

Lamiales Common selfheal Prunella vulgaris

Lamiales Marsh skullcap Scutellaria galericulata

Lamiales Marsh hedgenettle Stachys palustris

Capparales Pale madwort Alyssum alyssoides+

Capparales Desert madwort Alyssum desertorum

Capparales Spreadingpod rockcress Arabis xdivaricarpa

Capparales Hairy rockcress Arabis hirsuta

Capparales Collins’ rockcress Arabis holboellii

Capparales Lemmon’s rockcress Arabis lemmonii

Capparales Littleleaf rockcress Arabis microphylla

Capparales Nuttall’s rockcress Arabis nuttallii

Capparales Sicklepod rockcress Arabis sparsif lora
Order Common Name Scientific Name

Capparales American yellowrocket Barbarea orthoceras

Capparales Littlepod false flax Camelina microcarpa

Capparales Shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris+

Capparales Brewer’s bittercress Cardamine breweri

Capparales Crossflower Chorispora tenella

Capparales Mountain tansymustard Descurainia incana

Capparales Western tansymustard Descurainia pinnata

Capparales Herb sophia Descurainia sophia+

Capparales Golden draba Draba aurea

Capparales Cushion draba Draba breweri

Capparales Snowbed draba Draba crassifolia

Capparales Lancepod draba Draba lonchocarpa

Capparales Woodland draba Draba nemorosa

Capparales Fewseed draba Draba oligosperma

Capparales Payson’s draba Draba paysonii

Capparales Western wallflower Erysimum asperum

Capparales Wormseed wallflower Erysimum cheiranthoides+

Capparales Shy wallflower Erysimum inconspicuum

Capparales Common pepperweed Lepidium densif lorum

Capparales Mountain pepperweed Lepidium montanum

Capparales Clasping pepperweed Lepidium perfoliatum+

Capparales Virginia pepperweed Lepidium virginicum

Capparales Idaho bladderpod Lesquerella carinata

Capparales Onerow yellowcress Nasturtium microphyllum+

Capparales Watercress Nasturtium officinale+

Capparales Meadow pennycress Noccaea parvif lora

Capparales Common twinpod Physaria didymocarpa

Capparales Curvepod yellowcress Rorippa curvisiliqua

Capparales Bog yellowcress Rorippa palustris

Capparales Small tumbleweed mustard Sisymbrium loeselii+

Capparales Alpine smelowskia Smelowskia calycina

Capparales Northwestern thelypody Thelypodium paniculatum

Capparales Arrow thelypody Thelypodium sagittatum

Capparales Field pennycress Thlaspi arvense

Campanulales Bluebell bellflower Campanula rotundifolia

Campanulales Great Basin calicoflower Downingia laeta

Caryophyllales Slender mountain sandwort Arenaria capillaris

Caryophyllales Ballhead sandwort Arenaria congesta

Caryophyllales Field chickweed Cerastium arvense

Caryophyllales Bering chickweed Cerastium beeringianum

Caryophyllales Big chickweed Cerastium fontanum

Caryophyllales Nuttall’s sandwort Minuartia nuttallii

Caryophyllales Twinflower sandwort Minuartia obtusiloba

Appendix G — Species List 175
176 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Caryophyllales Beautiful sandwort Minuartia rubella

Caryophyllales Bluntleaf sandwort Moehringia laterif lora

Caryophyllales Tuber starwort Pseudostellaria jamesiana

Caryophyllales Western pearlwort Sagina decumbens

Caryophyllales Moss campion Silene acaulis

Caryophyllales Bladder campion Silene latifolia+

Caryophyllales Menzies’ campion Silene menziesii

Caryophyllales Nightflowering silene Silene noctif lora+

Caryophyllales Parry’s silene Silene parryi

Caryophyllales Northern starwort Stellaria calycantha

Caryophyllales Fleshy starwort Stellaria crassifolia

Caryophyllales Curled starwort Stellaria crispa

Caryophyllales Longleaf starwort Stellaria longifolia

Caryophyllales Longstalk starwort Stellaria longipes

Caryophyllales Rocky Mountain chickweed Stellaria obtusa

Caryophyllales Spear saltbrush Atriplex patula

Caryophyllales Wedgescale saltbush Atriplex truncata

Caryophyllales Lambsquarters Chenopodium album+

Caryophyllales Blite goosefoot Chenopodium capitatum

Caryophyllales Oakleaf goosefoot Chenopodium glaucum+

Caryophyllales Red goosefoot Chenopodium rubrum

Caryophyllales Nuttall’s povertyweed Monolepis nuttalliana

Caryophyllales Red swampfire Salicornia rubra

Caryophyllales Lanceleaf springbeauty Claytonia lanceolata

Caryophyllales Bitter root Lewisia rediviva

Caryophyllales Water minerslettuce Montia chamissoi

Papaverales Scrambled eggs Corydalis aurea

Gentianales Elkweed Frasera speciosa

Gentianales Pleated gentian Gentiana affinis

Gentianales Moss gentian Gentiana fremontii

Gentianales Autumn dwarf gentian Gentianella amarella

Gentianales Oneflower fringed gentian Gentianopsis simplex

Gentianales Felwort Swertia perennis

Geraniales Richardson’s geranium Geranium richardsonii

Geraniales Sticky geranium Geranium viscosissimum

Malvales Streambank wild hollyhock Iliamna rivularis

Myrtales Fireweed Chamerion angustifolium

Myrtales Tall annual willowherb Epilobium brachycarpum

Myrtales Fringed willowherb Epilobium ciliatum

Myrtales Glaucus willowherb Epilobium glaberrimum

Myrtales Hornemann’s willowherb Epilobium hornemannii

Myrtales Marsh willowherb Epilobium palustre

Myrtales Spreading groundsmoke Gayophytum diffusum
Order Common Name Scientific Name

Myrtales Dwarf groundsmoke Gayophytum humile

Myrtales Tufted evening-primrose Oenothera caespitosa

Myrtales Yellow evening-primrose Oenothera f lava

Myrtales Pale evening-primrose Oenothera pallida

Myrtales Idaho pale evening-primrose Oenothera pallida ssp. pallida

Plantaginales Common plantain Plantago major

Plantaginales Tweedy’s plantain Plantago tweedyi

Polygonales Matted buckwheat Eriogonum caespitosum

Polygonales Cushion buckwheat Eriogonum ovalifolium

Polygonales Sulphur-flower buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum

Polygonales Alpine mountainsorrel Oxyria digyna

Polygonales American bistort Polygonum bistortoides

Polygonales Douglas’ knotweed Polygonum douglasii

Polygonales Curlytop knotweed Polygonum lapathifolium

Polygonales Western dock Rumex aquaticus

Polygonales Alpine sheep sorrel Rumex paucifolius

Polygonales Water knotweed Polygonum amphibium

Primulales Pygmyflower rockjasmine Androsace septentrionalis

Primulales Darkthroat shootingstar Dodecatheon pulchellum

Primulales Silvery primrose Primula incana

Ranunculales Red baneberry Actaea rubra

Ranunculales Little Belt Mountain thimbleweed Anemone lithophila

Ranunculales Pacific anemone Anemone multifida

Ranunculales Yellow columbine Aquilegia f lavescens

Ranunculales Western columbine Aquilegia formosa

Ranunculales Hairy clematis Clematis hirsutissima

Ranunculales Duncecap larkspur Delphinium xoccidentale

Ranunculales Little larkspur Delphinium bicolor

Ranunculales Twolobe larkspur Delphinium nuttallianum

Ranunculales Eastern pasqueflower Pulsatilla patens

Ranunculales Sharpleaf buttercup Ranunculus acriformis

Ranunculales Alkali buttercup Ranunculus cymbalaria

Ranunculales Sagebrush buttercup Ranunculus glaberrimus

Ranunculales Gmelin’s buttercup Ranunculus gmelinii

Ranunculales High northern buttercup Ranunculus hyperboreus

Ranunculales Graceful buttercup Ranunculus inamoenus

Ranunculales Cursed buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus 

Ranunculales Longbeak buttercup Ranunculus longirostris

Ranunculales Fendler’s meadow-rue Thalictrum fendleri

Ranunculales Western meadow-rue Thalictrum occidentale

Ranunculales Veiny meadow-rue Thalictrum venulosum

Ranunculales Creeping barberry Mahonia repens

Rubiales Northern bedstraw Galium boreale

Appendix G — Species List 177
178 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Rubiales

Santalales

Urticales

Violales

Violales

Violales

Callitrichales

Callitrichales

Callitrichales

Nymphaeales

Haloragales

Linales

Fragrant bedstraw

Bastard toadflax

Stinging nettle

Hookedspur violet

Northern bog violet

Goosefoot violet

Northern water-starwort

Vernal water-starwort

Common mare’s-tail

Coon’s tail

Shortspike watermilfoil

Lewis flax

Galium trif lorum

Comandra umbellata

Urtica dioica

Viola adunca

Viola nephrophylla

Viola purpurea

Callitriche hermaphroditica

Callitriche palustris

Hippuris vulgaris

Ceratophyllum demersum

Myriophyllum sibiricum

Linum lewisii

CLASS LILIOPSIDA

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Najadales

Najadales

Najadales

Najadales

Najadales

Najadales

Najadales

Najadales

Najadales

Najadales

Najadales

Najadales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Liliales

Seaside arrowgrass

Nodding waternymph

Leafy pondweed

Fries’ pondweed

Whitestem pondweed

Small pondweed

Richardson’s pondweed

Flatstem pondweed

Sago pondweed

Sheathed pondweed

Fineleaf pondweed

Horned pondweed

Rocky Mountain iris

Narrowleaf blue-eyed grass

Tapertip onion

Shortstyle onion

Nodding onion

Geyer’s onion

Wild chives

Textile onion

White mariposa lily

Sego lily

Small camas

Bride’s bonnet

Yellow avalanche-lily

Spotted fritillary

Yellow fritillary

Common alplily

Triglochin maritima

Najas f lexilis

Potamogeton foliosus

Potamogeton friesii

Potamogeton praelongus

Potamogeton pusillus

Potamogeton richardsonii

Potamogeton zosteriformis

Stuckenia pectinata

Stuckenia vaginata

Stuckenia filiformis

Zannichellia palustris

Iris missouriensis

Sisyrinchium angustifolium

Allium acuminatum

Allium brevistylum

Allium cernuum

Allium geyeri

Allium schoenoprasum

Allium textile

Calochortus eurycarpus

Calochortus nuttallii

Camassia quamash

Clintonia unif lora

Erythronium grandif lorum

Fritillaria atropurpurea

Fritillaria pudica

Lloydia serotina
Order Common Name Scientific Name

Liliales Feathery false lily of the valley Maianthemum racemosum

Liliales Starry false lily of the valley Maianthemum stellatum

Liliales Roughfruit fairybells Prosartes trachycarpa

Liliales Claspleaf twistedstalk Streptopus amplexifolius

Liliales Meadow deathcamas Zigadenus venenosus

Orchidales Fairy slipper Calypso bulbosa

Orchidales Summer coralroot Corallorhiza maculata

Orchidales Pacific coralroot Corallorhiza mertensiana

Orchidales Western rattlesnake plantain Goodyera oblongifolia

Orchidales Northern twayblade Listera borealis

Orchidales Slender-spire orchid Piperia unalascensis

Orchidales Northern green orchid Platanthera aquilonis

Orchidales Slender bog orchid Platanthera stricta

Orchidales Hooded lady’s tresses Spiranthes romanzoffiana

Typhales Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia

Typhales Narrowleaf bur-reed Sparganium angustifolium

Typhales Broadfruit bur-reed Sparganium eurycarpum

Typhales Floating bur-reed Sparganium f luctuans

Cyperales Water sedge Carex aquatilis

Cyperales Slenderbeak sedge Carex athrostachya

Cyperales Golden sedge Carex aurea

Cyperales Lesser panicled sedge Carex diandra

Cyperales Softleaf sedge Carex disperma

Cyperales Douglas’ sedge Carex douglasii

Cyperales Needleleaf sedge Carex duriuscula

Cyperales Threadleaf sedge Carex filifolia

Cyperales Geyer’s sedge Carex geyeri

Cyperales Cloud sedge Carex haydeniana

Cyperales Hood’s sedge Carex hoodii

Cyperales Idaho sedge Carex idahoa

Cyperales Inland sedge Carex interior

Cyperales Woollyfruit sedge Carex lasiocarpa

Cyperales Kellogg’s sedge Carex lenticularis

Cyperales Smallwing sedge Carex microptera

Cyperales Manyrib sedge Carex multicostata

Cyperales Nebraska sedge Carex nebrascensis

Cyperales Chamisso sedge Carex pachystachya

Cyperales Dunhead sedge Carex phaeocephala

Cyperales Clustered field sedge Carex praegracilis

Cyperales Raynolds’ sedge Carex raynoldsii

Cyperales Ross’ sedge Carex rossii

Cyperales Northern singlespike sedge Carex scirpoidea

Cyperales Mountain sedge Carex scopulorum

Appendix G — Species List 179
180 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Cyperales Analogue sedge Carex simulata

Cyperales Northwest Territory sedge Carex utriculata

Cyperales Valley sedge Carex vallicola

Cyperales Whitescale sedge Carex xerantica

Cyperales Needle spikerush Eleocharis acicularis

Cyperales Pale spikerush Eleocharis macrostachya

Cyperales Common spikerush Eleocharis palustris

Cyperales Fewflower spikerush Eleocharis quinquef lora

Cyperales Tall cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium

Cyperales Simple bog sedge Kobresia simpliciuscula

Cyperales Hardstem bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus

Cyperales Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides

Cyperales Columbia needlegrass Achnatherum nelsonii

Cyperales Western needlegrass Achnatherum occidentale

Cyperales Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum+

Cyperales Spike bentgrass Agrostis exarata

Cyperales Redtop Agrostis gigantea

Cyperales Seashore bentgrass Agrostis pallens

Cyperales Rough bentgrass Agrostis scabra

Cyperales Shortawn foxtail Alopecurus aequalis

Cyperales Boreal alopecurus Alopecurus alpinus

Cyperales Water foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus

Cyperales American sloughgrass Beckmannia syzigachne

Cyperales Fringed brome Bromus ciliatus+

Cyperales Smooth brome Bromus inermis+

Cyperales Mountain brome Bromus marginatus

Cyperales Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum+

Cyperales Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis

Cyperales Plains reedgrass Calamagrostis montanensis

Cyperales Pinegrass Calamagrostis rubescens

Cyperales Northern reedgrass Calamagrostis stricta

Cyperales Water whorlgrass Catabrosa aquatica

Cyperales Drooping woodreed Cinna latifolia

Cyperales Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata

Cyperales Timber oatgrass Danthonia intermedia

Cyperales Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa

Cyperales Slender hairgrass Deschampsia elongata

Cyperales Saltgrass Distichlis spicata

Cyperales Baker’s wheatgrass Elymus bakeri

Cyperales Blue wildrye Elymus glaucus

Cyperales Thickspike wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus

Cyperales Quackgrass Elymus repens

Cyperales Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus
Order Common Name Scientific Name

Cyperales Alpine fescue Festuca brachyphylla

Cyperales Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis

Cyperales Western fescue Festuca occidentalis

Cyperales Small floating mannagrass Glyceria borealis

Cyperales American mannagrass Glyceria grandis

Cyperales Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata

Cyperales Needle-and-thread Hesperostipa comata

Cyperales Meadow barley Hordeum brachyantherum

Cyperales Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum

Cyperales Prairie Junegrass Koeleria macrantha

Cyperales Basin wildrye Leymus cinereus

Cyperales Yellow wildrye Leymus f lavescens

Cyperales Purple oniongrass Melica spectabilis

Cyperales Marsh muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa

Cyperales Mat muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis

Cyperales Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii

Cyperales Alpine timothy Phleum alpinum

Cyperales Common timothy Phleum pratense

Cyperales Canada bluegrass Poa compressa

Cyperales Cusick’s bluegrass Poa cusickii

Cyperales Fowl bluegrass Poa palustris

Cyperales Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

Cyperales Sandberg’s bluegrass Poa secunda

Cyperales Rough bluegrass Poa trivialis

Cyperales Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata

Cyperales Nuttall’s alkaligrass Puccinellia nuttalliana

Cyperales Alkali cordgrass Spartina gracilis

Cyperales Spike trisetum Trisetum spicatum

Juncales Baltic rush Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis

Juncales Toad rush Juncus bufonius

Juncales Colorado rush Juncus confusus

Juncales Drummond’s rush Juncus drummondii

Juncales Common rush Juncus effusus

Juncales Swordleaf rush Juncus ensifolius

Juncales Hall’s rush Juncus hallii

Juncales Longstyle rush Juncus longistylis

Juncales Parry’s rush Juncus parryi

Juncales Rocky Mountain rush Juncus saximontanus

Juncales Smallflowered woodrush Luzula parvif lora

Hydrocharitales Canadian waterweed Elodea canadensis

Arales Star duckweed Lemna trisulca

Arales Common duckweed Lemna minor

Appendix G — Species List 181
182 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

Order Common Name Scientific Name

Scientific Name

CLASS FILICOPSIDA

Order Common Name

Polypodiales Brittle bladderfern Cystopteris fragilis

Polypodiales Oregon cliff fern Woodsia oregana

Polypodiales Brewer’s cliffbrake Pellaea breweri

Scientific Name

CLASS EQUISETOPSIDA

Order Common Name

Equisetales Field horsetail Equisetum arvense

Equisetales Smooth horsetail Equisetum laevigatum

Equisetales Water horsetail Equisetum f luviatile

Equisetales Marsh horsetail Equisetum palustre

Scientific Name

CLASS LYCOPODIOPSIDA

Order Common Name

Isoetales Quillwort Isoetes spp.

Scientific Name

CLASS CHAROPHYCEAE

Order Common Name

Charales Common stonewort Chara vulgaris

* rare species 

+ nonnative species
Appendix H

Fire Management Program

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

administrative responsibility which includes fire 

management for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, which covers approximately 48,955 acres in 

southwestern Montana.

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 are what 

kept the ecosystem diverse and healthy, while 

maintaining significant biodiversity for thousands of 

years.

Historically, naturally occurring wildland fire played 

an important disturbance role in many ecosystems 

by stimulating regeneration, cycling nutrients, 

providing a diversity of habitats for plants and 

wildlife, and decreasing the impacts of insects and 

diseases.

When fire is excluded on a broad scale, the 

accumulation of living and dead fuels can contribute 

to degraded plant communities and wildlife habitats. 

These fuel accumulations often change fire system 

characteristics, and have created potential for 

uncharacteristically severe wildland fires.

Return of fire in most ecosystems is essential for 

healthy vegetation for wildlife habitat in grasslands, 

wetlands, and forests. When integrated back into an 

ecosystem, fire can help restore and maintain healthy 

systems and reduce the risk of wildland fires. To 

make fire’s natural role in the environment easier, 

fire first must be integrated into land and resource 

management plans and activities on a broad scale. 

Fire, when properly utilized, can

■ reduce hazardous fuels buildup in both 

wildland–urban interface (WUI) and non-WUI 

areas;

■ improve wildlife habitats by reducing the 

density of vegetation or changing plant species 

composition;

■ sustain or increase biological diversity;

■ improve woodlands and shrublands by reducing 

plant density;

■ reduce susceptibility of plants to insect and 

disease outbreaks; 

■ improve the effectiveness of an integrated pest 

management program (such as for controlling 

smooth brome).

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

POLICY AND GUIDANCE

An update of the 1995 “Federal Fire Policy” was 

completed and approved in 2001 by the Secretaries 

of the Interior and Agriculture. The 2001 “Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy” directs 

federal agencies to achieve a balance between fire 

suppression to protect life, property, and resources, 

and fire use to regulate fuels and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. In addition, it directs agencies to 

use the appropriate management response for all 

wildland fire regardless of the ignition source. This 

policy provides eight guiding principles that are 

fundamental to the success of the fire management 

program: 

■ Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity.

■ The role of wildland fires as an ecological 

process and natural change agent will be 

incorporated into the planning process.

■ Fire management plans, programs, and 

activities support land and resource 

management plans and their implementation.

■ Sound risk management is a foundation for all 

fire management activities.

■ Fire management programs and activities 

are economically viable, based on values to 

be protected, costs, and land and resource 

management objectives.

■ Fire management plans (FMPs) and activities 

are based on the best available science.

■ FMPs and activities incorporate public health 

and environmental quality consideration.

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

international coordination and cooperation are 

essential.

■ Standardization of policies and procedures 

among federal agencies is an ongoing objective.

The fire management considerations, guidance, 

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

use resource plans such as the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP). FMPs are step-down 

processes from the land use plans and habitat plans, 

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

management activities.

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge will 

suppress human-caused fires and wildfires that 

threaten life and property. The use of appropriate 

management response will be incorporated into 

the refuge’s FMP to allow agency administrators 

the ability to choose from a full spectrum of fire 

suppression actions. Appropriate suppression 

actions, whether aggressive, high intensity, or 

low intensity actions, will be based on preplanned 

analysis and executed to minimize suppression costs, 

and resource losses consistent with land management 

objectives. 

Wildland fire and prescribed fire, as well as manual 

and mechanical fuel treatments will be used in 

an ecosystem context to protect both federal and 

private property, and for habitat management 

purposes. Fuel reduction activities will be applied 

in collaboration with federal, state, private, and 

nongovernmental organization partners. In addition, 

fuel treatments will be prioritized based on the 

guidance for prioritization established in the goals 

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

Services National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland 

Fire Management Program Strategic Plan 2003–

2010” and “Region 6 Refuges Regional Priorities 

FY07 to FY11.” For WUI treatments, areas with 

community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) and 

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

settlement of Lakeview, Montana, located adjacent to 

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

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

Number 160). Lakeview is being incorporated into a 

CWPP. 

All aspects of the fire management program will be 

conducted in a manner consistent with applicable 

laws, policies, and regulations. Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge will maintain an FMP to 

accomplish the fire management goals described 

below. Wildland fire, prescribed fire, and manual 

and mechanical fuel treatments will be applied in 

a scientific manner under selected weather and 

environmental conditions.

FIRE MANAGEMENT GOALS

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

Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland 

Fire Management Program Strategic Plan are 

consistent with the U.S. Department of the Interior 

and Service policies, National Fire Plan direction, the 

President’s Healthy Forest Initiative, the 10-Year 

Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan, 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group Guidelines, 

initiatives of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, 

and Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation 

Operations.

The “Region 6 Refuges Regional Priorities FY07 

through FY11” are consistent with the refuge’s 

vision statement for region 6: “to maintain and 

improve the biological integrity of the region, ensure 

the ecological condition of the region’s public and 

private lands are better understood, and endorse 

sustainable use of habitats that support native 

wildlife and people’s livelihoods.” 

REFUGE FIRE MANAGEMENT GOALS

The goal of the refuge’s fire management program is 

to work with our interagency partners to:

1. suppress human-caused fires and wildfires that 

threaten life and property. 

2. reduce wildland fire risk to the community of 

Lakeview and other structures on public and 

private land through hazardous fuels reduction 

treatments.

3. use wildland and prescribed fire, manual, and 

mechanical treatment methods to achieve 

habitat goals and objectives identified in this 

CCP using scientific techniques and adaptive 

resource management to monitor results.

4. update the current (2002) “Fire Management 

Plan,” incorporating fire management within an 

interagency fire management plan.

S

Strategies and tactics that consider public and 

firefighter safety as well as resource values at risk 

will be used. Wildland fire use and suppression, 

prescribed fire methods, manual and mechanical 

methods, timing, and monitoring are described in 

more detail within step-down FMPs.

All management actions will use wildland fire, 

prescribed fire, and manual or mechanical treatment 

methods to reduce hazardous fuels, restore and 

maintain desired habitat conditions, and control 

nonnative vegetation within the diverse ecosystem 

habitats. The fuels treatment program will be 

outlined in the FMP for the refuges. Site-specific 

prescribed fire plans will be developed following 

the “Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and 

Implementation Procedures Reference Guide” (2006) 

template.

Prescribed fire temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing components through 

combustion. The refuge will meet the Clean Air Act 

emission standards by adhering to the “Montana 

State Implementation Plan” requirements during all 

prescribed fire activities.
FIRE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION, 

CONTACTS, AND COOPERATION

Qualified fire management technical oversight for 

the refuge will be established by region 6, using 

the fire management district approach. Under this 

approach, fire management staff will be determined 

by established modeling systems based on the fire 

management workload of a group of refuges, and 

possibly that of interagency partners. The fire 

management workload consists of historical wildland 

fire activity, as well as historical and planned fuels 

treatments.

Depending on budgets, fire management staffing 

and support equipment may be located at the 

administrative station or at other refuges within 

the district and shared between all units. Fire 

management activities will be conducted in a 

coordinated and collaborative manner with federal 

and nonfederal partners.

A new FMP for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge will be developed in collaboration with 

interagency partners. 

Appendix H — Fire Management Program 185

Bibliography

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

[Place of publication unknown]: American 

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

829 p.

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

Missoula, MT: Montana Forest and Conservation 

Experiment Station, School of Forestry, 

University of Montana. [Pages unknown].

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

community in interior British Columbia. The Auk 

119:391–402.

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

Upper Pleistocene geology of the Merrell site 

(24BE1659), Centennial Valley, Southwest 

Montana. Current research in the Pleistocene 

12:117-119.

Allen, W. 1952. Letter discussing the conservation 

of grayling within the grayling sanctuary. Letter 

addressed to Kenneth MacDonald, Wildlife Refuge 

Supervisor, 11 June 1952. On file at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT.

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

species relationships in Sierra Nevada meadows. 

American Midland Naturalist 126:30–43.

Alisauskas, R.T.; Ankney, C.D. 1992. The cost of egg 

laying and its relationship to nutrient reserves in 

waterfowl. In: Batt, B.D.J.; Afton, A.D.; Anderson, 

M.G.; Ankney, C.D.; Johnson, D.H.; Kadlec, J.A.; 

Krapu, G.L., editors. Ecology and management of 

breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis: University of 

Minnesota Press. 30-61. 

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

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

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

Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. 

[Internet]. Birds of North America Online. <http://

bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/502> accessed 

May 2009.

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

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

birds of North America 191. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. Birds of 

North America Online. <http://bna.birds.cornell.

edu/bna/species/191> accessed February 2008.

Anderson, S.H. 1995. Recreational disturbance and 

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

K.J., editors. Wildlife and Recreationists: 

coexistence through management and research. 

Washington DC: Island Press, 157–168.

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

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

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

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

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

1998. International classification of ecological 

communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United 

States. Volume 2. In: The national vegetation 

classification system: list of types. Arlington, VA: 

The Nature Conservancy. 126 p.

Anderson, M.G; Low, J.B. 1976. Use of sago 

pondweed by waterfowl on the Delta Marsh, 

Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife Management 40:233–

242.

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

2002. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In: 

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

America 704. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology. [Internet]. Birds of North America 

Online. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/

species/704> accessed May 2007.

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

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

birds of North America 163. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. Birds of 

North America Online. <http://bna.birds.cornell.

edu/bna/species/163> accessed December 2007.

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

crane abundance and nesting ecology at Grays 

Lake, Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 

71:1067–1079.

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

ecosystems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:177–185.

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

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

Krieger Publishing Company. 567 p. 

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

habits, and population in the United States. North 

American Fauna 63. Washington DC: Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 214 p.
188 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

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

hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 51:517–522.

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

aspen in the Interior West—examples from Utah. 

Rangelands 20:17–24.

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

factors and their effects on water birds wintering 

in the western parts of Lake Constance. Der 

Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81–91.

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

lakes exhibit alternative stable states? 

Submersed aquatic vegetation and chlorophyll 

in western boreal shallow lakes. Limnology and 

Oceanography 48:2335–2345.

BBC Consulting. 2007. Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge socioeconomic impact analysis. On 

file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT. 1-11.

Beaverhead County History Book Association. 1990. 

The history of Beaverhead County [1800–1920]. 

Volume 1. Dillon, MT: [Publisher unknown]. 696 p.

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

1955 and 1956. On file at Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT.

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

recreation on birds: a literature review. Smyrna, 

DE: Delaware Natural Heritage Program. [Pages 

unknown]. 

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

A mammalian predator-prey imbalance: grizzly 

bear and wolf extinction affect avian Neotropical 

migrants. Ecological Applications 11:947–960.

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

the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park. 

Ecological Applications 13:1295–1309.

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

Marsh management and its relationship to 

vegetation, waterfowl, and muskrats: Proceedings; 

1979; Iowa. In: Proceedings of the Iowa Academy 

of Science 86:50–56.

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

productivity, decomposition and consumer activity 

in freshwater wetlands. Annual Review of 

Ecological Systems 12:123–161.

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

L.J. 2006. Complex interactions shaping aspen 

dynamics in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Landscape Ecology 21:933–951.

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

Length and timing of grazing on postburn 

productivity of two bunchgrasses in an Idaho 

experimental range. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire 8:15–20.

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

Guidelines for prescribed burning sagebrush-grass 

rangelands in the northern Great Basin. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report INT-231. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 33 p. 

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

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

birds of North America 116. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. Birds of 

North America Online. <http://bna.birds.cornell.

edu/bna/species/116> accessed August 2007.

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

and phosphorus export patterns in large forested 

watersheds on the western Canadian Boreal Plain 

before and for 4 years after wildfire. Journal of 

Environmental Engineering and Science 4:319–

325.

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

northern elk winter range: a function of 

environmental gradients. [master’s thesis]. 

Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 155 p. 

Casey, D. 2000. Partners in flight draft bird 

conservation plan Montana. Version 1.0. Kalispell, 

MT: American Bird Conservancy, Montana 

Partners in Flight. 288 p.

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

Soil-plant relations along a soil-water gradient in 

Great Basin riparian meadows. Wetlands 20:251–

266.

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

on sand dunes in Fremont County, Idaho. Ecology 

46:765–780.

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

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

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

editors. The birds of North America 183. Ithaca 

NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. 

Birds of North America Online. <http://bna.birds.

cornell.edu/bna/species/183> accessed August 

2007.

Christiansen, R.L. 2001. The Quaternary and 

Pliocene Yellowstone Plateau volcanic field of 

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

Professional Paper 729-G. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U. S. Geological Survey. 145 p.

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

on biodiversity in wilderness. In: Wilderness 

areas: their impacts; proceedings of a symposium, 

[Date of workshop symposium unknown]; [Place 

of symposium unknown]. Logan, UT: Utah State 

University. 33–40. 
 Bibliography 189

Colwell, M.A.; Jehl, J.R. 1994. Wilson’s phalarope 

(Phalaropus tricolor). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., 

editors. The birds of North America 183. Ithaca, 

NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. 

Birds of North America Online. <http://bna.birds.

cornell.edu/bna/species/083> accessed May 2008.

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

C.E. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967–985.

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

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

geomorphic, and climatic processes controlling 

willow establishment in a montane ecosystem. 

Hydrological Processes 20:1845–864.

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

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge: abbreviated 

community descriptions to accompany vegetation 

map. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

On file at Montana Natural Heritage Program. 

Helena, MT. 

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

associations and related botanical inventory of the 

Beaverhead Mountains Section, Montana. Report 

to the Bureau of Land Management. On file at 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 

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

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

468.

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

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

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

Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc. 

[Pages unknown].

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

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

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

35:1620–1628.

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

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

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: short-eared owl. [Internet].

Revised December 12, 2003. Northern Prairie 

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

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

seow.htm> accessed June 2007.

DeLong, A. 2002. Managing visitor use & disturbance 

of waterbirds: a literature review of impacts 

and mitigation measures. Appendix L. In: 

Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

final environmental impact statement for the 

comprehensive conservation plan and boundary 

revision. Vol. 2. Portland OR: U.S. Department of 

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

1. 114 p.

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

lens. Audubon 1:44–51, 98–99.

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

1995. Nest-site relationships among cavity-nesting 

birds of riparian and snowpocket aspen woodlands 

in the northwestern Great Basin. Condor 97:694–

707. 

Dorn, R. D. 1969. Relations of moose, cattle, and 

willows in southwestern Montana. [master’s 

thesis]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 

79 p.

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

in southwest Montana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:559–564.

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

J.R. 1992. Avian habitat associations in riparian 

zones of Idaho’s Centennial Mountains. Wilson 

Bulletin 104:485–500.

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

(Numenius americanus). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., 

editors. The birds of North America 628. Ithaca, 

NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. 

Birds of North America Online. <http://bna.birds.

cornell.edu/bna/species/628> accessed May 2008.

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

ecosystems in landscapes of the western USA. 

Forest Ecology and Management 178:61–74.

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

species distribution in relation to water-table 

depth and soil redox potential in montane riparian 

meadows. Wetlands 26:131–146.

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

A century of change in macrophyte abundance 

and composition in response to agricultural 

eutrophication. Hydrobiologia 624:145–156. 

Errington, P.L. 1961. Muskrats and marsh 

management. Lincoln, NE: University of 

Nebraska Press. 183 p.

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

effects information system. [Internet]. Revised 

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

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

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

database/feis/> accessed April 2007.

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

influences of density on growth and reproduction 

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

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

Rail annual No. 15: Idaho–Montana issue. [Place of 
190 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

publication unknown]: Colorado Railroad museum. 

216 p.

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

riparian birds in three elevational zones. Ecology 

70:866–880.

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

to understory variation and conifer succession 

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

editors. Proceedings of issues and technology in 

management of impacted wildlife: Proceedings, 

[Title of proceedings unknown]; [Date of 

proceedings unknown]; [Place of proceedings 

unknown]. Colorado Springs, CO: Thorne 

Ecological Institute. 87–96.

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

bird nests relative to grazing on western Montana 

grasslands. Biological Conservation 117:203–213.

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

Special Publication No. 12. Lawrence, KS: The 

American Society of Mammalogists. 278 p.

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

distributional effects of hunting disturbance on 

waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge 

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

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

history strategies and habitat needs of the 

northern pintail. In: Waterfowl Management 

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

Service. 8 p.

Fuguitt, G.V. 1985. The nonmetropolitan population 

turnaround. Annual Review of Sociology 11:259–

280.

Gaillard, J.M.; Festa-Bianchet, M.; Yoccoz, N.G.; 

Loison, A.; Toïgo, C. 2000. Temporal variation in 

fitness components of large herbivores. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:367–393.

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

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

fire exclusion and logging in a Rocky Mountain 

Watershed, 1856–1996. Ecological Applications 

13:385–403.

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

of Arctic grayling in Upper Red Rock Lake, Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. 

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

University. 101 p.

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

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

of North America 551. Ithaca NY: Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. Birds of 

North America Online. <http://bna.birds.cornell.

edu/bna/species/551> accessed May 2008.

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: North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference, 2001, March 20; 

Washington, DC: [Name of publisher unknown]. 

66:175–185. 

Geist, V.; Organ, J.F. 2004. The public trust 

foundation of the North American Model of 

Wildlife Conservation. Northeast Wildlife 

58:49–56.

Giles, L.; Holt, M.; Montgomery, C.; Rule, D., editors. 

2006. Centennial Valley: a journey through time 

1820–1930. Volume 1. Centennial Valley Historical 

Society. Butte, MT: Artcraft Printers. 30 p.

Greater Yellowstone Coalition. 2006. The Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. [Internet]. < http://www.

greateryellowstone.org/ecosystem/> accessed 1 

February 2009.

Grinnell, G.B. 1913. Brief history of the Boone and 

Crockett Club. In: Grinnell, G.B., editor. Hunting 

at high altitudes. New York: Harper & Brothers. 

422–491.

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

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

The birds of North America 448. Ithaca, NY: 

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. 

Birds of North America Online. <http://bna.birds.

cornell.edu/bna/species/448> accessed May 2008.

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

2000. Spatial patterns of primary productivity in 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Landscape 

Ecology 15:505–522.

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

Joy, J.; Hinckley, D.K. 1995. Classification and 

management of Montana's riparian and wetland 

sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. Missoula, 

MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, 

Montana Forest and Conservation Station. 646 p.

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

44:331–343. 

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

in creating picid nesting sites in living aspen. 

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

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

aspen in western landscapes: symposium 

proceedings. [Place of publication unknown]: 

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-18. 

207–213.

Harting A.; Glick D. 1994. Sustaining Greater 

Yellowstone, a blueprint for the future. Bozeman, 

MT: Greater Yellowstone Coalition. 63 p.
 Bibliography 191

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

nitrogen dynamics in streams associated with 

wildfire: a study of immediate and longterm 

effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire 

8:183–198.

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

1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk 

Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

20:290–298.

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

resource use by three species of dabbling ducks in 

California. Report to the Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries Biology, University of California, 

Davis, California. On file at Delta Waterfowl and 

Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, 

Manitoba, Canada.

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

of the Centennial Valley Sandhills, Beaverhead 

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

Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage 

Program. 44 p.

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

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

harriers and short-eared owls to grassland 

management in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 63:517–523.

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

History of fire and Douglas-fir establishment 

in a savanna and sagebrush–grassland mosaic, 

southwestern Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management 230:107–118.

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

Winokur, R.P., editors. Aspen: ecology and 

management in the western United States. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report RM-119. 

Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 87–106.

Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive environmental 

assessment and management. London: John Wiley 

and Sons. 377 p. 

Houston, D. B. 1968. The Shiras moose in Jackson 

Hole, Wyoming. Technical Bulletin 1. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Grand Teton Natural 

History Association. 110 p. 

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

Effects Information System. [Internet]. Revised 6 

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

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

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

database/feis/> [Access date unknown].

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. 

Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005b. 

Intermountain West Joint Venture coordinated 

bird conservation plan. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Intermountain West Joint Venture. 

94 p.

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

K. 1998. The structuring role of submerged 

macrophytes in lakes. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

423 p.

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

grassland birds: a regional perspective. The Auk 

118:24–34.

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

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

ecology and management in the western United 

States. General Technical Report RM-GTR-119. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 11–18. 

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

waterfowl impoundment. Ecology 43:267–281. 

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

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

Kaminski, R.M., editors. Habitat management 

for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North 

America. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University 

Press. 560 p.

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

grayling and their stream habitat in support of 

reserved water right applications, Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. On file 

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

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

produce Arctic grayling fry of wild parentage. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

24:1031–1037.

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

and aquatic macroinvertebrate responses to 

manipulated wetland habitat. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 45:1–15.

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

pectinatus L.): a literature review. Resource 

Publication 176. Washington DC: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 89 p. 

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

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

Naturalist 24:67–84.

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

of fluvial Arctic grayling, Thymallus arcticus, 
192 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

in Montana. In: Proceedings of the Montana 

Academy of Sciences 1992; [Date of proceedings 

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

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

52:43–70.

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

at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. In: 

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

browse evaluation. Project Report No. 1. Helena, 

MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Wildlife 

Division, Habitat Bureau. 74 p. 

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

Assessing browse trend at the landscape level; 

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

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

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

A.B., editors. Modeling in natural resource 

management: development, interpretation, and 

application. Washington DC: Island Press. 223 p. 

Kercheval, B. 1935. Detailed plans, Red Rock Lakes 

Migratory Bird Refuge, project of the Bureau of 

Biological Survey, February 19, 1935. Washington 

DC: Bureau of Biological Survey. 6 p.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses 

to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31–39.

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

characteristics of shrubsteppe habitats and 

breeding passerine birds. Conservation Biology 

9:1059–1071.

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

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

editors. Wildlife and recreationists. Covelo, CA: 

Island Press. 372 p. 

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

structures of Douglas-fir forests in the Centennial 

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

Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 66 p.

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

Centennial Valley aspen assessment: evaluating 

stand structure and effects of herbivory. On file at 

the Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT. 

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

Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

13:290–296.

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

associations and waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:707–718.

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

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Fishery 

Bulletin 149. Washington DC: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 44 p. 

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

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

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

1996. ARM! For the future: adaptive resource 

management in the wildlife profession. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 24:436–442. 

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

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

ages of tuffs of Yellowstone Plateau volcanic 

field: Assignment of the Huckleberry Ridge Tuff 

to a new geomagnetic polarity event. Geological 

Society of American Bulletin 14:559-568.

Leach, G. 1941. Comments from the Service Division 

of Fish Culture on stocking Red Rock Creek. 

Letter addressed to Fred Foster, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Assistant Regional Director, 15 

July 1941. On file at Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT.

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

grayling (Thymallus montanus Milner) in 

Ford Lake, Michigan: Proceedings, [Name of 

proceedings unknown]; [Date of proceedings 

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

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

68:188–195.

Lesica, P.; Cooper, S.V. 1997. Presettlement 

vegetation of southern Beaverhead County, 

Montana. On file at Montana Natural Heritage 

Program, Helena, MT. 

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

disturbance in sandhills vegetation: constructing 

models for managing biological diversity. 

Conservation Biology 13:293–302.

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

sagebrush shrub-steppe postfire succession in 

southwest Montana. On file at Montana Natural 

Heritage Program, Helena, MT.

Lowther, P.E. 2000. Pacific-slope flycatcher 

(Empidonax difficilis) and Cordilleran flycatcher 

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

editors. The birds of North America 556. Ithaca 

NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. 

Birds of North America Online. <http://bna.birds.

cornell.edu/bna/species/556a> accessed May 2008.

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

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

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

America online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology. [Internet]. Birds of North America 

Online. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/

Yellow_Warbler/> [Access date unknown]. 

Lund, J.A. 1974. The reproduction of salmonids in 

the inlets of Elk Lake, Montana. [master’s thesis]. 

Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. [Pages 

unknown].
 Bibliography 193

Madsen J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field 

utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53–63.

Madsen J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory 

waterfowl. Ibis 137:567–574.

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

Nest sites and nest webs for cavity-nesting 

communities in interior British Columbia, Canada: 

nest characteristics and niche partitioning. Condor 

106:5–19.

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

W.P. 2000. Forest fire induced impacts on 

phosphorous, nitrogen, and chlorophyll A in boreal 

subarctic lakes of northern Alberta. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:73–

81.

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

location of habitat biophysically suitable for grizzly 

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

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

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

birds of North America 105. Ithaca NY: Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. Birds of 

North America Online. <http://bna.birds.cornell.

edu/bna/species/105> accessed May 2008.

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

York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 539 p.

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

population of Red Rock Lakes’ Arctic grayling. 

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

University. 90 p.

———. 1996. Montana Field Guide: Montana. 

[Internet]. Revised March 23, 2009. <http://

fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AFCHA07010.aspx> 

accessed 23 March 2007.

[MFWP] Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1995. 

Montana fluvial Arctic grayling restoration plan. 

On file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, MT.

———. 1996. The population of Arctic grayling in 

Upper Red Rock Lake. On file at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT.

———. 2004. Montana statewide elk management 

plan. Helena, MT: Wildlife Division, Montana Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks. 397 p.

———. 2005. The Montana comprehensive fish and 

wildlife conservation strategy. On file at Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT.

[MTNHP] Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2002. 

2002 list of ecological communities for Montana. 

On file at Montana State Library, Helena, MT.

[MTNHP and MFWP] Montana Natural Heritage 

Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

2006. Montana animal species of concern. Helena, 

MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program and 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 17 p.

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

geographic and ecological distribution of big 

sagebrush and other wood Artemisias in Montana. 

In: Proceedings of the Montana Academy of 

Science. [Date of proceedings unknown]; [Place 

of proceedings unknown]: Proceedings of the 

Montana Academy of Sciences. 36:56–79.

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human 

disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. In: 

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

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

Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and 

management in the Atlantic Flyway. 

3rd ed. Dover, DE: Environmental Management 

Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical 

Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and 

Wildlife. F59–F86.

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

Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 

53(2):401–410.

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

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

of American black ducks in winter. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 53:390–400.

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

shrubland habitat types of western Montana. 

General Technical Report INT-66. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 154 p.

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

Potamogeton. Annals of Botany 50:805–821.

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

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

editors. The birds of North America 410. Ithaca, 

NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. 

Birds of North America Online. <http://bna.birds.

cornell.edu/bna/species/410> accessed May 2008.

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

Sandhill Cranes in Idaho. Auk 95(1):75–178. 

Murkin, H.R.; Kadlec, J.A. 1986. Relationships 

between waterfowl and macroinvertebrate 

densities in a northern prairie marsh. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 50:212–217.

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

habitat selection and prairie wetland dynamics: 

a 10-year experiment. Ecological Applications 

7:1144–1159.
194 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

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

of the American grayling (Thymallus signifer 

tricolor) in Montana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 18:324–342.

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

Wildlife Refuge vegetation mapping project. On 

file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT.

Nielson, E.C.; Farnsworth, D.N. 1965. Soil survey 

handbook for Red Rock Lakes Migratory 

Waterfowl Refuge in survey area 061. Soil 

Conservation Service, Dillon Field Office. On file 

at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT. 

O’Neill, J.M.; Christiansen, R.L. 2004. Geologic map 

of the Hebgen Lake Teton Counties, Wyoming, 

and Clark and Fremont Counties, Idaho. U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Map 2816. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. 

Geological Survey. [Pages unknown]. 

O’Reilly, M. 2006. Relationships among moose 

abundance, willow community structure, and 

migratory landbirds at Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge. [bachelor of science thesis]. 

Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 32 p.

Oring, L.W.; Neel, L.; Oring, K.E. 2000. 

Intermountain West regional shorebird plan.

Version 1.0. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher unknown]. 55 p.

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

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

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

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

Condor 95:957–967.

Paulins S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding 

gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48:371–380.

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

macrophytes of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

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

University of Montana. 171 p.

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

management of wetlands. New York: McGrawHill. 549 p.

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

zone: characteristics and ecological consequences. 

Ecosystems 10(5):673.

Poole, K. G.; Stuart-Smith, K. 2004. Winter habitat 

selection by moose in the East Kootenay, British 

Columbia, final report. Aurora Wildlife Research, 

Nelson, British Columbia, Canada. On file at Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT. 

Ratti, J. T.; Kadlec. J. A. 1992. Intermountain West 

waterfowl-wetland concept plan. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory 

Bird Management. 150 p. 

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

pygmy rabbit in Montana: final report. Bozeman, 

MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks. 27 p.

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

composition of Canada geese with special 

reference to control of reproduction. The Auk 

96:234–252.

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

implications of variation in mitochondrial DNA of 

Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus). Molecular 

Ecology 8:23–35.

Reiss, S.A. 1995. Sport in industrial America, 1850–

1920. The American History Series. Wheeling, IL: 

Harlan Davidson, Inc. 178 p.

Restani, M. 1991. Resource partitioning among three 

buteo species in the Centennial Valley, Montana. 

Condor 93:1007–1010.

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.; Iñigo-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. 

[Internet]. Revised March 2005. <http://www.

partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/> accessed 1 April 

2009. 

Ricklefs, R. E. 1977. On the evolution of reproductive 

strategies in birds: reproductive effort. American 

Naturalist 111:453–478.

Ritchie, B. W. 1978. Ecology of moose in Fremont 

County, Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin No. 7. Boise, ID: 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 32 p.

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

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

Yellowstone Park. Ecology 76:2097–2106.

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

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

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

Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. 

[Internet]. Birds of North America Online. <http://

bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/390> accessed 

May 2008.

Rowland, M.M. 2004. Effects of management 

practices on grassland birds: greater sage-grouse. 

[Internet]. Revised August 12, 2004. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. <http://
 Bibliography 195

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

grsg/grsg.htm> [Access date unknown].

Rudzitis G. 1996. Wilderness and the changing 

American west. New York: Wiley. 240 p.

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

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

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

America 515. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology. [Internet]. Birds of North America 

Online. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/

species/515> accessed May 2008.

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

journal of a trapper. Lincoln, NE: University of 

Nebraska Press. 191 p.

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

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

grassland ecotone shift in Montana under differing 

livestock grazing pressure. Forest Ecology and 

Management 234:282–292.

Schladweiler, P. 1974. Ecology of Shiras moose in 

Montana. On file at Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks, Helena, MT. 

Schmutz, J. A.; Rockwell, R. F.; Peterson, M. R. 1997. 

Relative effects of survival and reproduction on 

the population dynamics of emperor geese. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 61:191–201.

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

The interaction of fire, fuels, and climate across 

Rocky Mountain Forests. Bioscience 54:661–676.

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

1999. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

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

birds of North America 425. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. Birds of 

North America Online. <http://bna.birds.cornell.

edu/bna/species/425> accessed May 2008.

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

in southwestern Montana: interference among 

three generations of extensional fault systems. 

In: Faulds, J.E.; Stewart, J.H., editors. 

Accommodation zones and transfer zones: the 

regional segmentation of the Basin and Range 

province. Special Paper 323. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Geological Society of America. 241–247. 

Sedgwick, J.A. 1993. Dusky flycatcher (Empidonax 

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

birds of North America 78. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. Birds of 

North America Online. <http://bna.birds.cornell.

edu/bna/species/078> accessed May 2008.

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

grayling—I. Spawning habitats. Journal of Fish 

Biology 47:256–265.

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

management and linkage zones for grizzly bears 

and other large carnivores in the northern Rocky 

Mountains in Montana and Idaho. Endangered 

Species Technical Bulletin 18:3. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 8–13. 

Sharp, W.M. 1951. Environmental requirements 

of a freshwater marsh and the ecology of some 

aquatic plants. In: Proceedings, 1951 Northeast 

Game Conference; 23 February 1951; [Place of 

proceedings unknown]. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Proceedings of the Northeast Game 

Conference. 6 p.

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

of volatile organic compounds associated with 

snowmobile emissions in Yellowstone National 

Park. Report to the National Park Service, 2003. 

On file at University of New Hampshire Climate 

Change Research Center, Durham, NH. 

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

Mannick, M.W.; Weinheimer, G.W. 1982. The 

Upper Centennial Valley, Beaverhead and 

Madison counties, Montana: An investigation of 

resources utilizing geology, geological, geophysical, 

hydrochemical, and geothermal methods. Memoir 

50. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. [Place 

of publication unknown]. 53 p.

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

District east of Monida (Beaverhead County) 

Montana, with recommendations for its 

improvement as a wild duck feeding ground. On 

file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT. 

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

(Cygnus buccinator) food habits in the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. American Midland 

Naturalist 133:274–282.

Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swans. 

2008. Pacific Flyway management plan for the 

Rocky Mountain population of trumpeter swans. 

Pacific Flyway Study Committee. [Internet]. 

Revised July 2008. <http://www.pacificflyway.gov/

Abstracts.asp#rmts> [Access date unknown].

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

2005. Brome control and microbial inoculation 

effects in reclaimed cool-season grasslands. 

Rangeland Ecology and Management 58:161–166.

Stevens, D. R. 1970. Winter ecology of moose in the 

Gallatin Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:37–46.

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

distribution of breeding waterfowl populations in 

North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 

37:39–50.
196 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

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

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

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

NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. [Internet]. 

Birds of North America Online. <http://bna.birds.

cornell.edu/bna/species/026a> accessed May 2008.

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

in Rocky Mountain National Park. Journal of Soil 

and Water Conservation 35(2):85–87.

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

exchange for montane moist meadow species. 

Journal of Vegetation Science 9:85–94.

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

Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). In: Poole, A.; 

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

North America 31. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory 

of Ornithology. Birds of North America Online. 

[Internet]. <http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/

species/031> accessed May 2008.

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

inventory of four proposed project locations within 

the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. On 

file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT. 

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

Effects of cattle grazing on ecology and habitat 

of Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus 

idahoensis). Biological Conservation 119:525–534.

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

2000. Cenozioc extensional history of southwest 

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

Thomas, V.G. 1982. Spring migration: the prelude to 

goose reproduction and a review of its implication. 

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

waterfowl and waterbird symposium: Proceedings 

of the International Waterfowl Research Bureau 

Symposium; 1983; Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian 

Wildlife Service. Special Publication. 73–81. 

Tirmenstein, D. 1999. Artemisia tridentata spp. 

tridentata. In: Fire Effects Information System, 

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

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

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

unknown]. 

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

1995. Bird species richness in relation to isolation 

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

Unthank, A. 1989. Historical overview of Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge grayling. On file at 

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, 

MT. [Pages unknown].

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

County QuickFacts for Montana. Data derived 

from 1999 Population Estimates. [Internet]. 

[Revision date unknown]. <http://quickfacts.

census.gov> accessed June 2007.

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

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge annual 

narrative 1974–1975. On file at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT.

———. 1978. Red Rock Lakes National Wilderness, 

an aquatic history, 1889–1977. On file at Kalispell 

Field Station, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Creston, MT.

———. 1992. Environmental assessment for 

proposed termination of winter feeding of 

trumpeter swans at Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge. Lakewood, CO: Mountain-Prairie 

Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 26 p.

———. 1994. Upland habitat management plan. On 

file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lima, MT. 

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

Refuge annual narrative 1994–1995. On file at Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT.

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

in the western United States. Arlington, VA: 

National Wetlands Inventory. 15 p.

———. 1999a. National Wetlands inventory website: 

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

Service. [Internet]. [Revision date unknown]. 

<http://www.fws.gov/nwi/> accessed May 2007.

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

Wildlife Refuge System. Arlington, VA: U.S. 

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

Service. 101 p.

———. 2001. Centennial Valley Conservation 

Easement Program Plan. On file at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT.

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

future. [Internet]. [Revision date unknown]. 

<http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/CAF/Vision.

htm#intro> accessed 23 January 2008.

———. 2002b. Birds of conservation concern 2002. 

Arlington, VA: Division of Migratory Bird 

Management. 99 p. 

———. 2004. Adaptive resource management plan 

for Lower Red Rock Lake, Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Red Rock 

Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT.

––––––. 2005. The migratory bird program’s focal 

species strategy: measuring success in achieving 
 Bibliography 197

our existing bird conservation priorities and 

mandates. Arlington, VA: Division of Migratory 

Bird Management. 2 p. 

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

On file at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lima, MT.

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

Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, 

MT. 

———. 2008c. Submerged acquatic vegetation 

surveys 2003–2008. On file at Red Rock Lakes 

National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian 

Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl 

management plan: a strategy for cooperation. 

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

and Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Wildlife Service. 

19 p. 

[USGS]. United States Geological Survey. 2006. 

Classification of wetlands and deepwater 

habitats of the United States; emergent wetland. 

[Internet]. [Revision date unknown]. <http://

www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/

emergent.htm> accessed 23 March 2009.

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

2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and 

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

Conservation Biology 14:1145–1160.

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

R.M. 2002. Predation on real and artificial nests 

in shrubsteppe landscapes fragmented by 

agriculture. Condor 101:496–506. 

Vincent, R.E. 1962. Biogeographical and ecological 

factors contributing to the decline of Arctic 

grayling, Thymallus arcticus Pallas, in Michigan 

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

University of Michigan. 169 p. 

 Voigts, D.K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrate abundance 

in relation to changing marsh vegetation. 

American Midland Naturalist 95:313–322.

Walker, B. 2004. Effects of management practices 

on grassland birds: Brewer's sparrow. [Internet]. 

Revised 12 August 2004. Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

accessed July 2007. 

Walker, R.; Craighead, L. 1997. Analyzing wildlife 

movement corridors in Montana using GIS. In: 

Proceedings, 1997 ESRI International User 

Conference; 1997 July 8–11; San Diego, CA. 

San Diego, CA: Proceedings of the 1997 ESRI 

International User Conference. [Internet]. ESRI. 

Revised 1997. <http://proceedings.esri.com/

library/userconf/proc97/proc97/to150/pap116/p116.

htm> [Access date unknown].

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

nesting of sage grouse hens in central Montana. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 38:630–633.

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

management experiments and learning by doing. 

Ecology 71:2060–2068.

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

winter moose survey data analysis. On file at Red 

Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Lima, MT.

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

misinformation concerning big sagebrush. 

Research Paper RMRS-RP-40. Ogden, UT: United 

States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

28 p.

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

and wildlife management. Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota Press. 146 p.

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

Cambridge University Press. 271 p.

Weller, M. W.; Fredrickson, L. H. 1973. Avian ecology 

of a managed glacial marsh. Living Bird 

12:269–291.

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

the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. 

Department of Zoology and Entomology Special 

Report 43. Ames, IA: Agricultural and Home 

Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State 

University. 30 p.

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

feeding of winter brant geese in Essex. Wildfowl 

33:113–118.

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

The birds of North America online. Ithaca, NY: 

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

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

accessed August 2007. 

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

in ecological reserves. In: Proceedings, Clemson 

University Horse Trails Symposium. 1998 October 

18–21; Clemson University, Clemson, SC. On file at 

Clemson University, Clemson, SC. 

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

smooth brome by atrazine, mowing, and fire. The 

Prairie Naturalist 28:13–20.

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

smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss). Natural 

Areas Journal 17:306–312.
198 CCP, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT

———. 2000. A provisional model for smooth 

management in degraded tallgrass prairie. 

Ecological Restoration 18:34–38.

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

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

An ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain 

montane and subalpine wetlands. U.S. Fish and 

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

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

proceedings: management of western forests and 

grasslands for nongame birds: Proceedings of the 

workshop; 1980 February 11–14; Salt Lake City 

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

Forest Service. INT-GTR-86. 247–257.

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

1996. Monitoring aspen decline using remote 

sensing and GIS: Gravelly Mountain Landscape, 

southwestern Montana. Salt Lake City, UT: 

Remote Sensing Steering Committee, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

[Pages unknown].

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern 

pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, 

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

Humboldt State University. 62 p.

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

and wildlife population management. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 21:91–95.

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

on bunchgrasses of the sagebrush-grass region of 

southern Idaho. Ecology 46:680–688.

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

Factors influencing invertebrate communities 

in prairie wetlands: a multivariate approach. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 57:76–85.

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

Effects Information System, [Internet]. Revised 6 

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

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

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

database/feis/> [Access date unknown].

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

Effects Information System, [Internet]. Revised 

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

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

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

database/feis/> [Access date unknown].